Future of this list

Hello, all,

Please note that I'm making this the beginning of a new thread,
on the future of the tuning list, because the topic does seem to
me distinct from Jake's fine "newbie" questions. Of course, Jake,
this isn't in any way to discourage your participation, because
we could use some fresh viewpoints and perspectives, and the
friendliness of the list to newcomers is one cardinal test of
value.

----------------------
1. Civility is the key
----------------------

First, I do believe on the basis of participating here over the
last 12 years or so (not continuously, but often) that civility
is the glue that holds our community together!

Secondly, I also believe that it is possible to conduct
discussions or even spirited debates with mutual respect, as much
as the ideal is often contradicted in experience, for example in
some of the printed debates of historical European music theory
around 1600 which can be very "exciting" to read both for the
musical ideas and some of the mutual (or sometimes unilateral)
unpleasantries. Whatever effect this may have on musical
literature, I consider such clashes of personalities, rather than
ideas, as harmful to a community such as ours.

----------------------------------
2. Libraries or the Web: both/and!
----------------------------------

Also, I would personally consider it self-evident that both
libraries (or other sources of printed material) and online
resources are invaluable and indispensable means for learning
about world musical traditions and tuning systems. As Cris has
said, a library is a unique kind of three-dimemsional space, and
I suspect that my experiences in libraries in the decades before
the advent of a popularly accessible Internet and World Wide Web
have lent a richer perspective to my use of these newer
resources.

While I'm not sure if my perspective is quite the same as yours,
Cris, I do share in the caution of many librarians that makes
your remarks so vital: "Browsing the Web, we can easily be
impressed by the wealth of resources, hopefully also taking note
of the unevenness of quality: but always keep in mind that this
is just the tip of the iceberg! A vast store of knowledge remains
available only in print, and much of the best today is being
published in print, and not, at least instantly, on the Web!"

Does this make the Web less important? Of course not! And as
Google Books and others digitize more and more public domain
sources for ready access, the Web will become yet more useful and
versatile. But still, there's also the vast world of printed
resources.

Of course, where you go in what order may depend in part on where
you live, or more concretely on how close a library is located,
or more specifically one with the sources you're looking for (a
list that changes as our research and learning proceeds, of
course). Interlibrary loans can indeed help, with the specific
utility depending on the policies of the relevant libraries.

------------------------------------------------------
3. Cultural sensitivity: Near Eastern music and theory
------------------------------------------------------

One key to the future of this group, it seems to me, is for
intellectually provocative statements to receive spirited and
civil responses. The process can be fun and educational, although
I especially appreciate that certain comments, intentionally or
otherwise, can convey cultural biases which cry out for a
response. And in such circumstances, civility can be an exacting
test.

For example, in my view, al-Farabi's "Mode of Zalzal" (to follow
your usage, Cris) would likely serve as a stylish modern Egyptian
Rast (or more specifically Nairuz Rast, the conjunct form with
neutral sixth and minor seventh); while we seem much in
agreement, Cris, that Ibn Sina's 17-note lute tuning makes
available, for example, a fine Shur a la Farhat on the 3/2 step
(or the 9/8 step if we map Ibn Sina's 4/3 to the 1/1 of Farhat's
system for the closest fit). And Safi al-Din al-Urmawi and Qutb
al-Din al=Shirazi describe Buzurg pentachords with lower
tetrachords rather closely fitting one measured modern flavor of
Turkish Hijaz. Of course, Cris, I'll need to read your book to
get your view on Ibn Sina and Farhat (your PDF of the index tells
me the pages), but I think that we'll mostly be in agreement on
the main points.

Carl, I'm not sure if your stated view discounting Ptolemy and
the medieval Islamic theorists is a bit of "devil's advocacy," a
null hypothesis meant to invite creative refutations, or a fully
earnest assertion.

In fact, I apologize for not being more responsive to some
previous questions you have asked, for example on the concept of
the 17 basic steps or perdeler in Turkish theory. I'll try to
explain this a bit -- or, at least, my own idiosyncratic and
nonnative perspective. However, someone like Ozan, or Amine
Beyhom or Ali Jihad Racy, can give a very sophisticated
perspective from squarely inside the tradition.

Here I might cite both printed books and articles, and materials
such as dissertations available in whole or part on the Web. Karl
Signell on _Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music_ gives
some measurements in cents as well as fascinating insights as to
comma distinctions which are important. The studies of Can Akkoc,
Ozan Yarman, and others, further enrich these insights as to
medieval and more recent theory, and actual practice.

In Persian music, Hormoz Farhat is indeed one source; and I'd
warmly recommend also Nelly Caron and Dariouche Safvate; Jean
During; and Dariush Tala`i.

In the Arab world, Amine Beyhom's thesis on modal systematics is
available in large part (hundreds of pages) on the Web, as well
as some articles discussing actual intonational practice and the
question of cultural authenticity. Ali Jihad Racy and his student
Scott Marcus (who also studied with some masters in Cairo and
observed subtleties of traditional performers missed in current
Egyptian conservatory theory) describe some important nuances
like the placing of the Arab sikah step lower as the neutral
second of Maqam Bayyati than as the neutral third of Maqam Rast,
and the practice of some musicians of tuning the minor third of
Bayyati at _narrower_ than a Pythagorean 32/27 or 294 cents.

Part of this, of course, may be a question of outlook and
attitude. Early in my collaboration as a relative newcomer to the
tuning scene with a most wise an experienced mentor, George
Secor, he proposed a tempered tuning, a subset of his 17-tone
well-temperament of 1978 which we were exploring, which suggested
to me a variation I very much liked. Using Scala showed me that
it was very similar to a diatonic of Ibn Sina almost a millennium
earlier!

An appraisal of Ptolemy, al-Farabi, Safi al-Din, Qutb al-Din and
other musicians and theorists using complex rational ratios,
Carl, can get into some culturally delicate territory. I think
some aspects of the question might include conventional 18th-19th
century European harmony versus primarily melodic styles where
neutral intervals are a basic part of the vocabulary. This
doesn't mean that all Near Eastern musicians think, sing, or play
alike -- far from it! But it does mean that a cursory dismissal
of five centuries or so of sophisticated theory, and a proposal
(which evidently wasn't as broad as some people read it) to
reduce everything to 24-EDO or the like, seems a curious starting
point for a balanced dialogue.

To reverse roles in this cause celebre, let's suppose that I, as
a Near Eastern musician (in fact I'm just a beginning student
from another culture, and a "student" only a very qualified sense
since I haven't had any oral instruction with a master, although
Ozan and Shaahin Mohajeri, among others, have taught me a great
deal!), observed that distinctions between historical European
tuning systems are really trivial for the most part, because
today we hear music originally conceived for Pythagorean
intonation, meantone or 5-limit JI, and unequal well-temperaments
or the like all played indifferently in 12-EDO! Thus the greats
from Jacobus of Liege and Johannes de Muris and Philippe de Vitry
to Ramos, Gaffurius, Vicentino, Zarlino, Lippius, Colonna,
Mersenne, Werckmeister, Huygens, etc., etc., were mostly either
playing "numbers games," engaging in creative fantasies of pure
theory, or describing "variations" on 12-EDO.

It is, of course, quite possible to perform meantone keyboard
repertory in 12-EDO, or to perform maqamat or dastgah-ha in
24-EDO. It happens: but should it be considered the norm to the
exclusion of more intricate and sophisticated practice and
theory, medieval and modern.

The question of "Theory vs. Practice" is indeed a refrain both
with Signell and with Turkish musicians and theorists such as
Yarman and Akkoc, not speak of Beyhom, a Lebanese scholar
interested in Turkish as well as Arab intonations. And we find
that actual, real-world musicians paint a more intricate and
complex picture than most existing theory would suggest.

Some of this is common sense. When I look at Ozan's measurements
of a performance in Maqam Ushshak and see something like
123-137-228 cents, it's not hard for me to think "28:26:24:21"
and Ibn Sina's steps of 14;13-13:12-8:7, although the 14:13 and
8:7 steps are a bit narrow (the latter like a Pythagorean double
apotome), the 7:6 step more so, and the fourth yet more so with
respect to 4:3. Yet I'd think "Ibn Sina's tetrachord of
28:26:24:21, or, according to Ozan's reading, a permutation of
12:13:14:16" long before I'd consider 12-EDO or 24-EDO!

The topic becomes yet more sensitive, if treated in an overly
cursory manner, because in fact 24-EDO keybaord instruments and
"Western" misconceptions and oversimplifications are making
classic Near Eastern refinements and nuances an endangered
species. Racy discusses this at some length in his _Making Music
in the Arab World: The Culture and Artistry of Tarab_.

Similarly if, _on the tuning list_, a place where a lover of
16th-century European meantone might expect a congenial
atmosphere, someone were to declare that meantone is evidently a
theoretical abstraction since it was "so easily replaced in only
a few centuries by 12-EDO," we might expect either some sparks to
fly in ways which might generate more heat than light, or people
who love meantone to seek a different group.

Of all places, the tuning list should be a friendly and
respectful forum for musicians of all cultural origins and
interests who come together to celebrate our diverse traditions
and discoveries. Patience and respect can be mutually
reinforcing.

At times it is suggested that electronic discussion forums have
outlived their usefulness -- a statement which, as also the
similar assertion for printed books, I take to be premature!

Let's make it so.

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

Margo>"distinctions between historical European tuning systems are really
trivial for the most part, because
today we hear music originally conceived for Pythagorean intonation, meantone or
5-limit JI, and unequal well-temperaments or the like all played indifferently
in 12-EDO!"

Exactly...if I heard you correctly, they all seem close enough to
Pythagorean...which begs examples such as...

>"Thus the greats from Jacobus of Liege and Johannes de Muris and Philippe de
>Vitry
to Ramos, Gaffurius, Vicentino, Zarlino, Lippius, Colonna, Mersenne,
Werckmeister, Huygens, etc., etc., were mostly either playing "numbers games,"
engaging in creative fantasies of pure theory, or describing "variations" on
12-EDO."
....Which seems to imply, quite clearly, how hypocritical an idea it is to
say Ptolemy and Islamic theorists were playing "numbers games" any more than the
"masters of diatonic theory" are/were!

"One key to the future of this group, it seems to me, is for intellectually
provocative statements to receive >spirited and civil responses. "......."Carl,
I'm not sure if your stated view discounting Ptolemy and the >medieval Islamic
theorists is a bit of "devil's advocacy," a null hypothesis meant to invite
creative >refutations, or a fully earnest assertion."....

So it seems are major topic on the table that could be expanded as
"intellectually provocative" is the idea of things like the "crazy" works of
Ptolemy, Al-Farabi, and more being taken as serious and different alternatives
for (not replacements of!) things like 24TET in the same way even masters such
as Huygens took slants on things ultimately related fairly closely to
Pythagorean tuning. BTW, personal opinion, I think 31TET can be used to capture
the feel of both "Arabesque" 24TET and "Pythagorean-based" mean-tone because it
contains so many very-near-common-intervals from each one of those systems.

Which goes back to the point of ...Carl, are you up for being civil in letting
such discussions evolve rather than saying the topic introducing person is crazy
and/or (whether intentional or not) derailing the topic? Also, if you were
indeed not meaning what you said and, rather, playing Devil's Advocate...it was
really hard to tell and I wish you'd make it more obvious.

Hi Margo,

> Carl, I'm not sure if your stated view discounting Ptolemy and
> the medieval Islamic theorists is a bit of "devil's advocacy," a
> null hypothesis meant to invite creative refutations, or a fully
> earnest assertion.

It was an earnest assertion. At least the part about
them having to use rationals and us not having to.

> In fact, I apologize for not being more responsive to some
> previous questions you have asked, for example on the concept of
> the 17 basic steps or perdeler in Turkish theory. I'll try to
> explain this a bit -- or, at least, my own idiosyncratic and
> nonnative perspective. However, someone like Ozan, or Amine
> Beyhom or Ali Jihad Racy, can give a very sophisticated
> perspective from squarely inside the tradition.
> Here I might cite both printed books and articles, and materials
> such as dissertations available in whole or part on the Web. Karl
> Signell on _Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music_ gives
> some measurements in cents as well as fascinating insights as to
> comma distinctions which are important.

That sounds interesting. I'll try and hunt it down. Thanks!

> In the Arab world, Amine Beyhom's thesis on modal systematics
> is available in large part (hundreds of pages) on the Web,

I found something on that last time, but it was in French
(I think). Any pointers?

> An appraisal of Ptolemy, al-Farabi, Safi al-Din, Qutb al-Din and
> other musicians and theorists using complex rational ratios,
> Carl, can get into some culturally delicate territory. I think
> some aspects of the question might include conventional 18th-19th
> century European harmony versus primarily melodic styles where
> neutral intervals are a basic part of the vocabulary. This
> doesn't mean that all Near Eastern musicians think, sing, or play
> alike -- far from it! But it does mean that a cursory dismissal
> of five centuries or so of sophisticated theory, and a proposal
> (which evidently wasn't as broad as some people read it) to
> reduce everything to 24-EDO or the like, seems a curious starting
> point for a balanced dialogue.

I didn't say it's all reducible to 24! In fact I explicitly
said the opposite in just about every message I've posted
on the subject. See for instance:

/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90373

/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93693

> To reverse roles in this cause celebre, let's suppose that I, as
> a Near Eastern musician (in fact I'm just a beginning student
> from another culture, and a "student" only a very qualified sense
> since I haven't had any oral instruction with a master, although
> Ozan and Shaahin Mohajeri, among others, have taught me a great
> deal!), observed that distinctions between historical European
> tuning systems are really trivial for the most part, because
> today we hear music originally conceived for Pythagorean
> intonation, meantone or 5-limit JI, and unequal well-temperaments
> or the like all played indifferently in 12-EDO!

I don't have to go abroad to get such statements. Many
American musicians who are friends of mine will happily
tell me that 'it's all reducible' to 12! A composer I
know told me that of all the Blackwood etudes only one
contained anything not expressible in 12! That goes with
Mike's recent post here about how everything from
meantone to superpythag sounds, functionally in some way,
the same. Neither of them were saying they couldn't hear
*any* difference. I'm rambling, but I guess my point is:

1. it depends how you look at it

2. we should drop the culture wars and discuss reality
on this small planet with a singleminded love for the
truth, and for no other

3. when you say it's "ennobling" to use rationals, I
must say, that's a head-scratcher for me

> The topic becomes yet more sensitive, if treated in an overly
> cursory manner, because in fact 24-EDO keybaord instruments and
> "Western" misconceptions and oversimplifications are making
> classic Near Eastern refinements and nuances an endangered
> species. Racy discusses this at some length in his _Making Music
> in the Arab World: The Culture and Artistry of Tarab_.

I understand this is a hot topic, but on the other hand,
if musicians accept and use a tool, that ought to be, on
some level, evidence that it's working for them.

However I do understand the counterargument: I can think
of my native area in Pennsylvania, where the local language
(Pennsylvania Dutch) is endangered. Some of my friends'
grandfathers spoke it. It is hard to make the case to my
friends that they are fools for not learning it and
continuing to speak it. But it is also hard to say that
nothing is being lost.

> Similarly if, _on the tuning list_, a place where a lover of
> 16th-century European meantone might expect a congenial
> atmosphere, someone were to declare that meantone is evidently a
> theoretical abstraction since it was "so easily replaced in only
> a few centuries by 12-EDO," we might expect either some sparks to
> fly in ways which might generate more heat than light, or people
> who love meantone to seek a different group.

Of course this attitude is very common among musicians,
even today. Fortunately historically informed performance
and instrument building came along with the repopularization
of early music, so not too much has been recorded of these
old tunes in 12-ET. In The Musical Offerring in Berkeley,
the late Joseph Spencer saw fit to stock only one such
recording: Glenn Gould's, shelved along with a warning
label and a defense of his decision to stock it... something
along the lines that 'despite this, no one captures the
spirit of this music better than Gould.' And it's the only
such album in my collection, and I couldn't agree more.
I'm rambling again.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
In The Musical Offerring in Berkeley,
> the late Joseph Spencer saw fit to stock only one such
> recording: Glenn Gould's, shelved along with a warning
> label and a defense of his decision to stock it... something
> along the lines that 'despite this, no one captures the
> spirit of this music better than Gould.' And it's the only
> such album in my collection, and I couldn't agree more.
> I'm rambling again.

I wish Gould had recorded on reproducing pianos. That would have gotten rid of the humming, removed any need to splice tapes, and would allow the tuning to be altered.

Gene wrote:

> I wish Gould had recorded on reproducing pianos. That would
> have gotten rid of the humming, removed any need to splice
> tapes, and would allow the tuning to be altered.

Have I got a link for you:

http://amzn.to/9DKIfP

They created MIDI files from the original recordings,
then played them through a Disklavier and recorded that.
Unfortunately I don't think they released the MIDI.

They seem to have extracted the performance pretty good.
But I personally like the original recordings, and
prefer them. Gould worked really hard to get the sound
he wanted.

-Carl

Dear Carl,

Please let me agree that my parenthetical comment "which evidently
wasn't as broad as some people read it" wasn't adequate to correct the
suggestion in the rest of my paragraph that "it's all reducible to 24"
might have been your actual as opposed to misinferred position! Mea
culpa!

In short, you're absolutely right to point this out, and I want to
lend you my agreement as the one who should have chosen her words more
carefully as well as logically:

>> An appraisal of Ptolemy, al-Farabi, Safi al-Din, Qutb al-Din and
>> other musicians and theorists using complex rational ratios, >> Carl, can get into some culturally delicate territory. I think >> some aspects of the question might include conventional 18th-19th >> century European harmony versus primarily melodic styles where >> neutral intervals are a basic part of the vocabulary. This >> doesn't mean that all Near Eastern musicians think, sing, or play >> alike -- far from it! But it does mean that a cursory dismissal >> of five centuries or so of sophisticated theory, and a proposal >> (which evidently wasn't as broad as some people read it) to >> reduce everything to 24-EDO or the like, seems a curious starting >> point for a balanced dialogue.

> I didn't say it's all reducible to 24! In fact I explicitly said
> the opposite in just about every message I've posted on the subject.
> See for instance:

> [86]/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90373

> [87]/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93693

When I say "carefully as well as logically," I mean that "a proposal
to reduce everything to 24-EDO" is either exactly that broad, or isn't
in fact a proposal to reduce "everything" to 24-EDO in the first
place! And yours wasn't, which isn't a "sort of" type of distinction.
The fact that someone may read anything on the tuning list to mean
almost anything doesn't mean that rules of logic and accuracy have no
value here.

As a partial reparation, I hope, I'm posting my explanation on the 17
steps of Turkish theory, although my perspective may be closer to
Amine Beyhom, who recently has written in favor of a flexible "grid"
of 17 thirdtones in describing some measured performances. This
doesn't imply 17-EDO, any more than a theory of "24 positions"
neecssarily implies 24-EDO. However -- and this is me, not Near
Easterm musicians! -- it is true that when I try to look at my usual
maqam temperaments in Scala, the EDO that returns the most applicable
note spellings does happen to be 17!

A couple of other quick points.

First, Beyhom is indeed in French, and my comprehension is often
partial, but enough comes through to be more than worthwhile for me,
which might suggest that my reading comprehension is fortunately a tad
better than my attempts at pronunciation! Some of the mathematical
figures, at any rate, could be of interest, and I'd offer to help,
however imperfect my understanding of French, if I could. I should
have said this when the topic came up earlier.

Also, I much enjoyed your story of Joseph Spencer. And certainly I'd
see 12-EDO for Elizabethan music on keyboard, or 24-EDO for Near
Eastern music, as part of a microtonal continuum. In my longer
article, I say more about that continuum, and curiously while
generally avoiding rational ratios for neutral or other complex
intervals, if simply to show that yes, it can be done.

Best,

Margo

Dear Margo,

With your unbiased understanding and genuine scholarly penetration into both the Western and Eastern historical music idioms, I believe you would prove to be an excellent Tuning List moderator. This group would benefit much from your kind, open-minded, civilized wisdom. If you agree, I would like to nominate you to this position in place of Carl Lumma. My perception being that the general trend is in favour of his replacement.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Margo Schulter wrote:
> Dear Carl,
>
> Please let me agree that my parenthetical comment "which evidently
> wasn't as broad as some people read it" wasn't adequate to correct the
> suggestion in the rest of my paragraph that "it's all reducible to 24"
> might have been your actual as opposed to misinferred position! Mea
> culpa!
>
> In short, you're absolutely right to point this out, and I want to
> lend you my agreement as the one who should have chosen her words more
> carefully as well as logically:
>
>>> An appraisal of Ptolemy, al-Farabi, Safi al-Din, Qutb al-Din and
>>> other musicians and theorists using complex rational ratios,
>>> Carl, can get into some culturally delicate territory. I think
>>> some aspects of the question might include conventional 18th-19th
>>> century European harmony versus primarily melodic styles where
>>> neutral intervals are a basic part of the vocabulary. This
>>> doesn't mean that all Near Eastern musicians think, sing, or play
>>> alike -- far from it! But it does mean that a cursory dismissal
>>> of five centuries or so of sophisticated theory, and a proposal
>>> (which evidently wasn't as broad as some people read it) to
>>> reduce everything to 24-EDO or the like, seems a curious starting
>>> point for a balanced dialogue.
>
>> I didn't say it's all reducible to 24! In fact I explicitly said
>> the opposite in just about every message I've posted on the subject.
>> See for instance:
>
>> [86]/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90373
>
>> [87]/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93693
>
> When I say "carefully as well as logically," I mean that "a proposal
> to reduce everything to 24-EDO" is either exactly that broad, or isn't
> in fact a proposal to reduce "everything" to 24-EDO in the first
> place! And yours wasn't, which isn't a "sort of" type of distinction.
> The fact that someone may read anything on the tuning list to mean
> almost anything doesn't mean that rules of logic and accuracy have no
> value here.
>
> As a partial reparation, I hope, I'm posting my explanation on the 17
> steps of Turkish theory, although my perspective may be closer to
> Amine Beyhom, who recently has written in favor of a flexible "grid"
> of 17 thirdtones in describing some measured performances. This
> doesn't imply 17-EDO, any more than a theory of "24 positions"
> neecssarily implies 24-EDO. However -- and this is me, not Near
> Easterm musicians! -- it is true that when I try to look at my usual
> maqam temperaments in Scala, the EDO that returns the most applicable
> note spellings does happen to be 17!
>
> A couple of other quick points.
>
> First, Beyhom is indeed in French, and my comprehension is often
> partial, but enough comes through to be more than worthwhile for me,
> which might suggest that my reading comprehension is fortunately a tad
> better than my attempts at pronunciation! Some of the mathematical
> figures, at any rate, could be of interest, and I'd offer to help,
> however imperfect my understanding of French, if I could. I should
> have said this when the topic came up earlier.
>
> Also, I much enjoyed your story of Joseph Spencer. And certainly I'd
> see 12-EDO for Elizabethan music on keyboard, or 24-EDO for Near
> Eastern music, as part of a microtonal continuum. In my longer
> article, I say more about that continuum, and curiously while
> generally avoiding rational ratios for neutral or other complex
> intervals, if simply to show that yes, it can be done.
>
> Best,
>
> Margo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

> If you agree, I would like to nominate you to this position in
> place of Carl Lumma. My perception being that the general trend
> is in favour of his replacement.

Let me assure Ozan Yarman that I do intend to step down, but
not because the general trend favors it (it doesn't) and not
because Ozan Yarman suggested it. And my replacement will be
of my choosing. And this person, let's call him "Medvedev"
for now, has already agreed to be my puppet, so Ozan Yarman
may be assured I will retain absolute power over him for a
long time to come. LOL

Meanwhile, Ozan Yarman, I am still waiting for an answer to
the question I posed: What have I done to earn your scorn?

-Carl

Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is, but really,

"What have I done to earn your scorn?"

That's like asking "Why are you so bad?"

Just from his message and the general tone of your reply I can see why there might be some people who wonder if you are suitable as a moderator. Perfectly normal for a forum post, but not really the sort of thing someone would post as a moderator. Especially if trying to show how even tempered and unbiased and suitable as a moderator they are...

It's also very out of character for you as I remember you from the list before, always helpful and polite, and knowledgeable. I don't think you ever got into flame wars and I can well understand why you were originally chosen as a moderator.

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > If you agree, I would like to nominate you to this position in
> > place of Carl Lumma. My perception being that the general trend
> > is in favour of his replacement.
>
> Let me assure Ozan Yarman that I do intend to step down, but
> not because the general trend favors it (it doesn't) and not
> because Ozan Yarman suggested it. And my replacement will be
> of my choosing. And this person, let's call him "Medvedev"
> for now, has already agreed to be my puppet, so Ozan Yarman
> may be assured I will retain absolute power over him for a
> long time to come. LOL
>
> Meanwhile, Ozan Yarman, I am still waiting for an answer to
> the question I posed: What have I done to earn your scorn?
>
> -Carl
>

Dear Carl, it's not about you, and you certainly are not the boss of this list that you should be the one to lord over us who the next moderator shall be. Throwing an air of "I know it right, and you are miserably wrong, so put up or shut up" all the time is becoming really tiresome. And I am not in the least intimidated by arrogant cynicism.

Moreover, I have no scorn for you nor have I insulted you at all. Maybe my choice of words were poor*, but as a foreigner whose second tongue is English, I am entitled to criticize and react against such holier-than-thou posing especially when it comes to judging my scholarship and terminology based on paltry slipshod, overbearing generalizations. I respect your contributions to and knowledge in tuning... yet I have been exasperated by your insufferably prejudiced attacks lately. Particularly, your condescensions where you imagine you have destroyed a thesis on Maqam music based on a few hobbyist verdicts. I think we all know who is stepping out of line here.

Truly, I wouldn't mind if my notions were proven wrong one day, for I do not take any of my research personally; but I am sure it certainly will not be through such vain, biased, emotive and incompetent efforts.

Cordially,
Oz.

* This from an off-list message I sent to Chris Vaisvil, explaining myself:

...as a native Turkish speaker whose second language is English unlike the majority of the Tuning List, please let me clarify that my choice of words here:

...in order to judge that Carl is only spouting from the blowhole by saying that...

intended to signify figuratively that Carl was making an ostentatious display of too much nothing despite his obvious lack of practice and theoretical background in Maqam music in general.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

robert_inventor5 wrote:
> Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is, but really,
>
> "What have I done to earn your scorn?"
>
> That's like asking "Why are you so bad?"
>
> Just from his message and the general tone of your reply I can see why there might be some people who wonder if you are suitable as a moderator. Perfectly normal for a forum post, but not really the sort of thing someone would post as a moderator. Especially if trying to show how even tempered and unbiased and suitable as a moderator they are...
>
> It's also very out of character for you as I remember you from the list before, always helpful and polite, and knowledgeable. I don't think you ever got into flame wars and I can well understand why you were originally chosen as a moderator.
>
> Robert
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>>> If you agree, I would like to nominate you to this position in
>>> place of Carl Lumma. My perception being that the general trend
>>> is in favour of his replacement.
>> Let me assure Ozan Yarman that I do intend to step down, but
>> not because the general trend favors it (it doesn't) and not
>> because Ozan Yarman suggested it. And my replacement will be
>> of my choosing. And this person, let's call him "Medvedev"
>> for now, has already agreed to be my puppet, so Ozan Yarman
>> may be assured I will retain absolute power over him for a
>> long time to come. LOL
>>
>> Meanwhile, Ozan Yarman, I am still waiting for an answer to
>> the question I posed: What have I done to earn your scorn?
>>
>> -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
>
>
>
>

Not too long ago people on this list were complaining there was not
enough moderation. (Oz, did not you ask for moderation of Michael
S.??)

Carl's position as moderator is difficult and this list has very
unruly periods. If you haven't been a moderator or admin I doubt you
can understand the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" choices
you are faced with. Very often its a choice between evils. Far too
often.

However, Carl is *not* the root cause of the problems here and
changing moderator will not stop the people who wish to converse in
insults and vulgar language.

If this was a perfect world we would all talk in a civil manner to
each other - but unfortunately it is not a perfect world.

Chris

> Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is, but really,
> "What have I done to earn your scorn?"
> That's like asking "Why are you so bad?"

An excellent point, Robert!

Carl,

In my opinion, the term "moderator" implies the role
of "referee" because some kind of structured
debate is supposed to be going on here.

Instead, why not think of yourself as a host? This is
your house; this is where you live. We are your
guests. You've invited us over to have
conversations. Sooner or later there will be trouble
because a conversation got out of hand. So what!
It's your house: take it like a man, get cleaned up,
and rejoin your guests.

(1) You definitely don't want the neighbors two
houses down the street calling the cops.

(2) You definitely don't want your guests calling the
cops.

All great leaders are tougher than nails, especially
the non-violent ones like Gandhi and King.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert_inventor5" <robertwalker@...> wrote:
>
> Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is, but really,
>
> "What have I done to earn your scorn?"
>
> That's like asking "Why are you so bad?"
>
> Just from his message and the general tone of your reply I can see why there might be some people who wonder if you are suitable as a moderator. Perfectly normal for a forum post, but not really the sort of thing someone would post as a moderator. Especially if trying to show how even tempered and unbiased and suitable as a moderator they are...
>
> It's also very out of character for you as I remember you from the list before, always helpful and polite, and knowledgeable. I don't think you ever got into flame wars and I can well understand why you were originally chosen as a moderator.
>
> Robert
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > > If you agree, I would like to nominate you to this position in
> > > place of Carl Lumma. My perception being that the general trend
> > > is in favour of his replacement.
> >
> > Let me assure Ozan Yarman that I do intend to step down, but
> > not because the general trend favors it (it doesn't) and not
> > because Ozan Yarman suggested it. And my replacement will be
> > of my choosing. And this person, let's call him "Medvedev"
> > for now, has already agreed to be my puppet, so Ozan Yarman
> > may be assured I will retain absolute power over him for a
> > long time to come. LOL
> >
> > Meanwhile, Ozan Yarman, I am still waiting for an answer to
> > the question I posed: What have I done to earn your scorn?
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>

Having endured two intercontinental immigrations
by the age of ten, I am no stranger to learning new
languages and new customs. English is my third
language.

I take full responsibility for having committed
unintended mistakes in choice of words. Why?
Because I freely choose to speak or write the
language. Therefore, I am solely responsible for the
consequences of my actions. I do not welcome
special considerations from anyone. Why?
Because I will never learn the language if I don't
make mistakes. Making mistakes can be a great
incentive to getting it right. The act of apologizing
as though I were a native speaker can be an even
greater incentive to getting it right.

I also have a dictionary where I can look up
unusual words to make sure I understand their
colloquial, slang, or pejorative usage. One more
reason for others to take me at face value, thank
you very much.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Carl, it's not about you, and you certainly are not the boss of
> this list that you should be the one to lord over us who the next
> moderator shall be. Throwing an air of "I know it right, and you are
> miserably wrong, so put up or shut up" all the time is becoming really
> tiresome. And I am not in the least intimidated by arrogant cynicism.
>
> Moreover, I have no scorn for you nor have I insulted you at all. Maybe
> my choice of words were poor*, but as a foreigner whose second tongue is
> English, I am entitled to criticize and react against such
> holier-than-thou posing especially when it comes to judging my
> scholarship and terminology based on paltry slipshod, overbearing
> generalizations. I respect your contributions to and knowledge in
> tuning... yet I have been exasperated by your insufferably prejudiced
> attacks lately. Particularly, your condescensions where you imagine you
> have destroyed a thesis on Maqam music based on a few hobbyist verdicts.
> I think we all know who is stepping out of line here.
>
> Truly, I wouldn't mind if my notions were proven wrong one day, for I do
> not take any of my research personally; but I am sure it certainly will
> not be through such vain, biased, emotive and incompetent efforts.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
>
> * This from an off-list message I sent to Chris Vaisvil, explaining myself:
>
> ...as a native Turkish speaker whose second language is English unlike
> the majority of the Tuning List, please let me clarify that my choice of
> words here:
>
> ...in order to judge that Carl is only spouting from the blowhole by
> saying that...
>
> intended to signify figuratively that Carl was making an ostentatious
> display of too much nothing despite his obvious lack of practice and
> theoretical background in Maqam music in general.
>
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> robert_inventor5 wrote:
> > Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is, but really,
> >
> > "What have I done to earn your scorn?"
> >
> > That's like asking "Why are you so bad?"
> >
> > Just from his message and the general tone of your reply I can see why there might be some people who wonder if you are suitable as a moderator. Perfectly normal for a forum post, but not really the sort of thing someone would post as a moderator. Especially if trying to show how even tempered and unbiased and suitable as a moderator they are...
> >
> > It's also very out of character for you as I remember you from the list before, always helpful and polite, and knowledgeable. I don't think you ever got into flame wars and I can well understand why you were originally chosen as a moderator.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@> wrote:
> >>> If you agree, I would like to nominate you to this position in
> >>> place of Carl Lumma. My perception being that the general trend
> >>> is in favour of his replacement.
> >> Let me assure Ozan Yarman that I do intend to step down, but
> >> not because the general trend favors it (it doesn't) and not
> >> because Ozan Yarman suggested it. And my replacement will be
> >> of my choosing. And this person, let's call him "Medvedev"
> >> for now, has already agreed to be my puppet, so Ozan Yarman
> >> may be assured I will retain absolute power over him for a
> >> long time to come. LOL
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, Ozan Yarman, I am still waiting for an answer to
> >> the question I posed: What have I done to earn your scorn?
> >>
> >> -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, "robert_inventor5" <robertwalker@...> wrote:
>
> Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is,

Well, read up on it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> Moreover, I have no scorn for you nor have I insulted you at all.

Yes, you have. Anyone is entitled to be offended by language
such as you have used. Now, please explain why you refrain from
apology and continue to discuss me in the third person despite
my requests that you desist.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> Carl's position as moderator is difficult

Actually it's not. First, I'm not the only moderator, as
I keep pointed out. Second, though Ozan was just calling
for active moderation of a discussion here, we never do that.
The only way moderation has ever affected him is that I told
him he was not free to use language like "blowhole". And
that will remain true after I step down.

-Carl

Hi Cris,

> Instead, why not think of yourself as a host? This is
> your house; this is where you live. We are your
> guests. You've invited us over to have
> conversations.

Again, there are three moderators and I don't think of
myself as a host because I don't have any real power.
Jeez. The day to day is just banning spammers. In 16
years we've banned two, maybe three outright crackpots.

-Carl

Hello Carl,

OK. Thanks very much for explaining the role of moderator.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cris,
>
> > Instead, why not think of yourself as a host? This is
> > your house; this is where you live. We are your
> > guests. You've invited us over to have
> > conversations.
>
> Again, there are three moderators and I don't think of
> myself as a host because I don't have any real power.
> Jeez. The day to day is just banning spammers. In 16
> years we've banned two, maybe three outright crackpots.
>
> -Carl
>

Chris, I hold still that there is not proper moderation in this list - especially if the moderator himself is engaging in senseless attacks and antagonizations (at times even bordering on estimation of a particular belief in the form of snide remarks toward a religion being no more than an empire, analysis of its tolerance to "god of Abraham" faiths, infant circumcision's evils, and other off-topic maunder).

Furthermore, we see our good "moderator" bent on moderating things in need of lesser or no moderation, such as natural exasperation andfigurative speech at what followscriticizing his incorrigible defamatory behaviour to academic work misinterpreted as insulting his person, instead of the things that need greater moderation whose instances are too numerous.

Then again, we see him spelling out provocations, threats, patronizing, making cynical condescending comments as in the case of taking the call to elect a new moderator as personal scorn... the list goes on.

Our good "moderator" verily needs moderation. I am ever more convinced that he has been instrumental in fracturing this group into needless splinters and causing worthy past contributors to be driven away or silenced.

I would like to see a moderator who - alongside his ordinary unbiased station duties:

1. Welcomes new-comers with an open-mind, introducing them to sources of established tuning wisdom in answer to their queries.
2. Acts as an objective coach to the betterment of productivity in novel tuning topics.
3. Delivers gentle reminders to people who have been posting excessively on circular discussions or engaging in off-topic messaging.
4. Referees between people who threaten to disturb the peace.
5. Warns people not to use swear words, and deals with those who threaten the order.

Call it evolution, call it change. A proper moderator can solve the problem of "actual insults" and "vulgarity". It is evident as a beauty mole on Marlyn Monroe's countenance that Carl is not up to the task I envision of a moderator. (the other two persons appear to be figureheads with Carl taking the lead) I would certainly wish that he pursues enlightening us with his knowledge on tuning and theory, but without holding the title of moderator, which obviously brings out his character flaws to the detriment of this group.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> Not too long ago people on this list were complaining there was not
> enough moderation. (Oz, did not you ask for moderation of Michael
> S.??)
>
> Carl's position as moderator is difficult and this list has very
> unruly periods. If you haven't been a moderator or admin I doubt you
> can understand the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" choices
> you are faced with. Very often its a choice between evils. Far too
> often.
>
> However, Carl is *not* the root cause of the problems here and
> changing moderator will not stop the people who wish to converse in
> insults and vulgar language.
>
> If this was a perfect world we would all talk in a civil manner to
> each other - but unfortunately it is not a perfect world.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

>"Not too long ago people on this list were complaining there was not enough
>moderation. (Oz, did not you ask for moderation of Michael S.??)"

The never ending saga of this list...someone (IE me) complains about
flaming, someone (IE Carl) blames me for starting it, someone else (IE Ozan)
takes Carl's words as gospel. Perhaps the good thing is...I think Ozan is
finally beginning to realize who was/is really starting most of the the flame
wars and side-tracking the most threads...and it's not me. :-)

On the side, I am "guilty" of introducing topics that have YET to
achieve academic backing (as are/were people such as Marcel)...but what can
people like us do within our power to counter this (beside randomly giving up)?!
In other words, how are we supposed to earn (or at least get a fair
chance for) academic backing if people like Carl literally call me a troll when
I try to do a survey or call when a do survey 4 people "pathetic"...hey it's not
exactly my fault I can only test a theory I have with a limited number of
willing subjects!
Now if the tuning list has an "anti-survey" policy to its members I
could understand...but since it doesn't the way it seems to handle attempts at
surveying any new theory seem downright pessimistic toward just about any new
theory not already backed up by either several papers or a huge survey.

Bottom line question...is the Tuning list supposed to be open to such
surveying? If it is not...I'm strongly guessing someone like Margo should take
over the list...if not...I think Mike B has done a great job with his group and
would do a great job with this one (plus he has 'text-book' micro-tonal
knowledge that rivals Carl's).
------------------------------
Plus, there's a huge difference between not enough moderation and someone
who says virtually everything is wrong and gives either a single
one-track-minded overtly biased alternative for progress or none at all. It's
like someone saying "we need a real boss" and then bringing in a sergeant who
picks personal fights! Just because someone takes huge measures does not make a
good leader, being a good leader means empowering the team and working well with
the team, not just oneself!

>"However, Carl is *not* the root cause of the problems here and changing
>moderator will not stop the people who wish to converse in insults and vulgar
>language."
You don't seem to understand. Carl is one of such people...in fact I see
him starting more fights by a factor of two or more than any other list member.
And you know what? If Carl name calls someone and he gets name called back (as
often happens)...serves him right! Now if Carl doesn't do anything to someone
and gets called an idiot...of course that's not fair...but I haven't seen anyone
do that.

>"If this was a perfect world we would all talk in a civil manner to each other -
>but unfortunately it is not a perfect world."
As has been tried...but I have yet to be able to bring up a thread, even
within the past month, where Carl doesn't jump in and derail it...and have seen
the same thing happen to so many people (Robert, Ozan, and Mike B just to name a
few). In fact, please others correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I have
heard Chris V. is the only one here really defending Carl..

Chris...you seem to assume people on this list are ego-centric lazy brats
who do little work and then try to steal claims to greatness and call names
along the way and need to be "baby-sat" by Carl because of their own
immaturity. Nothing can be further from the truth!...I've found people on this
list, "even" those I completely disagree with, to be incredibly hard-working and
intelligent and very civil...until someone attacks them for something they never
said or did. If the problem really was people like Marcel and
myself...certainly there would be many fights and lack of progress on the tuning
research list...but there are no such things. I'm not saying the problem is all
Carl...but I think it's fair to say he brings out the worst in many of us,
rather than the best...and that's the opposite of what a leader should do.

Ozan>"2. Acts as an objective coach to the betterment of productivity in
novel tuning topics."
Question, who can define what is novel, just the moderator by giving his
opinion(s)?

This seems like a dangerous "solution" as it encourages the moderator to call
people's topics things like "wrong" and "stupid". Or even run around starting
fights with people about what he "thinks" their intentions are to prevent them
from starting bad threads. Which is pretty much what Carl does a whole lot of
the time.
An alternative suggestion: let the defense be ignoring. If someone posts a
topic not just the moderator, but many on the list, think is boring...he will
obviously be ignored by most people.

>"3. Delivers gentle reminders to people who have been posting
>excessively on circular discussions or engaging in off-topic messaging."

Now if, say, only two people are reply-posting to each other and only those
two people think the topic is interesting IMVHO the moderator should step in and
politely say "you seem to be the only two people interested in this
topic...please take this off list".

Same goes if someone keeps, say, re-posting the exact same topic (a topic he
posted that has been ignored in the past) several times and not just the
moderator, but 3+ other people agree it's exactly the same topic.
In this case, I believe the moderator should step in a warn the poster about
either clarifying himself in such a way it's obvious the topic is new or at
least heavily revised. If the poster fails to do this, I believe he should be
put under moderation in such a way that attempts to re-post that topic are
blocked for at least a couple of weeks the first violation and, say, a month the
second violation, 2 for the 3rd violation, etc.

The idea would be to keep the ideas on the list interesting in the opinion
of the group, rather than merely interesting in the mind of the moderator. And
if the moderator "censors" something, the idea is he would need a certain degree
of group support/"votes" to do so.

Hi Carl,

I'm amazed there hasn't been active moderation on your part because
that so many people from this list have said on other lists that they
were actively moderated here. So the other moderators did this? Or
these people were never moderated? That certainly changes things.

As for the difficulty. I injected too much of myself into that
statement. I often have found internet crowds to be hard to please
when in an admin position. Most often it seems the best choice is to
just make everyone equally unhappy.

Chris

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > Carl's position as moderator is difficult
>
> Actually it's not. First, I'm not the only moderator, as
> I keep pointed out. Second, though Ozan was just calling
> for active moderation of a discussion here, we never do that.
> The only way moderation has ever affected him is that I told
> him he was not free to use language like "blowhole". And
> that will remain true after I step down.
>
> -Carl
>

Oz,

As far as I see you have taken great offense to things Carl said about
Marqam music. Being totally ignorant of the discipline I have no way
to begin to judge the facts of Marqam music. (did I even spell it
right????)

I think though Mahatma Gandhi, a man I greatly respect, may have said
something pertinent to this dispute: “Be the change you want to see in
the world.”

I saw you asked Margo to moderate - while I have no idea why you'd
wish such an evil upon her (see how many people like Carl right now?)
I can say I do not remember her ever flaming anyone.

I do not agree with everything Carl has said or done - like getting
bothered by me posting to this list from my Blackberry - however you
can't deny he knows a great deal about tuning, tuning mathematics, and
perhaps most valuable, the history of this list. Carl provides some
sense of continuity here.

You seem to be laying your perception of the demise of the entire
tuning list at Carl's feet. At the same time you seem to be forgetting
your argument with Michael S. Or my argument with Michael S. Or Igs'
argument with Michael S. Or all of the other circular Michael S.
arguments I have (thankfully) forgotten. Or the occasional unfriendly
posts by one professional to another that occasionally takes place
here. Such as people taking shots at Charles Lucy - and him firing
back.

So for all of the problems at the list being traced to Carl, I simply
don't buy it.

Carl is another individual in a room full of artistic personalities.
If you think there is too much poor choice of language and intolerance
I respectfully ask you to do like Gandhi and please show us the way.

Chris

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris, I hold still that there is not proper moderation in this list - especially if the moderator himself is engaging in senseless attacks and antagonizations (at times even bordering on estimation of a particular belief in the form of snide remarks toward a religion being no more than an empire, analysis of its tolerance to "god of Abraham" faiths, infant circumcision's evils, and other off-topic maunder).
>
> Furthermore, we see our good "moderator" bent on moderating things in need of lesser or no moderation, such as natural exasperation and figurative speech at what follows criticizing his incorrigible defamatory behaviour to academic work misinterpreted as insulting his person, instead of the things that need greater moderation whose instances are too numerous.
>
> Then again, we see him spelling out provocations, threats, patronizing, making cynical condescending comments as in the case of taking the call to elect a new moderator as personal scorn... the list goes on.
>
> Our good "moderator" verily needs moderation. I am ever more convinced that he has been instrumental in fracturing this group into needless splinters and causing worthy past contributors to be driven away or silenced.
>
> I would like to see a moderator who - alongside his ordinary unbiased station duties:
>
> 1. Welcomes new-comers with an open-mind, introducing them to sources of established tuning wisdom in answer to their queries.
> 2. Acts as an objective coach to the betterment of productivity in novel tuning topics.
> 3. Delivers gentle reminders to people who have been posting excessively on circular discussions or engaging in off-topic messaging.
> 4. Referees between people who threaten to disturb the peace.
> 5. Warns people not to use swear words, and deals with those who threaten the order.
>
> Call it evolution, call it change. A proper moderator can solve the problem of "actual insults" and "vulgarity". It is evident as a beauty mole on Marlyn Monroe's countenance that Carl is not up to the task I envision of a moderator. (the other two persons appear to be figureheads with Carl taking the lead) I would certainly wish that he pursues enlightening us with his knowledge on tuning and theory, but without holding the title of moderator, which obviously brings out his character flaws to the detriment of this group.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> Not too long ago people on this list were complaining there was not
> enough moderation. (Oz, did not you ask for moderation of Michael
> S.??)
>
> Carl's position as moderator is difficult and this list has very
> unruly periods. If you haven't been a moderator or admin I doubt you
> can understand the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" choices
> you are faced with. Very often its a choice between evils. Far too
> often.
>
> However, Carl is *not* the root cause of the problems here and
> changing moderator will not stop the people who wish to converse in
> insults and vulgar language.
>
> If this was a perfect world we would all talk in a civil manner to
> each other - but unfortunately it is not a perfect world.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@> wrote:
>
> > Carl's position as moderator is difficult
>
> Actually it's not. First, I'm not the only moderator, as
> I keep pointed out.

And if Carl left, other moderators would need to draw the line somewhere.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Or the occasional unfriendly
> posts by one professional to another that occasionally takes place
> here. Such as people taking shots at Charles Lucy - and him firing
> back.

I hope you don't count this as a pot-shot, but I don't know what Charles Lucy's profession is. Do you? I'd be interested to know.

I thought I read he is an engineer - at one point he was talking about
purchasing a bell foundry.

But... ask him?

Are you a professional mathematician? I'm a chemist and have been in
the FDA related validation world for a while.
Though if I had my choice I'd rather write music for a living.
Unfortunately that is really really hard to do. Especially if I
persist in this microtonal madness :-)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > Or the occasional unfriendly
> > posts by one professional to another that occasionally takes place
> > here. Such as people taking shots at Charles Lucy - and him firing
> > back.
>
> I hope you don't count this as a pot-shot, but I don't know what Charles Lucy's profession is. Do you? I'd be interested to know.
>

Chris (replying to Oz)>"I saw you asked Margo to moderate - while I have no idea
why you'd
wish such an evil upon her (see how many people like Carl right now?) I can say
I do not remember her ever flaming anyone."
IMVHO, the two kind of go together: a good moderator would never flame or
"even" flame back. At worst, I figure, he, after complaints from not just one
but a few list members, would force someone to take discussions off-list and
close a topic...and for sure he'd give several private warnings directly to the
"violating" person in question.

>"however you can't deny he knows a great deal about tuning, tuning mathematics,
>and perhaps most valuable, the history of this list."
I have also said several times, he knows a lot about tuning and tuning math
and has been here a lot. The problem comes when anyone (and not just me)
introduces something not addressed in the list's history or in past tuning math
theories. Simply put, he makes a great historian/"librarian", but not much of a
futurist (regardless of how much he claims to be the latter).
I think it's fair to say with things Carl has gotten upset about, such as
Ozan's new use of 11-limit and poly-tonality in Maqam music, Mike B's theories
of minorness and more...the common thread is Carl's complaining none of it is
rooted in ideas he knows well from past discussions.
With Carl the list has a strong continuity of and organized record of the
past, but not much evolution...that's the best way I can summarize it.

>"You seem to be laying your perception of the demise of the entire tuning list
>at Carl's feet."
>"At the same time you seem to be forgetting your argument with Michael S. Or my
>argument with Michael >"S. Or Igs' argument with Michael S. Or all of the other
>circular Michael S."
>"arguments I have (thankfully) forgotten."
Yep, "forgotten" indeed...because apparently you have not the slightest idea
how to prove them because, guess what, outside of your subjectivity they did not
actually happen! What did actually happen: things like your calling the PHI and
Silver scale theory a circular argument...and then using the PHI and Silver
section scales and having them become the top 2 downloaded songs on your SOON
music site! Or things like the Infinity scale system and theories of tall
chords which Cameron, Gene, and several others have noted excellent properties
in. And a ton of other examples, but I don't want to ramble on.

So, in reality, so far as actual proven "circular" arguments...unless you can
prove to me otherwise, you (Chris) have nothing so far on me!
But (Chris) I do have something on you (beside your being a terrible hypocrit
in your use of my scales)...that you and your "Or my argument with Michael >"S.
Or Igs' argument with Michael S. Or all of the other circular Michael S."
statement...Carl is not the only one starting flame wars here...you are pretty
much hurling gasoline into the fire (yep, really mature pointing the gun at me
Chris...like that's ever going to fly)!

With all due respect:

Regarding Carl...
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Simply put, he makes a great historian/"librarian", but not much of a
> futurist (regardless of how much he claims to be the latter).

I've been on this list since 96, and Carl has been on it either nearly as long or longer. There have been an *awful* lot of elements of tuning and intonational development that have gone on in those years, and while Carl and I do *certainly* not see eye to eye on a lot of stuff, I have to speak up and say that he has been a very active part in many of these developments.

Whether it was actively developing new elements of evolving theories, or being one of the people reviewing posts, music, and code to find flaws, I honestly believe he has a strong place in much of the work that has gone down on this list (and related lists). To have someone relatively new come in, throw down a few new areas of their interest, and start to assume that somehow Carl Lumma has lost all interest in the evolution of tuning, acoustics, and related concepts beggars belief.

Again, I'm not here to apologize for anyone, and I know that Carl handles social interaction far differently than I do. But having started (and moderated for 6 or 7 years) MMM, I know first-hand what an odd assortment of cranks, egos, quiet types and raving loons the tuning community can - at any given moment - encompass. Like any community, you need to hone your interpersonal skills as much as possible, and tread strongly but carefully. I'm not even really offering an opinion on his efforts as moderator, because I'm not here on a daily basis. But the idea that he rejects new ideas out-of-hand or is institutionally biased against 'futurist' thinking is, frankly, bunk.

I'd love to put this in even more colorful terms, but I'm trying to be considerate to Ozan.

Regards,
Jon

First of all, let me admit my statement about "Carl's futurism" was vaguely
put. It's not that I think Carl is not a futurist or not productive as a single
person, but that his net effect on the tuning community as a leader has been, at
least for the time I've been here, more about discouraging futurism among others
than promoting it.

His actions show an aire of thinking maybe three people on the list are
"worthy" of expressing ideas to try and develop into new theories and the rest
have some terrible work ethic, lack of intelligence, or malicious intent. Which
pushes the vast majority of the list community away from futurism. And unless
Carl can make more progress than every person he claims is 'practicing
psuedoscience" in their efforts at theories combined (IE he really is that much
smarter than Mike B, Ozan, Robert, etc.)...his net community effect of promoting
futurism is negative.
==============================

>"But having started (and moderated for 6 or 7 years) MMM, I know first-hand what
>an odd assortment of cranks, egos, quiet types and raving loons the tuning
>community can - at any given moment - encompass."
Well I'll say this much. The topic of "I have THE answer to music", held in
the past by Charles Lucy, John (IE the "Mathematics of Music" author), and
Marcel...really does qualify to me as loony. But, at least from what I've seen,
people who go that far are far and few inbetween and, under Carl's leadership,
for every person who got censored and embarrassed...for truly bad behavior there
are many more who got whipped equally badly who didn't really do anything
wrong. So I understand the situation with occasionally "list loons"...I just
think Carl has gone too far and virtually started "going Draconian" on here. :-D
======================================
Jon>"To have someone relatively new come in, throw down a few new areas of their
interest"

(If I'm hearing you right on this one)...Why should this become an
experience game even though I (and I'm sure many other "relatively new" people
including Ozan and Mike B) been here for years and most likely working on music
and/or theory for hours a day?

>"and start to assume that somehow Carl Lumma has lost all interest in the
>evolution of tuning, acoustics, and related concepts beggars belief."

Of course he has interest, but from what I've seen only interest "on his
terms" seems to count and most other interest expressed by other aspiring
micro-tonalists is called (paraphrased) "dumb and useless". IMVHO that's not
exactly the kind of attitude that makes other people want to work on developing
new theories on here... Mike B's tuning research list, as I recall, was
actually made in response of Mike B and others having trouble trying to post
honest and hard-worked attempts at theories without being harassed by flames
from Carl (typically) and sometimes a couple of others.

>"Whether it was actively developing new elements of evolving theories, or being
>one of the people reviewing posts, music, and code to find flaws"

Well I haven't been here for so long as yourself...but I can easily agree
Carl has done a lot of "reviewing posts, music, and code to find flaws".
In fact, even regarding such recent examples as triadic harmonic entropy,
he has evolved new theories.

But (back to my point)...even then his new theories seem to "have" to link
to his past theories. For example, he has favored Harmonic Entropy for ages and
relatively disregarded critical band dissonance and difference tones a million
times over. He's stood in the face of Mike B, Jacques Dudon, Sethares, myself,
and countless others who have spent years working on several different theories
and pretty much said "you are chasing a straw man".
For every theory he has evolved, at least from what I've seen, he has put
down or even censored out several equally hard-worked attempts at alternative
new theories. He has gone so far as to call people foolish for trying anything
different and at times even throw them off the list or censor their posts for
it. Hence my interpretation that his "net result" of being here has done more
against the future than for it.

>"But the idea that he rejects new ideas out-of-hand or is institutionally biased
>against 'futurist' thinking is, frankly, bunk."
Take that back, in a way. I get the impression Carl may very well not be
against futuristic thinking...as long as such futurist thinking follows his
personal biases.
I've found few instances where Carl can say stand back and say "I don't agree
with this, but this seems to have purpose with other musicians" to other
people's new theories and moderate with the piece of mind to realize what's one
man's trash in the art world can legitimately be not just "another man" but
"other men's " treasure. I have, however, heard him countless times (and for
sure not just to me!) call just about any theories he doesn't agree with
psuedoscience. That includes Ozan's theories, Mike B's theories (despite that
he said (paraphrased) "Mike B has learned a lot and knows at least as much as I
do"), Marcel's theories, my theories, and much much more.

So, don't get me wrong: I understand the moderation issues Carl deals with
and am not saying it's some sort of hate that causes him to do what he does to
"guard the list". But rather I'm saying, regardless of why he does what he does
OR how much positive research he does as a single person, the net effect of what
the entire community (not just him!) is able to produce under his "rule" lately
hasn't exactly been good.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> First of all...

Mike, have you ever considered working on a "concise" mode? Because trying to maintain any kind of forward movement in a conversation when confronted with a Wall Of Text is at least as, if not more, daunting than any 'moderation' I've seen.

That said, what it boils down to (it seems) is that you think Carl has had a dampening effect on forward progress on this list, by virtue of his moderation. Well, unless he has been actively deleting posts, or removing members, all he is is another opinion. On a list with membership open to any and all, your work has to stand on it's own. If he hasn't removed you, or censored your posts, I'm not sure what the harm is. We've had far heavier seas in the past and work got done.

J

Wow, my life is a lot more interesting than I thought!

Jon: Thanks for the support.

Ozan: Why haven't you answered my sincere questions?
That's very rude. Moreover, it is apparent to everyone
you are lashing out at me because you can't tolerate
disagreement with your music theory claims. Of course
nothing will change when I am no longer a moderator.
You will see that the truth continues to be the thorn in
your side, not any powers of a moderator. What will your
excuse be then?

Chris: I have at various points "actively moderated"
Michael, and just recently for a couple days, Cameron.
In both cases, nearly 100% of their messages posted in
a timely fashion. Which is faar more than Michael would
get on any other scholarly list I've been involved on.
Heck, forget scholarly. I'm on lists about flashlights
with more moderation. In fact I don't think I've been
on a single board, list, or forum that's as open as
this one, and I've been on a lot. Ozan doesn't even
know who the other two moderators are, despite that I
politely explained it to him just a few weeks ago.

While all this is going on, I've been trying to make
productive posts. Actual analysis of maqam recordings?
Doesn't get a peep out of the maqam experts.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Chris, I hold still that there is not proper moderation in this list -
> especially if the moderator himself is engaging in senseless attacks and
> antagonizations (at times even bordering on estimation of a particular
> belief in the form of snide remarks toward a religion being no more than
> an empire, analysis of its tolerance to "god of Abraham" faiths, infant
> circumcision's evils, and other off-topic maunder).

There certainly is NOT proper moderation of this list, for if there was, your juvenile spat with Carl, unbecoming attitude of intellectual martyrdom, and slew of pointlessly antagonistic posts would have been silenced LONG ago. A man with your background and credentials ought to be ashamed of the depths of childish mudslinging to which you have sunk in response to a disagreement that should have been settled through evidence and careful debate. That small initial disagreement--which I'm sure you cannot recollect the specifics of without a search through the forum archives--had the potential to spark an enlightening debate about the appropriate use of ratios in the music of various cultures (among other things). Yet instead of challenging Carl's stance through counter-evidence and counter-argument, you descended into a tantrum of intellectual martyrdom and completely abandoned any attempts at civil discourse.

Were you nearly as mature and enlightened as you fancy yourself, you'd have had the tact and dignity to ignore any petty slights directed at you, as well as the civility to handle disagreements with a degree equanimity and tolerance.

Whatever complaints you previously had of this list can be applied with equal validity to your own conduct, and rather than improving the quality of discourse on this list by initiating relevant discussions on appropriate topics, you've busied yourself for the last several months with doing little more than whining and demanding more strict moderation. More time has been wasted by your complaints than by anything you initially complained about. You, more so than anyone else who has posted in the last few months, are deserving of being moderated, and I hope you (and the next moderator) realize that.

-Igs

Dear Ozan, Carl, and all,

Please let me thank Ozan for his most gracious words, while
expressing my own view that moderation should be a cooperative
process. I am not sure whether Carl, Ozan, myself, or anyone else
could singlehandedly guide this group -- even with the help of
two other moderators -- although I hope that we can all be a
part of such a cooperative endeavor.

To seek a relaxed and moderate ethos in which to write this
article, I have tried playing a famous sharki by Dede Efendi in
Maqam Beyate, and also playing taksim (if it deserves anything
faintly approaching that name) in Maqam Nishaburek, whose
nobility combines the virtues of Rast and Ushshaq.

First, I would not wish to displace you, Carl, or anyone in the
process of doing my part to seek a more harmonious and congenial
group. And so I will take your nomination, Ozan, as an invitation
to promote reconciliation and cooperation, since these are what
the group needs to thrive.

Secondly, you should all be well aware (if you are not already)
that I have a serious fault of often expressing things in a more
lengthy than concise way, with whatever consequences from the
viewpoint of clarity or readability. Moderation seems to me a
skill where cordiality and conciseness are both at a premium.

Third, you should also be aware that I love large integer ratios,
as is shown my penchant to explain that I tuned dugah-hijaz in
Maqam Nishaburek at a virtually just 59/48, among other things a
mark of Jacques Dudon's influence. If this be "numerology," let
us make the most of it -- but with a warning that possibly I
might best serve as part of a community of moderators with lots
of checks and balances.

Fourth, you should be aware that while I am much moved to try and
live up to your generous words, Ozan, about my desire to tie
together European music and al-Musiqa al-Sharqiyya, as it might
well be called, the "Eastern music" of the great tradition of
Islamic civilization in its many colors and manifestations, I am
not sure how representative I am of the interests of the group as
a whole.

As we explore the possibilities for cooperative moderation
bringing together our present moderator and others seeking the
most civil, informative, and accessible group possible, I would
conclude for now with one important thought.

It seems to me that a truly scholarly group should also be a
truly welcoming and receptive group: to learn is to teach, and to
teach is to learn. A "scholars only" approach could promote both
exclusiveness and the delusions of superiority that destroy the
true spirit of scholarly humility and hospitality to the novice.
In contrast, "every member a potential scholar" could be a
mutually ennobling and elevating stance (and, yes, I consider
integer ratios ennobling also).

Most appreciatively,

Margo

This discussion is offering a hideous image of the whole group so can you all please stop fueling this useless debate and use your membership to contribute in a more constructive way, thanks.

Regards,
Victor

Hi Victor, good to hear from you.

> This discussion is offering a hideous image of the whole group
> so can you all please stop fueling this useless debate and use
> your membership to contribute in a more constructive way, thanks.

I couldn't agree more. So I've summarized what I consider to
be my constructive contributions for the month of October.
I would love further discussion on any of it, and look forward
to an even more productive month in November:

Links to online resources related to Xenharmonikon:
/tuning/topicId_93812.html#93861

Contacted list founder and documented date of first post:
/tuning/topicId_93098.html#93936

Excavated Geocities URLs from archives:
/tuning/topicId_93812.html#93877
...hopefully somebody will dig these out of the torrent
when it is published...

Answered FAQs:
/tuning/topicId_93812.html#93815

Pitch analysis of a Maqam Al-Iraqi recording excerpt:
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93615

Ruminations on the meaning of "tonality":
/tuning/topicId_93833.html#93929
including PDF score
/tuning/topicId_93833.html#93940
and algorithmic method for creating tonal chord progressions
/tuning/topicId_93833.html#93900

Provided recipe to compute triadic harmonic entropy:
/tuning/topicId_93392.html#93396
/tuning/topicId_93392.html#93399
/tuning/topicId_93392.html#93468
/tuning/topicId_93392.html#93495
...and more thanks to Steve Martin's pioneering work

Comments on Thresholds of Discrimination (Vos, van Vianen):
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93512
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93524

Debunked dubious claims in ethnomusicology:
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93584
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93595
/tuning/topicId_93618.html#93639
/tuning/topicId_93618.html#93642
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93658
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93677

Most instruments have perfectly harmonic timbres:
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93770
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93781
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93797

-Carl

I wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. So I've summarized what I consider to
> be my constructive contributions for the month of October.

And on the splinter lists,

Four minutes of 15-limit electric slide guitars tuning up:
/makemicromusic/topicId_23403.html#23403
URLs have moved to permanent homes
http://lumma.org/music/theory/cosmolyra/2Cosmos.mp3
http://lumma.org/music/theory/cosmolyra/2Cosmos1.jpg
http://lumma.org/music/theory/cosmolyra/2Cosmos2.jpg

Fokker block approach for starling[11] scales:
/tuning-math/message/18305
/tuning-math/message/18318
including code
/tuning-math/message/18306?var=0&l=1

-C.

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

> I couldn't agree more. So I've summarized what I consider to
> be my constructive contributions for the month of October.

You've contributed to the discussion of constructing scales for higher-limit regular temperaments.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer to have you, Carl, continue to be moderator. This is purely selfish on my part, but I think others could benefit from your moderatorship as I do, if they were to reevaluate how your views and your expression of them relates to making music.

I find that you, for me, are a dynamite devil's advocate, for it seems obvious to me that you ruthlessly and in a highly entertaining manner try to implement your approach to understanding tuning as some kind of standard. Your reasoning is excellent and consistent, but the foundations upon which it is built are falsehoods and half-truths.

This, in conjunction with your passionate advocacy of your position, I find in my personal experience to be a wonderful catalyst to music making, for the consistency of your reasoning allows the basic assumptions from which you proceed to be tested almost if they were genuine theories. The dry and almost algorithmic demonstration of the invalidity of the basic premises you advocate has been, for a couple of years now! a source of musical seeds for me: the few seconds it takes to demonstrate in musical practice the invalidity, or at best highly conditional validity, of, for example, harmonic entropy, has provided concrete sonic entities which explode in musical potentials and the beauty of truth.

I must credit the methodical argument against the superb structure of your reasonings, based on your spectacular failure to grasp the ABC's of sound and the creation of music, with the some of the deepest musical advances I've made in my life.

Let's take an example:

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

>
> While all this is going on, I've been trying to make
> productive posts. Actual analysis of maqam recordings?
> Doesn't get a peep out of the maqam experts.
>
> -Carl
>

Wonderful, wonderful! First, the delighful dash of sneaky sophistry:
"experts". What experts? Only Dr. Yarman has any claim to be an expert in this case. His claim here, in mainstream terms, is rock solid- a doctorate in the field, in a "maqam" culture no less. Vastly more important to me is the fact that I have met and spent a several hours with Ozan in real life, and would have to place him easily in "top ten f*cking intimidatingly good ears I've ever met". I don't wish to embarass Ozan here, but I did not tell him at that time that in the "headliner" group which performed after mine in Istanbul were two musicians who know Ozan- speaking to them afterward, I found that they shared the same opinion of his superb abilities.

So, we have someone with a legitimate mainstream claim to being a genuine expert, and interested parties probably highly skilled and perhaps "expert" in other perhaps closely related, or not particularly closely related, areas. But obviously no "experts", plural, and not a soul- not even the one who could easily do so! saying such things as "as an expert in maqam music, I..." So why use such a patently false expression? Why, to create the delusion that those who speak on the topic are claiming to speak from inarguable authority. Sophistry of the slickest make- I'm always absolutely delighted to see you in action, Carl! You ROCK! (doing Il Cornico)

To continue!

Margo has posted, numerous times, data from analyses of maqam recordings, specifically, measurments of divisions of tetrachords given in cents. Didn't you notice this? She posted it in posts addressed to you, and gave sources! Cris also has presented data, Ozan's papers are full of analyses. I spent hours measuring, checking, rechecking, the measurments of the fretting on the baglama I bought in Istanbul and posted data here. Yet I have not seen one word from you acknowledging even the existence of ANY of these figures!

Now, why would that be (laughing out loud)? Because looking at (and more importantly, listening to) the figures presented, it is obvious to any thoughtful and informed person that, while designation of the intervals in question may not be best described by means of rationals, it is nevertheless entirely reasonable to do so, and reasons have been given.

You asked for historical bearing plans for rational maqam tunings, yet when Cris spoke of a specific historic bearing plan, you said not a word! Meanwhile everyone with a genuine basic understanding and even a brief acquaintance with maqam was already laughing, for the
undeniable presence of historical Pythagorean tuning schemes ARE bearing plans.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Now why would it necessary to resort to rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a position? Why claim "not a peep" from "experts" when there is noone claiming expert, and have been plenty of peeps? That's easy to answer. The "peeps" came with sensible explanations as to why those peeping choose to use rationals in their descriptions. When the tactic is to discredit anyone who disagrees with you as a delusional, it is imperative not to draw attention to the instances of clues reasonably presented.

Tell me, Carl: should I not call the 7/6 fretted deliberately, clearly and with remarkable precision, on my baglama a 7/6? Why on G-d's earth would I NOT call it a 7/6? Because it's not 24-tET? Because 7/6 doesn't "qualify" according to the pretty "harmonic entropy" graph? Give me a good reason.

If you are unable to give me a good reason, intellectual honesty demands that you back off your position of categorical dismal of using rationals in the description of maqam tunings. It's a braying-jackass position anyway, as you won't find a sane person on earth who would deny the plethora of Pythagorean strucures in maqam tunings- and a moment's thought reveals these as rationaly constructed as well.

I await with delight the witnessing of your weasling with aplomb out of answering me here, nevertheless ever hoping against hope for a straight answer.

-Cameron Bobro

Dear Cameron,

Kind, encouraging words from you below are much appreciated. However, as I always say, I am far from being an "expert" in Turkish Maqam music, let alone other neighbouring genres in the region. I merely think of myself as having delved into the particulars of maqam theory in academic curiosity and believe to have been instrumental in establishing some of its hidden and cryptic intonation peculiars in my very own perception. Also, I have been active in contributing here and there to the development of maqam theory software. My myriad dialogues with Margo almost frequently witness me admitting that so and so is my personal take of the matter of maqam intonation.

You have elucidated very well the reasons that apply to my refusal to engage Carl at his level. But the problem for me is not his tone - rather, what I believe to be his tendency to rely on his status as moderator in lashing out against everyone unchecked.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

cameron wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I would prefer to have you, Carl, continue to be moderator. This is purely selfish on my part, but I think others could benefit from your moderatorship as I do, if they were to reevaluate how your views and your expression of them relates to making music.
>
> I find that you, for me, are a dynamite devil's advocate, for it seems obvious to me that you ruthlessly and in a highly entertaining manner try to implement your approach to understanding tuning as some kind of standard. Your reasoning is excellent and consistent, but the foundations upon which it is built are falsehoods and half-truths.
>
> This, in conjunction with your passionate advocacy of your position, I find in my personal experience to be a wonderful catalyst to music making, for the consistency of your reasoning allows the basic assumptions from which you proceed to be tested almost if they were genuine theories. The dry and almost algorithmic demonstration of the invalidity of the basic premises you advocate has been, for a couple of years now! a source of musical seeds for me: the few seconds it takes to demonstrate in musical practice the invalidity, or at best highly conditional validity, of, for example, harmonic entropy, has provided concrete sonic entities which explode in musical potentials and the beauty of truth.
>
> I must credit the methodical argument against the superb structure of your reasonings, based on your spectacular failure to grasp the ABC's of sound and the creation of music, with the some of the deepest musical advances I've made in my life.
>
> Let's take an example:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>
>> While all this is going on, I've been trying to make
>> productive posts. Actual analysis of maqam recordings?
>> Doesn't get a peep out of the maqam experts.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>
> Wonderful, wonderful! First, the delighful dash of sneaky sophistry:
> "experts". What experts? Only Dr. Yarman has any claim to be an expert in this case. His claim here, in mainstream terms, is rock solid- a doctorate in the field, in a "maqam" culture no less. Vastly more important to me is the fact that I have met and spent a several hours with Ozan in real life, and would have to place him easily in "top ten f*cking intimidatingly good ears I've ever met". I don't wish to embarass Ozan here, but I did not tell him at that time that in the "headliner" group which performed after mine in Istanbul were two musicians who know Ozan- speaking to them afterward, I found that they shared the same opinion of his superb abilities.
>
> So, we have someone with a legitimate mainstream claim to being a genuine expert, and interested parties probably highly skilled and perhaps "expert" in other perhaps closely related, or not particularly closely related, areas. But obviously no "experts", plural, and not a soul- not even the one who could easily do so! saying such things as "as an expert in maqam music, I..." So why use such a patently false expression? Why, to create the delusion that those who speak on the topic are claiming to speak from inarguable authority. Sophistry of the slickest make- I'm always absolutely delighted to see you in action, Carl! You ROCK! (doing Il Cornico)
>
> To continue!
>
> Margo has posted, numerous times, data from analyses of maqam recordings, specifically, measurments of divisions of tetrachords given in cents. Didn't you notice this? She posted it in posts addressed to you, and gave sources! Cris also has presented data, Ozan's papers are full of analyses. I spent hours measuring, checking, rechecking, the measurments of the fretting on the baglama I bought in Istanbul and posted data here. Yet I have not seen one word from you acknowledging even the existence of ANY of these figures!
>
> Now, why would that be (laughing out loud)? Because looking at (and more importantly, listening to) the figures presented, it is obvious to any thoughtful and informed person that, while designation of the intervals in question may not be best described by means of rationals, it is nevertheless entirely reasonable to do so, and reasons have been given.
>
> You asked for historical bearing plans for rational maqam tunings, yet when Cris spoke of a specific historic bearing plan, you said not a word! Meanwhile everyone with a genuine basic understanding and even a brief acquaintance with maqam was already laughing, for the
> undeniable presence of historical Pythagorean tuning schemes ARE bearing plans.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Now why would it necessary to resort to rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a position? Why claim "not a peep" from "experts" when there is noone claiming expert, and have been plenty of peeps? That's easy to answer. The "peeps" came with sensible explanations as to why those peeping choose to use rationals in their descriptions. When the tactic is to discredit anyone who disagrees with you as a delusional, it is imperative not to draw attention to the instances of clues reasonably presented.
>
> Tell me, Carl: should I not call the 7/6 fretted deliberately, clearly and with remarkable precision, on my baglama a 7/6? Why on G-d's earth would I NOT call it a 7/6? Because it's not 24-tET? Because 7/6 doesn't "qualify" according to the pretty "harmonic entropy" graph? Give me a good reason.
>
> If you are unable to give me a good reason, intellectual honesty demands that you back off your position of categorical dismal of using rationals in the description of maqam tunings. It's a braying-jackass position anyway, as you won't find a sane person on earth who would deny the plethora of Pythagorean strucures in maqam tunings- and a moment's thought reveals these as rationaly constructed as well.
>
> I await with delight the witnessing of your weasling with aplomb out of answering me here, nevertheless ever hoping against hope for a straight answer.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>

Your perception of developments up to now is a TRAVESTY, sir. I refuse
to engage Carl at his level because of his insufferable bending and
twisting of many facets of genuine research, his uninformed taunts and
lashings, and his regular breaches of netiquette as a moderator. It
matters not to him if he has been answered unless he is satisfied with
replies at his own degree of sophistry.

And what can be said to my "so-called ignorance" of the fact that Mark
Nowitzky is the owner while Joseph Pehrson, David Bowen and Gene Ward
Smith are the other three (apparently figurehead) moderators of Tuning
List? What more of his baseless claim that I wished to become moderator
but lacked support? What of his absurd claims of having disproven "my
pet theories" and "shooing" me away for my observing the need for a new
moderator who will serve the interests of the group instead of his
personal amusement?

And what counter-evidence is required for people like you who do not
bother to read and comprehend the material readily available on the
internet which we have at numerous times pointed to and all the
references they contain - notwithstanding thousands of posts already
comprising much insight into these matters? It's scandalous that you
think you are entitled to revile a Doctor of Musicology with such
astounding seizures of illiteracy or to imagine you are at a position to
guide me to tolerance, civil discourse and "maturity" in the face of
such imperious patronizing ignorance.

I am an author of dissertations, articles, a book and much composition
featuring demonstrations of my microtonal/xentonal pursuits. What is
Carl the author of, I fail to see all these years? Delinquent spats at
academia?

Indeed, your outrageous display of snobbery leaves the absence of proper
moderation on this list even more bare.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

cityoftheasleep wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>> Chris, I hold still that there is not proper moderation in this list -
>> especially if the moderator himself is engaging in senseless attacks and
>> antagonizations (at times even bordering on estimation of a particular
>> belief in the form of snide remarks toward a religion being no more than
>> an empire, analysis of its tolerance to "god of Abraham" faiths, infant
>> circumcision's evils, and other off-topic maunder).
>
> There certainly is NOT proper moderation of this list, for if there was, your juvenile spat with Carl, unbecoming attitude of intellectual martyrdom, and slew of pointlessly antagonistic posts would have been silenced LONG ago. A man with your background and credentials ought to be ashamed of the depths of childish mudslinging to which you have sunk in response to a disagreement that should have been settled through evidence and careful debate. That small initial disagreement--which I'm sure you cannot recollect the specifics of without a search through the forum archives--had the potential to spark an enlightening debate about the appropriate use of ratios in the music of various cultures (among other things). Yet instead of challenging Carl's stance through counter-evidence and counter-argument, you descended into a tantrum of intellectual martyrdom and completely abandoned any attempts at civil discourse.
>
> Were you nearly as mature and enlightened as you fancy yourself, you'd have had the tact and dignity to ignore any petty slights directed at you, as well as the civility to handle disagreements with a degree equanimity and tolerance.
>
> Whatever complaints you previously had of this list can be applied with equal validity to your own conduct, and rather than improving the quality of discourse on this list by initiating relevant discussions on appropriate topics, you've busied yourself for the last several months with doing little more than whining and demanding more strict moderation. More time has been wasted by your complaints than by anything you initially complained about. You, more so than anyone else who has posted in the last few months, are deserving of being moderated, and I hope you (and the next moderator) realize that.
>
> -Igs
>
>

Ozan~
Just so we are all clear here.
Wasn't your work originally based on Can Akkoc research measurements of singers. So regardless of the results and methods we can safely say it is based on actual measurements of actual practitioners as a point of departure.
I am sure there is more to this than what i outline here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Cameron,
>
> Kind, encouraging words from you below are much appreciated. However, as
> I always say, I am far from being an "expert" in Turkish Maqam music,
> let alone other neighbouring genres in the region. I merely think of
> myself as having delved into the particulars of maqam theory in academic
> curiosity and believe to have been instrumental in establishing some of
> its hidden and cryptic intonation peculiars in my very own perception.
> Also, I have been active in contributing here and there to the
> development of maqam theory software. My myriad dialogues with Margo
> almost frequently witness me admitting that so and so is my personal
> take of the matter of maqam intonation.
>
> You have elucidated very well the reasons that apply to my refusal to
> engage Carl at his level. But the problem for me is not his tone -
> rather, what I believe to be his tendency to rely on his status as
> moderator in lashing out against everyone unchecked.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> cameron wrote:
> > Speaking for myself, I would prefer to have you, Carl, continue to be moderator. This is purely selfish on my part, but I think others could benefit from your moderatorship as I do, if they were to reevaluate how your views and your expression of them relates to making music.
> >
> > I find that you, for me, are a dynamite devil's advocate, for it seems obvious to me that you ruthlessly and in a highly entertaining manner try to implement your approach to understanding tuning as some kind of standard. Your reasoning is excellent and consistent, but the foundations upon which it is built are falsehoods and half-truths.
> >
> > This, in conjunction with your passionate advocacy of your position, I find in my personal experience to be a wonderful catalyst to music making, for the consistency of your reasoning allows the basic assumptions from which you proceed to be tested almost if they were genuine theories. The dry and almost algorithmic demonstration of the invalidity of the basic premises you advocate has been, for a couple of years now! a source of musical seeds for me: the few seconds it takes to demonstrate in musical practice the invalidity, or at best highly conditional validity, of, for example, harmonic entropy, has provided concrete sonic entities which explode in musical potentials and the beauty of truth.
> >
> > I must credit the methodical argument against the superb structure of your reasonings, based on your spectacular failure to grasp the ABC's of sound and the creation of music, with the some of the deepest musical advances I've made in my life.
> >
> > Let's take an example:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@> wrote:
> >
> >> While all this is going on, I've been trying to make
> >> productive posts. Actual analysis of maqam recordings?
> >> Doesn't get a peep out of the maqam experts.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >>
> >
> > Wonderful, wonderful! First, the delighful dash of sneaky sophistry:
> > "experts". What experts? Only Dr. Yarman has any claim to be an expert in this case. His claim here, in mainstream terms, is rock solid- a doctorate in the field, in a "maqam" culture no less. Vastly more important to me is the fact that I have met and spent a several hours with Ozan in real life, and would have to place him easily in "top ten f*cking intimidatingly good ears I've ever met". I don't wish to embarass Ozan here, but I did not tell him at that time that in the "headliner" group which performed after mine in Istanbul were two musicians who know Ozan- speaking to them afterward, I found that they shared the same opinion of his superb abilities.
> >
> > So, we have someone with a legitimate mainstream claim to being a genuine expert, and interested parties probably highly skilled and perhaps "expert" in other perhaps closely related, or not particularly closely related, areas. But obviously no "experts", plural, and not a soul- not even the one who could easily do so! saying such things as "as an expert in maqam music, I..." So why use such a patently false expression? Why, to create the delusion that those who speak on the topic are claiming to speak from inarguable authority. Sophistry of the slickest make- I'm always absolutely delighted to see you in action, Carl! You ROCK! (doing Il Cornico)
> >
> > To continue!
> >
> > Margo has posted, numerous times, data from analyses of maqam recordings, specifically, measurments of divisions of tetrachords given in cents. Didn't you notice this? She posted it in posts addressed to you, and gave sources! Cris also has presented data, Ozan's papers are full of analyses. I spent hours measuring, checking, rechecking, the measurments of the fretting on the baglama I bought in Istanbul and posted data here. Yet I have not seen one word from you acknowledging even the existence of ANY of these figures!
> >
> > Now, why would that be (laughing out loud)? Because looking at (and more importantly, listening to) the figures presented, it is obvious to any thoughtful and informed person that, while designation of the intervals in question may not be best described by means of rationals, it is nevertheless entirely reasonable to do so, and reasons have been given.
> >
> > You asked for historical bearing plans for rational maqam tunings, yet when Cris spoke of a specific historic bearing plan, you said not a word! Meanwhile everyone with a genuine basic understanding and even a brief acquaintance with maqam was already laughing, for the
> > undeniable presence of historical Pythagorean tuning schemes ARE bearing plans.
> >
> > Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Now why would it necessary to resort to rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a position? Why claim "not a peep" from "experts" when there is noone claiming expert, and have been plenty of peeps? That's easy to answer. The "peeps" came with sensible explanations as to why those peeping choose to use rationals in their descriptions. When the tactic is to discredit anyone who disagrees with you as a delusional, it is imperative not to draw attention to the instances of clues reasonably presented.
> >
> > Tell me, Carl: should I not call the 7/6 fretted deliberately, clearly and with remarkable precision, on my baglama a 7/6? Why on G-d's earth would I NOT call it a 7/6? Because it's not 24-tET? Because 7/6 doesn't "qualify" according to the pretty "harmonic entropy" graph? Give me a good reason.
> >
> > If you are unable to give me a good reason, intellectual honesty demands that you back off your position of categorical dismal of using rationals in the description of maqam tunings. It's a braying-jackass position anyway, as you won't find a sane person on earth who would deny the plethora of Pythagorean strucures in maqam tunings- and a moment's thought reveals these as rationaly constructed as well.
> >
> > I await with delight the witnessing of your weasling with aplomb out of answering me here, nevertheless ever hoping against hope for a straight answer.
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
> >
> >
>

Cameron>"Tell me, Carl: should I not call the 7/6 fretted deliberately, clearly
and with remarkable precision, on my baglama a 7/6? Why on G-d's earth would I
NOT call it a 7/6? Because it's not 24-tET? Because 7/6 doesn't "qualify"
according to the pretty "harmonic entropy" graph? Give me a good reason."

This is much a point of mine. Carl is very productive and encourages
productivity, but ONLY to his pet theories and even go so far as to openly
denounce experts in other theories as if . Harmonic Entropy is one of such pet
theories (perhaps his favorite beside Miller's 9-10 note limit for interpretable
scales or that all "good"/consonant chords must fit the harmonic series in
low-limit). His ignorance of Ozan, Margo, and Cris's specific examples seem to
directly agree me my observation that he's not ignoring these things because he
can find real flaws, but because the "major flaw" he finds is they don't match
any of his pet theories.

Granted, music is an art so, to some degree, everyone has their "pet
theories". But going so far as saying "my theory is right, therefore everyone
else's must be wrong" is a ridiculous stance for anyone, especially a moderator,
to take.
Oddly enough, that's been Carl's main thrust for canceling posts of,
disallowing uploads from, or throwing people off the list and ridicule,
including Marcel, Charles Lucy, myself, and others (odd fact, unlike the other
two mention, I NEVER said anything about "having the only correct answer (esp.
to consonance)"). And yet, I swear, he does the violating guilty action of
claiming he has the only answer far more than any of the people he complains
about.

And goes to the point of actively discouraging virtually any innovation not
related to his pet-theories (IE if someone said his pet-theory was an "only
correct answer"). And there-in lies the problem...his being a draconian block
to community progress in most cases (minus arguments that fit his pet
theories). It takes a stronger man...to realize more than one person can have a
good theory about the same subject, for example...

Sorry, I should have answered off-list with private message to Carl. Posting something like that to a forum tends to stir things up. Because then instead of a message to him, which is how I intended it, it becomes a complaint about him to the entire group.

A few years ago metatuning was the place to talk about this sort of thing as a way to keep it out of the main list - but not any more, it seems to have changed its character. Maybe a meta meta tuning??

Anyway I don't know what the solution is.

As I have only dipped in here a couple of times or so this year have no idea of the context at all, and it is best for me to just bow out of the discussion at this point.

But hope things get sorted out!

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> > Carl, I've no idea what the context of this is, but really,
> > "What have I done to earn your scorn?"
> > That's like asking "Why are you so bad?"
>
> An excellent point, Robert!

Remember the rest of the post where I say what a good choice of moderator he was originally. Whether he still is I am not in a position to say, though something is obviously not working quite right. Usually moderation is almost invisible, with clear rules e.g. no spam, and no trolling, and members know why they were banned when they are banned and know why posts were deleted. So when moderation itself becomes an issue something has gone wrong, but what I don't know.

Maybe the forum rules aren't as clear as they should be? Or something to do with personality clashes which aren't really moderation issues but have got mixed up with the moderation process?

??

Hi Ozan,

> Your perception of developments up to now is a TRAVESTY, sir.
> I refuse to engage Carl at his level because of his insufferable
> bending and twisting of many facets of genuine research,

Which ones are those? If what you say is true, it should be
easy for you to demonstrate.

> You have elucidated very well the reasons that apply to my
> refusal to engage Carl at his level. But the problem for me
> is not his tone - rather, what I believe to be his tendency to
> rely on his status as moderator in lashing out against
> everyone unchecked.

We'll see if your behavior changes when I'm no longer a
moderator.

> (apparently figurehead)

Yes, figureheads. In fact, David Bowen doesn't even exist.
It's an account I made up to gain more power over the list.

-Carl

Hi Cameron,

> Let's take an example:
>
> > While all this is going on, I've been trying to make
> > productive posts. Actual analysis of maqam recordings?
> > Doesn't get a peep out of the maqam experts.
>
> Wonderful, wonderful! First, the delighful dash of sneaky
> sophistry: "experts". What experts?

There are many experts in maqam music here, including Ozan,
his former adviser, and many others, and I was more than
sincere in my desire to see them contribute something to
the discussion.

> Ozan- speaking to them afterward, I found that they shared
> the same opinion of his superb abilities.

I have no doubt Ozan is a fine musician. Though his Chopin
needs work, he plays it considerably better than I can.

> So, we have someone with a legitimate mainstream claim to
> being a genuine expert,

The claim is based on publications, which you can read for
yourself.

> Margo has posted, numerous times, data from analyses of maqam
> recordings, specifically, measurments of divisions of
> tetrachords given in cents. Didn't you notice this?

No, I didn't. Where are they?

> She posted it in posts addressed to you, and gave sources!

I suggest you read those posts again.

> Cris also has presented data,

Where?

> Ozan's papers are full of analyses.

I addressed them already.

> I spent hours measuring, checking, rechecking, the measurments
> of the fretting on the baglama I bought in Istanbul and posted
> data here. Yet I have not seen one word from you acknowledging
> even the existence of ANY of these figures!

That post I do not recall. Where is it?

> Now, why would that be (laughing out loud)? Because looking
> at (and more importantly, listening to) the figures presented,
> it is obvious to any thoughtful and informed person that, while
> designation of the intervals in question may not be best
> described by means of rationals, it is nevertheless entirely
> reasonable to do so, and reasons have been given.

What reasons? It isn't reasonable at all, as is obvious to
anyone with a speck of quantitative training. And note,
Can Akkoc has never put his name on a paper using such methods.

> You asked for historical bearing plans for rational maqam
> tunings, yet when Cris spoke of a specific historic bearing
> plan,

Cris gave no bearing plans that I saw.

> Meanwhile everyone with a genuine basic understanding and
> even a brief acquaintance with maqam was already laughing,
> for the undeniable presence of historical Pythagorean tuning
> schemes ARE bearing plans.

Who's disputing Pythagorean intervals? No, we're talking
about your extended rationals.

> Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Now why would it necessary to resort to
> rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a position?

I wasn't. I was being sincere.

> Tell me, Carl: should I not call the 7/6 fretted deliberately,
> clearly and with remarkable precision, on my baglama a 7/6?

Perhaps you should. I did, after all, say that 7/6 seems to
be a major attractor in maqam tetrachords, based on the
data in Akkoc et al. Do you even know what you're arguing
against?

> I await with delight the witnessing of your weasling with
> aplomb out of answering me here, nevertheless ever hoping
> against hope for a straight answer.

A dose of humility would take you a long way.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> And what can be said to my "so-called ignorance" of the fact that Mark
> Nowitzky is the owner while Joseph Pehrson, David Bowen and Gene Ward
> Smith are the other three (apparently figurehead) moderators of Tuning
> List?

Moderation is mostly deleting spam and spammers, approving messages, and approving membership, which I do. I'm reluctant to place people on moderated status, especially if they are contributing something which strikes me as of value, which even someone who might be regarded as a crank can do. Since this tussle is between people who contribute things of value, I'm happy to play the role of King Log. If people want a moderator who is active when it comes to putting people on moderated status, I am not their man.

/tuning/topicId_93812.html#93841
/tuning/topicId_93182.html#93730

Should get you started. It's possible you simply haven't read through all the relevant posts.

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

> (Cameron wrote:)
> > Ozan's papers are full of analyses.
>
> I addressed them already.

Can you show me where you address specifics in them? Perhaps I simply missed that, too.

>
> > Now, why would that be (laughing out loud)? Because looking
> > at (and more importantly, listening to) the figures presented,
> > it is obvious to any thoughtful and informed person that, while
> > designation of the intervals in question may not be best
> > described by means of rationals, it is nevertheless entirely
> > reasonable to do so, and reasons have been given.
>
> What reasons? It isn't reasonable at all, as is obvious to
> anyone with a speck of quantitative training. And note,
> Can Akkoc has never put his name on a paper using such methods.

Read through the posts again. Margo and Cris gave reasons, as did I.

I'll give reasons again: I think giving cent values creates as illusion of an accuracy which isn't there, and can't physically be there on an acoustic instrument. Whereas ratios either give the address according to the lowest nearest coincident partials, or according to the "bearing plan" (for example 81:64 is a complex ratio, but its "etymology" reveals its simple bearing plan), or according to context (for example the strange complex intervals in old texts often reveal themselves as what lies between simple intervals), or even according to mechanical fretting instructions ("drop this fret right in the middle between the frets of a Pythagorean minor and major third").

Would you call what I just said "unreasonable"?

-Cameron Bobro

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> It's scandalous that you think you are entitled to revile a Doctor of Musicology with such astounding seizures of illiteracy or to imagine you are at a position to guide me to tolerance, civil discourse and "maturity" in the face of such imperious patronizing ignorance.
>
> I am an author of dissertations, articles, a book and much composition featuring demonstrations of my microtonal/xentonal pursuits. What is Carl the author of, I fail to see all these years? Delinquent spats at academia?

If you want to be treated like a doctor of musicology, then you should
probably act like one. For example, in this thread:

/tuning/topicId_93451.html#93454

you insult a guy's 15-year old son in a way that displays zero class,
and then in here

/tuning/topicId_93513.html#93513

you put him on your spam filter for giving probably the nicest
reaction to someone's progeny being insulted I've ever seen.

I have lost quite a bit of respect for you this last month. I think
that the "general trend" around here is the same.

-Mike

Mike wrote:

> If you want to be treated like a doctor of musicology, then
> you should probably act like one. For example, in this thread:
>
> /tuning/topicId_93451.html#93454
>
> you insult a guy's 15-year old son in a way that displays
> zero class, and then in here
>
> /tuning/topicId_93513.html#93513
>
> you put him on your spam filter for giving probably the nicest
> reaction to someone's progeny being insulted I've ever seen.

Indeed, I thought Dan's replies were a excellent example
of civility. They seemed to infuriate Ozan. Unfortunately
he only seems to allow for English being his 2nd language
in one direction.

-Carl

Cameron wrote:

> /tuning/topicId_93812.html#93841

Since the bearing plan wasn't given, we don't know if this
has anything to do with the price of tea.

> /tuning/topicId_93182.html#93730

I did miss this. Could we see a photo of this instrument?
How did you determine these cents values?

Your interpretation of the cents values seems reasonable,
except for 26/21 (and I would guess the limma is eyeballed).
But perhaps a photo of the marks used to divide lengths,
along with an explanation of how it was done, could
establish your interpretation.

> Should get you started. It's possible you simply haven't read
> through all the relevant posts.

I read all the posts here. Of course I can't correctly
interpret and remember everything -- no one can. Though
Paul Erlich came damn close.

> > > Ozan's papers are full of analyses.
> >
> > I addressed them already.
>
> Can you show me where you address specifics in them?
> Perhaps I simply missed that, too.

I addressed this paper in numerous posts to you, Ozan, Margo,
Michael, and others. To summarize, the data collection seems
excellent, though access to the raw data is desired, and the
approach used to analyze it is wanting. Here are two notable
posts:
/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90119?var=0&l=1
/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90163

> > What reasons? It isn't reasonable at all, as is obvious to
> > anyone with a speck of quantitative training. And note,
> > Can Akkoc has never put his name on a paper using such methods.
>
> Read through the posts again. Margo and Cris gave reasons,
> as did I.

Let's see single-sentence bullets for them, then. Because
I haven't seen any reasons from the authors you mention, just
a bunch of poetic appeals to, apparently, ecstatic experiences
had while performing music.

> I'll give reasons again: I think giving cent values creates-
> as illusion of an accuracy which isn't there,

That's why I've recommended distributions, such as those
sought by Can Akkoc, since the beginning of this thread and
in fact, since years before you or Ozan joined the list.

> or even according to mechanical fretting instructions
> ("drop this fret right in the middle between the frets of
> a Pythagorean minor and major third").

Dividing the space between rational frets r1 and r2, where
r1 and r2 are RI pitches, gives their average, (r1+r2)/2.
Is there evidence such a procedure is used systematically
by maqam musicians or instrument makers?

In the fret data you gave, 26/21 is not the result of
dividing any of the other frets this way.

-Carl

I think there would be a natural disposition for any string player to do this even those without mathematical approach.
One choses two sounds on an unfretted string and it seems the one in the middle would be a point of curiosity.
One of the fun things about Forster's book is the many varied examples of how equal divisions of strings have been used. Barely two cultures have applied this in exactly the same way. almost out of pride they each invent their own.
One is struck by how much of our history is subharmonically based, even though these days "science' is driving everyone to harmonic and nothing else.
It is a n interesting topic

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

>
> Dividing the space between rational frets r1 and r2, where
> r1 and r2 are RI pitches, gives their average, (r1+r2)/2.
> Is there evidence such a procedure is used systematically
> by maqam musicians or instrument makers?
>
> In the fret data you gave, 26/21 is not the result of
> dividing any of the other frets this way.
>
> -Carl
>

Ozan,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> It's scandalous that you think you are entitled to revile a Doctor
> of Musicology with such astounding seizures of illiteracy or to
> imagine you are at a position to guide me to tolerance, civil
> discourse and "maturity" in the face of such imperious patronizing
> ignorance.

Since when has holding of a doctorate (and in musicology?!) implied a
superior capability for civil conduct? In fact your conduct
completely disproves any such implication.

> I am an author of dissertations, articles, a book and much
> composition featuring demonstrations of my microtonal/xentonal
> pursuits. What is Carl the author of, I fail to see all these
> years? Delinquent spats at academia?

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

Kalle Aho

I just caught Mike Battaglia's post in Carl's response - lending the impression of acting in "spite" due perhaps to the fact that he "resents" being still blocked in my servers for his endless circular postings (20-30 a day). (This after recalling having caught a bit from him in the near past on how my decision to filter his mail affected him emotionally and adversely.)

Sadly enough, the intensity of assaults at my profession instead of my ideas & observations have reached a fever pitch with these latest fits of bending and twisting of facts. It goes without saying that I am NOT moved by prejudiced misconceptions and unfair pillorizing attempts against my person.

Not that this is the place... but since it has been brought up, let me state that anybody with enough decency and good sense can see that I did not insult Dan's son, but delivered my personal opinion on the presented music based on taste, after, unfortunately, making the mistake of taking the post seriously and at face value. Not knowing my personal communication with Dan following his implying "my awfulness" and subsequent provocations to that effect, Mike had jumped at the first oppurtunity to denounce me as "having lost it". Kalle, who had chimed in with this Battaglia wave, has been promptly informed of the truth of why I blocked Dan, but this is all beside the point.

What is the point? A league uniting against "Dr. Oz. the terrible beast of TL", for what? Because I refused to engage Carl at the level of his casuistric and evasive altercations for his amusement and criticized him for his traducements? Because I observe the dire need to install a moderator who can restore the peace and order to this list and refuse to bow to his condescensions?

Really! Moderators? Are there any left who will put a stop to this character assasination madness?

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> If you want to be treated like a doctor of musicology, then
>> you should probably act like one. For example, in this thread:
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_93451.html#93454
>>
>> you insult a guy's 15-year old son in a way that displays
>> zero class, and then in here
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_93513.html#93513
>>
>> you put him on your spam filter for giving probably the nicest
>> reaction to someone's progeny being insulted I've ever seen.
>
> Indeed, I thought Dan's replies were a excellent example
> of civility. They seemed to infuriate Ozan. Unfortunately
> he only seems to allow for English being his 2nd language
> in one direction.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I just caught Mike Battaglia's post in Carl's response - lending the impression of acting in "spite" due perhaps to the fact that he "resents" being still blocked in my servers for his endless circular postings (20-30 a day). (This after recalling having caught a bit from him in the near past on how my decision to filter his mail affected him emotionally and adversely.)

I don't resent it at all. I think you're a prick, and if you haven't
noticed, lots of people on here seem to be thinking the same way. Have
you perhaps not noticed this simple fact?

> Sadly enough, the intensity of assaults at my profession instead of my ideas & observations have reached a fever pitch with these latest fits of bending and twisting of facts. It goes without saying that I am NOT moved by prejudiced misconceptions and unfair pillorizing attempts against my person.

How happy I am to have received this window into your hurt feelings.
Since you're such a nice guy, we certainly all empathize with the fact
that your feelings have been hurt. Thanks for including all of us in
this.

> Not that this is the place... but since it has been brought up, let me state that anybody with enough decency and good sense can see that I did not insult Dan's son, but delivered my personal opinion on the presented music based on taste, after, unfortunately, making the mistake of taking the post seriously and at face value. Not knowing my personal communication with Dan following his implying "my awfulness" and subsequent provocations to that effect, Mike had jumped at the first oppurtunity to denounce me as "having lost it". Kalle, who had chimed in with this Battaglia wave, has been promptly informed of the truth of why I blocked Dan, but this is all beside the point.

LOL, OK. Sorry you're losing "political support." Maybe you should
chill out for a bit.

> What is the point? A league uniting against "Dr. Oz. the terrible beast of TL", for what? Because I refused to engage Carl at the level of his casuistric and evasive altercations for his amusement and criticized him for his traducements? Because I observe the dire need to install a moderator who can restore the peace and order to this list and refuse to bow to his condescensions?

Because you're an obnoxious punk. The source of a significant portion
of the frustration on this list for the last month is you. You seem to
be amusingly unaware of this simple fact.

> Really! Moderators? Are there any left who will put a stop to this character assasination madness?

Hopefully they'll tell you to shut up. You're an astonishingly
arrogant person who lacks self-awareness. Every post out of you in the
past 2 months has been comprised of a humorous mix of insults, and
then your whining when people don't take to them kindly, and then some
kind of strange plea to forgive you, as English isn't your first
language, expressed ironically in unnecessarily ornate English. Throw
in some ridiculous pleas for everyone to stop posting so that you
don't have to click the "Daily Digest" button, or set up a basic email
filter, and you have Oz in a nutshell. Grow up.

-Mike

A note from the sidelines:

I understand Dr Ozan's point about the confusion with e-based communication
and others not having engaged in the same personal dialogue with those
involved. I recommend citing this at the time with a comment such as "Based
on personal communications, I feel I have become the crux of an
unbalanced..".

The name-calling seems out of line with what I am used to on a board or
list. I doubt this is the kind of interaction we would be having face to
face, were we all around a society forum table. It seems to me nearly all of
the main contributors to this list have engaged in it, although Dr Ozan has
at least attempted to maintain the appearance of decorum. I suppose this
just comes down to concensus, though; some don't mind the hard-knocks
approach.

I understand this is personal for everyone, esp those who have been heavily
involved with this list for much time, and those who have roles of
significance. I am sorry, though, that I am not getting the benefit of the
musical explorations of the many individuals who were contributing here. I
don't mind if someone gets a little cocky now and then. Some of the best
writers, for instance, often say "Thank God I didn't know how bad my early
attempts were or I may have quit trying". That said, the pursuits of Marcel
and others are exciting to me. They seem interesting and earnest to me. No
one knows everything, and the seeking among us might find the next spark of
inspiration in the question of a child. No ethnomusicologist whatsoever, I
do know that there are many historical traditions, some known and some
guessed about, some great and some outmoded. Everything disappears in the
fog of history. If there are those among us who can make out the colored
lights, I kindly suggest they use their great talents to shine that light on
the efforts of others (and themselves), esp those on this list, whose
interest, grasp, and facility in talking about music and related research
strikes me as powerfully creative and technically knowledgable.

I do see circular arguments occur, as well as misunderstandings that could
be cleared up by more concision or emphasis and better comprehension. IME,
repetitive arguments can sometimes best be solved by just agreeing to
disagree and moving on from there.

Dan N (yet another Dan)

Good post!

One thing I find sometimes helps when discussions get heated is to just stop taking part for a short time, say a week or a month depending as appropriate. You may find when you get back that everyone has forgotten about it, especially if it was something very minor originally that just got blown up as so often happens with forums.

It's difficult, as there is a great tendency to want to have the last word before you go - and then the other person wants to have their last word too, and you never find a moment to leave. Sometimes you feel that both parties to the discussion are fed up of the whole thing and both want to stop but neither can see how to do it - a bit like rutting stags fighting, neither feel they can stop so it can go on for hours.

But if you stop after the other person has had their last word - that's often a good point to stop, let them have their say. Let them win. Especially if it is some really minor thing that has got blown up out of all proportion, which you don't really feel strongly about even.

Just a thought.

Robert
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...> wrote:
>
> A note from the sidelines:
>
> I understand Dr Ozan's point about the confusion with e-based communication
> and others not having engaged in the same personal dialogue with those
> involved. I recommend citing this at the time with a comment such as "Based
> on personal communications, I feel I have become the crux of an
> unbalanced..".
>
> The name-calling seems out of line with what I am used to on a board or
> list. I doubt this is the kind of interaction we would be having face to
> face, were we all around a society forum table. It seems to me nearly all of
> the main contributors to this list have engaged in it, although Dr Ozan has
> at least attempted to maintain the appearance of decorum. I suppose this
> just comes down to concensus, though; some don't mind the hard-knocks
> approach.
>
> I understand this is personal for everyone, esp those who have been heavily
> involved with this list for much time, and those who have roles of
> significance. I am sorry, though, that I am not getting the benefit of the
> musical explorations of the many individuals who were contributing here. I
> don't mind if someone gets a little cocky now and then. Some of the best
> writers, for instance, often say "Thank God I didn't know how bad my early
> attempts were or I may have quit trying". That said, the pursuits of Marcel
> and others are exciting to me. They seem interesting and earnest to me. No
> one knows everything, and the seeking among us might find the next spark of
> inspiration in the question of a child. No ethnomusicologist whatsoever, I
> do know that there are many historical traditions, some known and some
> guessed about, some great and some outmoded. Everything disappears in the
> fog of history. If there are those among us who can make out the colored
> lights, I kindly suggest they use their great talents to shine that light on
> the efforts of others (and themselves), esp those on this list, whose
> interest, grasp, and facility in talking about music and related research
> strikes me as powerfully creative and technically knowledgable.
>
> I do see circular arguments occur, as well as misunderstandings that could
> be cleared up by more concision or emphasis and better comprehension. IME,
> repetitive arguments can sometimes best be solved by just agreeing to
> disagree and moving on from there.
>
> Dan N (yet another Dan)
>

Carl, you said it "isn't reasonable at all" to use rationals in
describing maqam tunings.
I responded:

"I'll give reasons again: I think giving cent values creates as illusion
of an
accuracy which isn't there, and can't physically be there on an acoustic
instrument. Whereas ratios either give the address according to the
lowest
nearest coincident partials, or according to the "bearing plan" (for
example
81:64 is a complex ratio, but its "etymology" reveals its simple bearing
plan),
or according to context (for example the strange complex intervals in
old texts
often reveal themselves as what lies between simple intervals), or even
according to mechanical fretting instructions ("drop this fret right in
the
middle between the frets of a Pythagorean minor and major third")."

And then I said:

"Would you call what I just said "unreasonable"?"

I'm happy to go into fretting, analysing data and so on, and I will do
so.
But first I need to tell you that unless you have the intellectual
honesty
to admit that yes, my reasons given for using rationals are indeed
"reasonable",
I just won't be able to take you seriously.

My reasons may be "wrong"! But they are reasoned, thoughtful, and
informed.

Having done a great deal of pitch measurement over the years, I can
also give
very sensible reasons for using ratios in a number of pitch-measuring
situations
where it would at first seem an unlikely thing to do.

-Cameron Bobro

Cameron~
I think the post about circular arguments has been made already.
Usually people come to some conclusion after the fact of these things, at least i do when they have happened in the past. It is never enjoyable to be misunderstood, but i don't think your original post was. Keep up the fine music~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carl, you said it "isn't reasonable at all" to use rationals in
> describing maqam tunings.
> I responded:
>
> "I'll give reasons again: I think giving cent values creates as illusion
> of an
> accuracy which isn't there, and can't physically be there on an acoustic
> instrument. Whereas ratios either give the address according to the
> lowest
> nearest coincident partials, or according to the "bearing plan" (for
> example
> 81:64 is a complex ratio, but its "etymology" reveals its simple bearing
> plan),
> or according to context (for example the strange complex intervals in
> old texts
> often reveal themselves as what lies between simple intervals), or even
> according to mechanical fretting instructions ("drop this fret right in
> the
> middle between the frets of a Pythagorean minor and major third")."
>
> And then I said:
>
> "Would you call what I just said "unreasonable"?"
>
> I'm happy to go into fretting, analysing data and so on, and I will do
> so.
> But first I need to tell you that unless you have the intellectual
> honesty
> to admit that yes, my reasons given for using rationals are indeed
> "reasonable",
> I just won't be able to take you seriously.
>
> My reasons may be "wrong"! But they are reasoned, thoughtful, and
> informed.
>
> Having done a great deal of pitch measurement over the years, I can
> also give
> very sensible reasons for using ratios in a number of pitch-measuring
> situations
> where it would at first seem an unlikely thing to do.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Kalle to Ozan>"Since when has holding of a doctorate (and in musicology?!)
implied a superior capability for civil conduct? In fact your conduct
completely disproves any such implication."

No, Ozan's holding a doctorate does not imply "superior capability for civil
conduct". On the other hand, pointing accusations like Carl has at someone who
has done the amount of work and study that Ozan has is certainly a terrible
example of civil discourse on Carl's part. Cameron brought up what appears to
be the same argument: that he does not expect Carl to agree with him his idea is
right, but does, to an extent, hope to be fairly credited as having done hard,
fairly well thought out work on the topic at hand. The fact Ozan uses the word
maturity seems a bit confusing...but I believe what he means is equivalent to
it's not exactly mature to "tell a black belt sensei he has no clue about
martial arts because he does a different and in your opinion less useful type of
martial art than you do".

Another example: personally I think Tenney Height is grossly over-rated and
can give many counter examples of what consonances it can't seem to find well.
Meanwhile others on the list, specifically with regards to harmonic entropy,
have given many well thought out and specific examples of what Tenney Height can
do. But, rather than claiming such people are in some ways (IMVHO) chasing a
straw man, I give them credit for their work and simply say "yes, it is useful
in these cases, and hopefully could be useful in more ways which have yet to be
proven".

>>>>>>>>>>Civil discourse, to me, is simply an attitude toward help develop things into
>>>>>>>>>>their best possible forms, even when you don't agree with the goal or
>>>>>>>>>>foundational methods they use. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority"
The idea, as I understand it, is that a "master"'s claim falls apart when,
because of that master's authority, he refuses to let the claim be challenged.
Only Ozan has, so far I can see, let the claim be challenged and doesn't seem to
refuse to hear anything else than his answer is the best but, instead, wants to
at least get some credibility for his vast efforts (is that really so much to
ask)?

Robert>"But if you stop after the other person has had their last word - that's
often a good point to stop, let them have their say. Let them win. Especially if
it is some really minor thing that has got blown up out of all proportion, which
you don't really feel strongly about even."

I only wish people like Chris and Carl would stop there. There have been
times when I've been off the list for a month or more and they'll still be
bringing up my so called "circular arguments". They'll bring out things like
arguments we've had about scales I made over two years ago as if I were still
"stuck" on those when I haven't mentioned them for years even when I do
communicate on-list.
I'm just thinking....for crying out loud, can't you guys just drop it and let
me live?!?!

For people like Marcel and John, they have both been off the list for many
many months and still gets sparred (yet I digress, even I have sparred
them...though I try to make clear their past actions on this list were bad but
his actions on the tuning-research list have been very civil and they really
does seem to honestly value productivity to the community, even if at times
toward "odd" goals). John even wrote me a personal e-mail not to say how angry
he was at me (which he actually had somewhat of a right to be), but to express
his apologies and Marcel has done similar things. Both have also admitted their
theories are not "perfect"...meanwhile I never mentioned my alternative theories
were perfect in the first place, at best, I credited them as "equally strong
alternatives" to things like 31TET and Ptolemy's scales.

In fact the only person I see who has not apologized and admitted having
non-perfect theories is Charles Lucy...and even then the guy commands some
respect as a hard working person who, despite having a system based on
mean-tone, has given of a gift of attracting a great deal of people to
micro-tonality. And what's the point of beating him down anyhow? He's not
slowing anyone else down or telling anyone else "either follow my theory or give
up"...so what's the harm?

I am just amazed how much smack is aimed toward generally good, honest, and
hard-working people on here...EVEN after they have left for months, it's rather
sickening. I am trying to stop making nasty references toward such people and
suggest anyone on the list who is doing the same follow suit.

_,_._,___

Michael,

Oh that's a shame!

I don't know what your theory is but I think the world is a richer place for the likes of Charles Lucy! And I think he has absolutely no need at all to apologise for his theories! Nor you either, whatever your ideas are.

I'm all for eccentrics, we can do with a few more. Science doesn't have the last word, it's just one way of looking at things. And things that were considered very eccentric with little in the way of experimental support, e.g. continental drift, may become mainstream science to a future generation.

Eccentrics who aren't fettered by the rigours of science and maths can explore areas that scientists and mathematicians can't even enter. Even in maths - you get eccentrics such as Ramanujan the brilliant number theorist who proved things in intuitive ways that had the mathematicians nonplussed - but somehow got to correct results as a result.

It's a different matter if e.g. you are a reviewer for a maths or science journal. If you submit a paper or even a letter to e.g. Physics Review, then of course it will be vetted by reviewers who will check its scientific basis carefully before publishing it, and they have to do that as that's what the readers of the magazine expect.

But this is just a forum for goodness sake. A place where people share ideas. Even if you had e.g. some eccentric who says that he gets the ideas for his tunings from dreams sent to him by extra terrestrials living on the surface of Saturn - or something - he is entirely entitled to his point of view, you can try to argue with him, but he doesn't have to apologise for his point of view!

I feel that anything I say is likely to be at a bit of a tangent because I haven't been involved lately. So - sorry if e.g. I step on any toes, it's not intended. But maybe I can say something from a long term perspective, as someone who was active a few years ago, and also someone who cares about alternative tunings and would like to see the forum thriving in a friendly and respectful way even if I can't take part much at present myself.

Anyway three cheers for tuning eccentrics! Keep it up!

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Robert>"But if you stop after the other person has had their last word - that's
> often a good point to stop, let them have their say. Let them win. Especially if
> it is some really minor thing that has got blown up out of all proportion, which
> you don't really feel strongly about even."
>
> I only wish people like Chris and Carl would stop there. There have been
> times when I've been off the list for a month or more and they'll still be
> bringing up my so called "circular arguments". They'll bring out things like
> arguments we've had about scales I made over two years ago as if I were still
> "stuck" on those when I haven't mentioned them for years even when I do
> communicate on-list.
> I'm just thinking....for crying out loud, can't you guys just drop it and let
> me live?!?!
>
>
> For people like Marcel and John, they have both been off the list for many
> many months and still gets sparred (yet I digress, even I have sparred
> them...though I try to make clear their past actions on this list were bad but
> his actions on the tuning-research list have been very civil and they really
> does seem to honestly value productivity to the community, even if at times
> toward "odd" goals). John even wrote me a personal e-mail not to say how angry
> he was at me (which he actually had somewhat of a right to be), but to express
> his apologies and Marcel has done similar things. Both have also admitted their
> theories are not "perfect"...meanwhile I never mentioned my alternative theories
> were perfect in the first place, at best, I credited them as "equally strong
> alternatives" to things like 31TET and Ptolemy's scales.
>
> In fact the only person I see who has not apologized and admitted having
> non-perfect theories is Charles Lucy...and even then the guy commands some
> respect as a hard working person who, despite having a system based on
> mean-tone, has given of a gift of attracting a great deal of people to
> micro-tonality. And what's the point of beating him down anyhow? He's not
> slowing anyone else down or telling anyone else "either follow my theory or give
> up"...so what's the harm?
>
> I am just amazed how much smack is aimed toward generally good, honest, and
> hard-working people on here...EVEN after they have left for months, it's rather
> sickening. I am trying to stop making nasty references toward such people and
> suggest anyone on the list who is doing the same follow suit.
>
> _,_._,___
>

Robert>"I don't know what your theory is but I think the world is a richer place
for the likes of Charles Lucy!"

In fact, I believe so as well...which is references when I said "has given
of a gift of attracting a great deal of people to microtonality". Also to
boot...his scales simply sound good and contain many permutations. People
complain about that generation of his scales can be traced back to the
"not-so-new" art of meantone tuning and that he's applied for a patent on his
scale system...but, regardless, musicians find his efforts useful, he has not by
any means discouraged forms of micro-tonal exploration outside his scales, and
it seems obvious he's a largely positive force in the microtonal community.
Maybe he has a tricky personality in the eyes of many people the way he guards
his work (including to me)...but that doesn't render his work any more useless
in and of itself.

>"Eccentrics who aren't fettered by the rigours of science and maths can explore
>areas that scientists and mathematicians can't even enter. Even in maths - you
>get eccentrics such as Ramanujan the brilliant number theorist who proved things
>in intuitive ways that had the mathematicians nonplussed - but somehow got to
>correct results as a result."
That's much my thinking in many ways: if you can consistently get good
results, any facts about your getting their in a weird way should not be thought
of as crazy but, at the very least, noted as, at worst, intelligent work and, at
best, a pathway to solving new things that older/proven methods can not. Lucy,
I take it, came up with a new way of deriving something that can also be
explained through older methods IE meantone...but that alone certainly doesn't
make the result worse.

>"It's a different matter if e.g. you are a reviewer for a maths or science
>journal. If you submit a paper or even a letter to e.g. Physics Review, then of
>course it will be vetted by reviewers who will check its scientific basis
>carefully before publishing it, and they have to do that as that's what the
>readers of the magazine expect.
Ah, and that's such a huge part of the battles here. There are people here
who do want to equate music as completely scientific for the purpose of this
list and demand word-for-word mathematical proof of every observation...and call
anything which doesn't meet that standard "psuedo-science". I think that's
going too far and music is perhaps 50% art and 50% science/psychoacoustics...but
that's just me.

>"Even if you had e.g. some eccentric who says that he gets the ideas for his
>tunings from dreams sent to him by extra terrestrials living on the surface of
>Saturn - or something - he is entirely entitled to his point of view, you can
>try to argue with him, but he doesn't have to apologise for his point of view!"

Hehehe...well of course ultimately no one does; yet on this list people have
asked them to do just that as if, as you said, the were writing misinformation
to a "Physics Review". The point I was trying to make is it seems to be asking
for a fight to call any musical theory "perfect", especially if that theory
happens to be your own...and (for those who care) people noted as having that
issue have come back to say "I don't mean that now". Meaning even IF this list
were checked over as a "Physics Review" such "extremists" would still be
speaking in good taste.

The argument many seem to be making is that if we allowed people to express
on-topic but "non-scientific" theories on the tuning list everything would boil
down to subjective debate, the list would get flooded, and nothing productive
would ever get done: that we'd start going "in circles" and flood e-mail boxes
while doing so. What's your take on that?

Cameron--
The trouble here is that inaccuracies in both performance and perception make it truly unreasonable to insist on any measurement as a singular ideal. Both rationals and cents values imply an accuracy that isn't there--they are at best landmarks. I think the upshot of this entire debate is that insisting on any standard of measurement for an artform that has some amount of uncertainty built into its foundation is nonsense. Insisting that the intervals performed have any one single unquestionable identity gets no one anywhere, because there is always going to be some valid question about their identity. Many roads lead to the same goal, so far as the performers and audience are concerned, and convenience is typically the strongest priority. So you and Carl are both right, and both wrong. Now please, zip up your fly and let's get on with our lives.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carl, you said it "isn't reasonable at all" to use rationals in
> describing maqam tunings.
> I responded:
>
> "I'll give reasons again: I think giving cent values creates as illusion
> of an
> accuracy which isn't there, and can't physically be there on an acoustic
> instrument. Whereas ratios either give the address according to the
> lowest
> nearest coincident partials, or according to the "bearing plan" (for
> example
> 81:64 is a complex ratio, but its "etymology" reveals its simple bearing
> plan),
> or according to context (for example the strange complex intervals in
> old texts
> often reveal themselves as what lies between simple intervals), or even
> according to mechanical fretting instructions ("drop this fret right in
> the
> middle between the frets of a Pythagorean minor and major third")."
>
> And then I said:
>
> "Would you call what I just said "unreasonable"?"
>
> I'm happy to go into fretting, analysing data and so on, and I will do
> so.
> But first I need to tell you that unless you have the intellectual
> honesty
> to admit that yes, my reasons given for using rationals are indeed
> "reasonable",
> I just won't be able to take you seriously.
>
> My reasons may be "wrong"! But they are reasoned, thoughtful, and
> informed.
>
> Having done a great deal of pitch measurement over the years, I can
> also give
> very sensible reasons for using ratios in a number of pitch-measuring
> situations
> where it would at first seem an unlikely thing to do.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> In fact the only person I see who has not apologized and admitted having
> non-perfect theories is Charles Lucy...and even then the guy commands some
> respect as a hard working person who, despite having a system based on
> mean-tone, has given of a gift of attracting a great deal of people to
> micro-tonality. And what's the point of beating him down anyhow? He's not
> slowing anyone else down or telling anyone else "either follow my theory or give
> up"...so what's the harm?

Actually, Mr. Lucy HAS explicitly insisted that people should follow his theory or give up, he frequently lambastes anyone from this list who thinks that "integer frequency ratios" are of any value in determining musical concordance. He's also a shameless plagiarist (he stole his tuning from John "Longitude" Harrison, which he admits to, yet still insisted on naming it after himself). So he's quite a bit worse than the average eccentric.

-Igs

Don't like the patent and the dismissal of JI.

Other than that, got no beef with the dude. Just sayin'.

Basically agree with yer thrust, tho.

Here's a generated scale w fifth at 695.4545, 88EDO, 46 pitches.

I just think this thread could do with some scales.

Caleb loads into Pianoteq. 15/8 not so good or something.

5th is pleasantly flat.

16/15 to 8/5 is bad.

Needs work.

Anyway.

!
87 pitches 46EDO w removals
87
!
13.63636
54.54545
81.81818
95.45455
122.727
150.00000
177.27273
190.90909
231.81818
245.45455
286.36364
313.63636
354.54545
368.18182
381.81818
422.72727
450.00000
463.63636
504.54545
518.18182
545.45455
586.36364
600.00000
627.2727
654.54545
681.81818
695.45455
709.09055
750.00000
777.27273
818.18182
831.81818
845.45455
886.36364
913.63636
954.54545
968.18182
981.81818
1009.09
1050.00000
1063.63636
1104.54545
1118.18182
1145.45455
1186.36364
1200.00000
1213.63636
1254.54545
1281.81818
1295.45455
1322.72
1350.00000
1377.27273
1390.90909
1431.81818
1445.45455
1486.36364
1513.63636
1554.54545
1568.18182
1581.81818
1622.72727
1650.00000
1663.63636
1704.54545
1718.18182
1745.45455
1786.36364
1800.00000
1827.27
1854.54545
1881.81818
1895.45455
1977.27273
2018.18182
2031.81818
2045.45455
2086.36364
2113.63636
2168.18182
2181.81818
2209.09
2250.00000
2263.63636
2304.54545
2318.18182
2400.00000

On the other hand, some good music has been done in Lucy Tuning, he's basically benign as far as I know,
On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:02 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> > In fact the only person I see who has not apologized and admitted having
> > non-perfect theories is Charles Lucy...and even then the guy commands some
> > respect as a hard working person who, despite having a system based on
> > mean-tone, has given of a gift of attracting a great deal of people to
> > micro-tonality. And what's the point of beating him down anyhow? He's not
> > slowing anyone else down or telling anyone else "either follow my theory or give
> > up"...so what's the harm?
>
> Actually, Mr. Lucy HAS explicitly insisted that people should follow his theory or give up, he frequently lambastes anyone from this list who thinks that "integer frequency ratios" are of any value in determining musical concordance. He's also a shameless plagiarist (he stole his tuning from John "Longitude" Harrison, which he admits to, yet still insisted on naming it after himself). So he's quite a bit worse than the average eccentric.
>
> -Igs
>
>

Michael,

> The argument many seem to be making is that if we allowed people to express
> on-topic but "non-scientific" theories on the tuning list everything would boil
> down to subjective debate, the list would get flooded, and nothing productive
> would ever get done: that we'd start going "in circles" and flood e-mail boxes
> while doing so. What's your take on that?
>

Don't think I know enough about the context to answer that!

But can say a bit more about the value of eccentrics. When I do maths research - often I get stuck with something and just can't get anywhere with ordinary logical thought. Same with programming too, something I want to program but just can't see a way to do it. Then quite often I'll see the solution as I wake up from sleep. Not sure if it is in the dream state itself, or it is the moment of awakening. But I think it is something to do with the illogical and non scientific nature of the dream state that lets you get to places you can never reach with the more pedestrian logical thinking of waking life.

The thing you end up with - may be a step in a proof - may be a result - anyway whatever it is you can then prove it logically once you have it. But there is this kind of jump needed to get to the point where you see how to do it - and that jump comes out of the blue in a rather illogical way, you can't see how you thought of it.

So - the work of eccentrics is related to that jump, that "out of the box" thinking, that leads to innovation. Somehow some eccentrics are able to access that in waking life, which many people can only access in dreams.

So anyway - just to enjoy the richness and variety of ways that people think about things and approach problems and things. Not to try to make everyone think the same way. You get those endless debates mainly when you have two people who think in different ways who try to persuade each other to think in the same way.

I find few eccentrics really expect to win you over. So - if you listen to them, let them have their say - and say whatever you want to say - but then just live and let live and continue.

It's trying to put everyone into the same box that creates the endless debates much more than letting people coexist with different ways of thinking, I think.

So in a way, attempting to cure the debates by trying to silence the people with unconventional views is just going to make the debates more and more involved and complicated.

Just a few thoughts. Not really for me to suggest how to deal with it. There are people here with wisdom who can help direct the list towards more - dare I say mature - not sure what - more skillful? anyway Margo Schulter for one, listen to people like that on this list who will be able to direct it in the right direction given half a chance!

The ones who get involved in flame wars are just a bit immature when they do that. Like children who haven't quite completed growing up. And I'm liable to do that myself as much as the next person, not singling anyone out particularly :). So - I suppose also patience for those who do that sort of thing, and maybe they will "grow up" eventually especially if everyone else is mature about the whole thing.

I think it may be partly because forums are still a relatively new thing. Quite a few people on this list grew up in a world where normally the only way you contacted anyone in another country was by snail mail. So you get these strange interactions sometimes which wouldn't happen in ordinary speech, so a bit of that as well.

Anyway - patience and understanding, more that you have people doing that - and respect for others - and celebrate the eccentrics!

Just a few thoughts in case it might help in some way...

:).

Igs>"Actually, Mr. Lucy HAS explicitly insisted that people should follow his
theory or give up, he frequently lambastes anyone from this list who thinks that
"integer frequency ratios" are of any value in determining musical concordance."

Oddly, I don't recall even seeing him do such...could you give a specific
quote of his, in its full/original context? I do remember him giving a chart
for rating dyadic consonance by how many approximate 5ths in an octave-reduced
chain it takes to reach an interval...but I don't remember him going up to
anyone about their consonance theories and saying anything like "this is
obviously wrong", "your idea is pseudoscience", "do you not have any ability to
simply follow idea and learn the real answer" etc.

>" He's also a shameless plagiarist (he stole his tuning from John "Longitude"
>Harrison, which he admits to, yet still insisted on naming it after himself)."
He does name it after himself, but whenever he mentions it he, almost
always, also mentions Harrison. At the top of his page on
http://www.lucytune.com/ it says "LucyTuning is a musical microtuning system
derived from Pi and the writings of John "Longitude"
Harrison.". It seems no more plagiarism than quoting text from a source and
denoting it as a reference property.

At worst, I figure, he's "simply" restated Harrison's work in a form that
comes across as more understandable to many people and found a host of new
applications for it. If he hadn't done that...think about it...why didn't
Harrison's work become as popular as Charles Lucy's in the years inbetween when
he and Lucy "discovered" his theory? It's much in the same way Apple didn't
invent the first Windows-style interface, Xerox did...but Apple communicated it
much more effectively and built significantly on its applications...and so on.

-----------------------------------------------
To all,

Come to think of it...I've had similar issues with my (very old) PHI sections
theory as compared to high points of harmonic entropy. Because if you take
(using my old generating formula of (PHI-1)^x + 1 exclusively...and no other
tones):

0.618^1 + 1 = 1.618
0.618^2 + 1 = 1.3819 (near the area right between 4/3 and 7/5)
0.618^3 + 1 = 1.236 (not far from the mediant at (6+5)/(5+4) <the mediant of
6/5 and 5/4> = 11/9)
0.618^4 + 1 = 1.145 (about 8/7, not actually a mediant of any sort but not at
the 7/6 low entropy point on the harmonic entropy)
0.618^4 + 1 = 1.09 (about 12/11, again not actually a mediant of any sort but
not at the 7/6 'smallest ratio' entropy point on the harmonic entropy)

Some people saw a fair number of the fractions generated by ratios in my
"PHI sections" scale

A) Were near mediants between Harmonic Entropy
B) They recalled that, historically, PHI had often been used for the quest for
maximum dissonance (even though I had been trying for maximum consonance by
using PHI in a different manner).

So they threw their hands up and told me I had simply "discovered someone
else's theory". They said that the exact mediants were defined by a method
called noble mediants IE http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt that turn up
numbers near Harmonic Entropy maxima. But if you plug in the formula on that
page to Harmonic Entropy minima you will get ratios at least 10 cents away from
the values in my scale.

And even if the values were the same (or in fact, are close enough in some
people's minds to qualify as being the same), note that I generated them by
sections and Margo Schulter and David Keenan (authors of the paper) generated
them by mediants.

Actually Margo, perhaps you could help explain the differences between my old
scale and the values from your "Noble Mediants" study yourself...I figure it's
clearest to get information from its original source.
----------------------------
Now I step back years after I found the PHI-section scale. First of all, I
disagree that it's as good at producing consonance as I originally thought. I
originally thought, when rounded to JI values IE 8/7, 12/11, 16/13, 13/8,
11/8...it would be competitive with things like 1/4 comma meantone for
consonance but enable more chords. Now it doesn't seem as such for consonance
but the range of chords available with "at least decent" consonance still seems
very broad to my ears. Perhaps it's because the scale simply stays predictably
in a range of "decent consonance" and doesn't ping-pong from "great"/low to
"piercing"/high consonance (like so many microtonal scales do) that it seems
more stable than it actually is (at least in JI format).

And the success of Chris's compositions based on the PHI scale also really
make me wonder...as does the fact it still seems a whole lot more stable
sounding than virtually any other irrational-number-generated scale I've found
(at least, not including ones that aren't also within a few cents of meantone).
I just figure (at worst)...numerically you'd think it should sound a whole lot
worse than it does...surely there's something to be learned in trying to figure
out why...
---------------------------------------

But looking back, I still wonder if anyone can find any novel uses for or
patterns in my old "PHI sections" theory and has found novel uses for, for
example, Lucy Tuning or Marcel or John's tunings?
To move ahead...I figure...we have to adopt a positive attitude to bring out the
best in each other's ideas (even if the best that's useful is only a tiny part
of the original theory) instead of methodically finding out ways to throw them
away....

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    Oddly, I don't recall even seeing him do such...could you give a specific quote of his, in its full/original context?  I do remember him giving a chart for rating dyadic consonance by how many approximate 5ths in an octave-reduced chain it takes to reach an interval...but I don't remember him going up to anyone about their consonance theories and saying anything like "this is obviously wrong", "your idea is pseudoscience", "do you not have any ability to simply follow idea and learn the real answer" etc.

He says that JI is pseudoscience all the time. One thing he's fond of
mentioning is that although we treat waveforms as these one
dimensional little lines in which the amplitude changes over time, in
real life wavefronts are three dimensional and hence spherical
harmonics need to be considered or something and that's where pi gets
involved.

Rather than anybody sit here and try to convince you whether this is
right or wrong, perhaps you ought to just delve into Lucytuning
yourself and see if it explains music to your satisfaction. If it
doesn't, as is the case with many of us, you can perhaps try to
approach it from the psychoacoustic perspective again and see what
that yields.

-Mike

Mike B.,

First let me make sure I have his theory correctly (yes, I delved into his
website)...
A) He defines S (IE his "semi-tone") as (2/(2^(1/(2*pi)))^5)^(1/2)
B) He defines L (IE his "whole-tone") as 2^(1/(2*pi))
C) He finds different MOS-style combinations of S and L that meet the octave and
yield consistent interval sizes regardless of the root. This requires dividing
the octave into 19 or 25 parts to make it break even to a power of two IE match
the octave.

If that's it, at least on the surface, I don't see any obvious unique
properties...it sounds like a tweaked version of mean-tone and why PI is used is
not really explained. Perhaps he has a reasoning about how musical scales map
around a circle (also generated by PI), but the connection is not clear to me at
this point.
I also haven't heard Charles Lucy say JI is pseudoscience (as you, Mike B,
claim he did), but I do think his implication that only Lucy Tuning can make
both an Open E major and G major "sing" does seem a bit far fetched; I might say
otherwise if he provided sound examples for that claim but he doesn't. It
almost sounds as if the benefits of Lucy Tuning are exclusively for designing
acoustic instruments...otherwise why (in mean-tone or 12TET even) would those
two chords have different intervals and not be any more than a transposition
anyhow?
He, however, does say "Although careful to point out
this is just one of hundreds of variants proposed
throughout the ages, Lucy admits: "The difference is, this
one seems to work." The Barbican guitar weekend is the
acid test. ". -http://www.lucytune.com/press_room/st_nov_87.html
But again why it works or what advantage exactly it is designed to provide, is
beyond me.

--------------------
Back to my own old PHI theory, my hunch was not that it would "solve
consonance", but rather it could achieve more chords under a not-much-worse-than
diatonic scale system under 12TET. The reason why I used PHI was that it had
been proven architecturally to be able to divide lines into related sub-sections
IE fitting the unique condition a + b / a = a/b...I thought "if it registers as
uniquely beautiful in architecture...why not also music?" So I began making a
scale system that used PHI as the period and (PHI-1)^x + 1 as the generator
within that period (described in further detail in my last post at the beginning
of the thread). In addition, I had heard that recurrent sequences had the
unique property of forming equal difference tones that boost consonance a bit
(as I understood it from Jacques Dudon), so I thought using PHI in a recurrent
sequence would likely yield that advantage.

Anyhow, my overall point is not how right/wrong Charles or Myself are but
A) Can anything musically useful (if little) be extracted from our individual
ideas?
B) Lucytuning is a type of meantone and my "PHI section scale" in some ways
resembles Noble Mediants a lot....but why does coming up with "the same or a
similar answer via a different method" necessarily make that new method no
improvement or even less valid in people's minds than the original generating
method?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
If he hadn't done that...think about it...why didn't
> Harrison's work become as popular as Charles Lucy's in the years inbetween when
> he and Lucy "discovered" his theory?

Because the Internet had not yet been invented. Since there is nothing special about the tuning, it needs to be promoted.

LucyTuning is based on a fifth of 600+300/pi cents. Margo came up with a tuning based on a fifth of 1200 (1+3e)/(2+5e) cents, where e = exp(1) is the base of the natural logarithms. But Margo did not reject closely related tunings as unacceptable, claim her tuning was the be-all and end-all of musical tuning, or maintain her method even made sense other than as a way which helped her break out the box and find a tuning she liked and whose properties she could explore. She gained all the benefits of eccentricity without being in the least eccentric. But if making the tuning popular requires dubbing it something like SchulterTuning and putting up a web site, patenting it,
and endlessly promoting it, maybe she fell short of the efforts of Charles Lucy. And as I've remarked before, salesmanship does seem to have a good deal to do with which tunings become well-known.

I apologize in advance to Margo for dragging her into this, but it's the only comparable example I know to LucyTuning.
It's much in the same way Apple didn't
> invent the first Windows-style interface, Xerox did...but Apple communicated it
> much more effectively and built significantly on its applications...and so on.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> To all,
>
> Come to think of it...I've had similar issues with my (very old) PHI sections
> theory as compared to high points of harmonic entropy. Because if you take
> (using my old generating formula of (PHI-1)^x + 1 exclusively...and no other
> tones):
>
> 0.618^1 + 1 = 1.618
> 0.618^2 + 1 = 1.3819 (near the area right between 4/3 and 7/5)
> 0.618^3 + 1 = 1.236 (not far from the mediant at (6+5)/(5+4) <the mediant of
> 6/5 and 5/4> = 11/9)
> 0.618^4 + 1 = 1.145 (about 8/7, not actually a mediant of any sort but not at
> the 7/6 low entropy point on the harmonic entropy)
> 0.618^4 + 1 = 1.09 (about 12/11, again not actually a mediant of any sort but
> not at the 7/6 'smallest ratio' entropy point on the harmonic entropy)
>
> Some people saw a fair number of the fractions generated by ratios in my
> "PHI sections" scale
>
> A) Were near mediants between Harmonic Entropy
> B) They recalled that, historically, PHI had often been used for the quest for
> maximum dissonance (even though I had been trying for maximum consonance by
> using PHI in a different manner).
>
> So they threw their hands up and told me I had simply "discovered someone
> else's theory". They said that the exact mediants were defined by a method
> called noble mediants IE http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt that turn up
> numbers near Harmonic Entropy maxima. But if you plug in the formula on that
> page to Harmonic Entropy minima you will get ratios at least 10 cents away from
> the values in my scale.
>
> And even if the values were the same (or in fact, are close enough in some
> people's minds to qualify as being the same), note that I generated them by
> sections and Margo Schulter and David Keenan (authors of the paper) generated
> them by mediants.
>
> Actually Margo, perhaps you could help explain the differences between my old
> scale and the values from your "Noble Mediants" study yourself...I figure it's
> clearest to get information from its original source.
> ----------------------------
> Now I step back years after I found the PHI-section scale. First of all, I
> disagree that it's as good at producing consonance as I originally thought. I
> originally thought, when rounded to JI values IE 8/7, 12/11, 16/13, 13/8,
> 11/8...it would be competitive with things like 1/4 comma meantone for
> consonance but enable more chords. Now it doesn't seem as such for consonance
> but the range of chords available with "at least decent" consonance still seems
> very broad to my ears. Perhaps it's because the scale simply stays predictably
> in a range of "decent consonance" and doesn't ping-pong from "great"/low to
> "piercing"/high consonance (like so many microtonal scales do) that it seems
> more stable than it actually is (at least in JI format).
>
>
> And the success of Chris's compositions based on the PHI scale also really
> make me wonder...as does the fact it still seems a whole lot more stable
> sounding than virtually any other irrational-number-generated scale I've found
> (at least, not including ones that aren't also within a few cents of meantone).
> I just figure (at worst)...numerically you'd think it should sound a whole lot
> worse than it does...surely there's something to be learned in trying to figure
> out why...
> ---------------------------------------
>
> But looking back, I still wonder if anyone can find any novel uses for or
> patterns in my old "PHI sections" theory and has found novel uses for, for
> example, Lucy Tuning or Marcel or John's tunings?
> To move ahead...I figure...we have to adopt a positive attitude to bring out the
> best in each other's ideas (even if the best that's useful is only a tiny part
> of the original theory) instead of methodically finding out ways to throw them
> away....
>

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

> Now I step back years after I found the PHI-section scale. First of all, I
> disagree that it's as good at producing consonance as I originally thought.

If you want to try large scales, sqrt(phi) is a generator for the 72&121 temperament, and gives plenty of consonance.

> And the success of Chris's compositions based on the PHI scale also really
> make me wonder...as does the fact it still seems a whole lot more stable
> sounding than virtually any other irrational-number-generated scale I've found
> (at least, not including ones that aren't also within a few cents of meantone).

I'm not sure what you mean. Why isn't your typical linear temperament just as "stable"?

It's used for no deeper a reason than the mere coincidence that pi^(-1) diapason is in the region of acceptable major thirds.

> If that's it, at least on the surface, I don't see any obvious unique
> properties...it sounds like a tweaked version of mean-tone and why PI is used is
> not really explained.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>     If that's it, at least on the surface, I don't see any obvious unique properties...it sounds like a tweaked version of mean-tone and why PI is used is not really explained.   Perhaps he has a reasoning about how musical scales map around a circle (also generated by PI), but the connection is not clear to me at this point.

It doesn't make much sense to me from an acoustic standpoint, and his
reasoning about 1D waveforms being invalid because sound radiates in 3
dimensions also doesn't make sense.

>     I also haven't heard Charles Lucy say JI is pseudoscience (as you, Mike B, claim he did), but I do think his implication that only Lucy Tuning can make both an Open E major and G major "sing" does seem a bit far fetched; I might say otherwise if he provided sound examples for that claim but he doesn't.  It almost sounds as if the benefits of Lucy Tuning are exclusively for designing acoustic instruments...otherwise why (in mean-tone or 12TET even) would those two chords have different intervals and not be any more than a transposition anyhow?

He's said JI is unscientific a number of times. Look through the archives.

> Anyhow, my overall point is not how right/wrong Charles or Myself are but
> A) Can anything musically useful (if little) be extracted from our individual ideas?
> B) Lucytuning is a type of meantone and my "PHI section scale" in some ways resembles Noble Mediants a lot....but why does coming up with "the same or a similar answer via a different method" necessarily make that new method no improvement or even less valid in people's minds than the original generating method?

I've always liked your PHI scale. I didn't agree with your reasoning
as to why it sounded good, but I thought it sounded good nonetheless.
I also disagree with Charles' reasoning as to why LucyTuning sounds
good, but I think it sounds good nonetheless. It's a very pleasant
meantone. I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way. At
one point I thought that your PHI scale might have a number of useful
properties that end up emerging because of different reasons than
you've described.

However, what I don't understand is why you are so hung up on getting
scientific approval about it. It's a good tuning, so who cares? It's
like what you really want is validation that your ruminations are
valid. Sometimes they're valid as expositional ideas, but when you
delve more deeply into them, there are experiments that contradict
them in the end. So what?

-Mike

600+300/pi

makes 695.492965855137203 cents.

1200 (1+3e)/(2+5e)

makes 704.60690770092444 cents.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael<djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> If he hadn't done that...think about it...why didn't
>> Harrison's work become as popular as Charles Lucy's in the years inbetween when
>> he and Lucy "discovered" his theory?
>
> Because the Internet had not yet been invented. Since there is nothing special about the tuning, it needs to be promoted.
>
> LucyTuning is based on a fifth of 600+300/pi cents. Margo came up with a tuning based on a fifth of 1200 (1+3e)/(2+5e) cents, where e = exp(1) is the base of the natural logarithms. But Margo did not reject closely related tunings as unacceptable, claim her tuning was the be-all and end-all of musical tuning, or maintain her method even made sense other than as a way which helped her break out the box and find a tuning she liked and whose properties she could explore. She gained all the benefits of eccentricity without being in the least eccentric. But if making the tuning popular requires dubbing it something like SchulterTuning and putting up a web site, patenting it,
> and endlessly promoting it, maybe she fell short of the efforts of Charles Lucy. And as I've remarked before, salesmanship does seem to have a good deal to do with which tunings become well-known.
>
> I apologize in advance to Margo for dragging her into this, but it's the only comparable example I know to LucyTuning.
> It's much in the same way Apple didn't
>> invent the first Windows-style interface, Xerox did...but Apple communicated it
>> much more effectively and built significantly on its applications...and so on.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> To all,
>>
>> Come to think of it...I've had similar issues with my (very old) PHI sections
>> theory as compared to high points of harmonic entropy. Because if you take
>> (using my old generating formula of (PHI-1)^x + 1 exclusively...and no other
>> tones):
>>
>> 0.618^1 + 1 = 1.618
>> 0.618^2 + 1 = 1.3819 (near the area right between 4/3 and 7/5)
>> 0.618^3 + 1 = 1.236 (not far from the mediant at (6+5)/(5+4)<the mediant of
>> 6/5 and 5/4> = 11/9)
>> 0.618^4 + 1 = 1.145 (about 8/7, not actually a mediant of any sort but not at
>> the 7/6 low entropy point on the harmonic entropy)
>> 0.618^4 + 1 = 1.09 (about 12/11, again not actually a mediant of any sort but
>> not at the 7/6 'smallest ratio' entropy point on the harmonic entropy)
>>
>> Some people saw a fair number of the fractions generated by ratios in my
>> "PHI sections" scale
>>
>> A) Were near mediants between Harmonic Entropy
>> B) They recalled that, historically, PHI had often been used for the quest for
>> maximum dissonance (even though I had been trying for maximum consonance by
>> using PHI in a different manner).
>>
>> So they threw their hands up and told me I had simply "discovered someone
>> else's theory". They said that the exact mediants were defined by a method
>> called noble mediants IE http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt that turn up
>> numbers near Harmonic Entropy maxima. But if you plug in the formula on that
>> page to Harmonic Entropy minima you will get ratios at least 10 cents away from
>> the values in my scale.
>>
>> And even if the values were the same (or in fact, are close enough in some
>> people's minds to qualify as being the same), note that I generated them by
>> sections and Margo Schulter and David Keenan (authors of the paper) generated
>> them by mediants.
>>
>> Actually Margo, perhaps you could help explain the differences between my old
>> scale and the values from your "Noble Mediants" study yourself...I figure it's
>> clearest to get information from its original source.
>> ----------------------------
>> Now I step back years after I found the PHI-section scale. First of all, I
>> disagree that it's as good at producing consonance as I originally thought. I
>> originally thought, when rounded to JI values IE 8/7, 12/11, 16/13, 13/8,
>> 11/8...it would be competitive with things like 1/4 comma meantone for
>> consonance but enable more chords. Now it doesn't seem as such for consonance
>> but the range of chords available with "at least decent" consonance still seems
>> very broad to my ears. Perhaps it's because the scale simply stays predictably
>> in a range of "decent consonance" and doesn't ping-pong from "great"/low to
>> "piercing"/high consonance (like so many microtonal scales do) that it seems
>> more stable than it actually is (at least in JI format).
>>
>>
>> And the success of Chris's compositions based on the PHI scale also really
>> make me wonder...as does the fact it still seems a whole lot more stable
>> sounding than virtually any other irrational-number-generated scale I've found
>> (at least, not including ones that aren't also within a few cents of meantone).
>> I just figure (at worst)...numerically you'd think it should sound a whole lot
>> worse than it does...surely there's something to be learned in trying to figure
>> out why...
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> But looking back, I still wonder if anyone can find any novel uses for or
>> patterns in my old "PHI sections" theory and has found novel uses for, for
>> example, Lucy Tuning or Marcel or John's tunings?
>> To move ahead...I figure...we have to adopt a positive attitude to bring out the
>> best in each other's ideas (even if the best that's useful is only a tiny part
>> of the original theory) instead of methodically finding out ways to throw them
>> away....
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Michael
The Phi scales do exactly as you mention here stay within a certain level of con/dis.
One can notice this feature in pre-12ET African music which lead myself to investigate that music along those lines. What one loses in a greater range of harmonic tension, one gains in countrapuntal flexibility.
The first noble mediants of the 9 levels are illustrated at the bottom of the scale tree ( which is its addition of the stern brocot tree).
http://anaphoria.com/sctree.PDF
the whole section in the archives on the scales of Mt. Meru show a few hundred of similar scales. This leaves out the variations with reseeding them also which makes them limitless in resource.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
Now it doesn't seem as such for consonance
> but the range of chords available with "at least decent" consonance still seems
> very broad to my ears. Perhaps it's because the scale simply stays predictably
> in a range of "decent consonance" and doesn't ping-pong from "great"/low to
> "piercing"/high consonance (like so many microtonal scales do) that it seems
> more stable than it actually is (at least in JI format).
>
>
> And the success of Chris's compositions based on the PHI scale also really
> make me wonder...as does the fact it still seems a whole lot more stable
> sounding than virtually any other irrational-number-generated scale I've found
> (at least, not including ones that aren't also within a few cents of meantone).
> I just figure (at worst)...numerically you'd think it should sound a whole lot
> worse than it does...surely there's something to be learned in trying to figure
> out why...
> ---------------------------------------
>
> But looking back, I still wonder if anyone can find any novel uses for or
> patterns in my old "PHI sections" theory and has found novel uses for, for
> example, Lucy Tuning or Marcel or John's tunings?
> To move ahead...I figure...we have to adopt a positive attitude to bring out the
> best in each other's ideas (even if the best that's useful is only a tiny part
> of the original theory) instead of methodically finding out ways to throw them
> away....
>

Lucy tuning is bare different that Wilson. Meta-Meantone. both difference tone reinforce members of the chord.
Erv credits C. Lucy for steering him on to this by his comment about 'the sound being so good'. I believe this is what attracts Charles to this tuning and that is the sound.
All the scales of Mt. Meru have this same proportional triad property and instead of scattered instances , he illustrates how they can all be found systematically by the addition of the diagonals of Pascal triangles.
http://anaphoria.com/meruthree.PDF
has the first 200 of these followed by some secondary recurrent sequences

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Mike B.,
>
> First let me make sure I have his theory correctly (yes, I delved into his
> website)...
> A) He defines S (IE his "semi-tone") as (2/(2^(1/(2*pi)))^5)^(1/2)
> B) He defines L (IE his "whole-tone") as 2^(1/(2*pi))
> C) He finds different MOS-style combinations of S and L that meet the octave and
> yield consistent interval sizes regardless of the root. This requires dividing
> the octave into 19 or 25 parts to make it break even to a power of two IE match
> the octave.
>
> If that's it, at least on the surface, I don't see any obvious unique
> properties...it sounds like a tweaked version of mean-tone and why PI is used is
> not really explained. Perhaps he has a reasoning about how musical scales map
> around a circle (also generated by PI), but the connection is not clear to me at
> this point.
> I also haven't heard Charles Lucy say JI is pseudoscience (as you, Mike B,
> claim he did), but I do think his implication that only Lucy Tuning can make
> both an Open E major and G major "sing" does seem a bit far fetched; I might say
> otherwise if he provided sound examples for that claim but he doesn't. It
> almost sounds as if the benefits of Lucy Tuning are exclusively for designing
> acoustic instruments...otherwise why (in mean-tone or 12TET even) would those
> two chords have different intervals and not be any more than a transposition
> anyhow?
> He, however, does say "Although careful to point out
> this is just one of hundreds of variants proposed
> throughout the ages, Lucy admits: "The difference is, this
> one seems to work." The Barbican guitar weekend is the
> acid test. ". -http://www.lucytune.com/press_room/st_nov_87.html
> But again why it works or what advantage exactly it is designed to provide, is
> beyond me.
>
> --------------------
> Back to my own old PHI theory, my hunch was not that it would "solve
> consonance", but rather it could achieve more chords under a not-much-worse-than
> diatonic scale system under 12TET. The reason why I used PHI was that it had
> been proven architecturally to be able to divide lines into related sub-sections
> IE fitting the unique condition a + b / a = a/b...I thought "if it registers as
> uniquely beautiful in architecture...why not also music?" So I began making a
> scale system that used PHI as the period and (PHI-1)^x + 1 as the generator
> within that period (described in further detail in my last post at the beginning
> of the thread). In addition, I had heard that recurrent sequences had the
> unique property of forming equal difference tones that boost consonance a bit
> (as I understood it from Jacques Dudon), so I thought using PHI in a recurrent
> sequence would likely yield that advantage.
>
> Anyhow, my overall point is not how right/wrong Charles or Myself are but
> A) Can anything musically useful (if little) be extracted from our individual
> ideas?
> B) Lucytuning is a type of meantone and my "PHI section scale" in some ways
> resembles Noble Mediants a lot....but why does coming up with "the same or a
> similar answer via a different method" necessarily make that new method no
> improvement or even less valid in people's minds than the original generating
> method?
>

I agree with Michael here.
There really is no way to prove it anyways. If you do a good scale that people can hear, people will use it and if they don't it gives your own work a uniqueness.
Practically every culture on earth has their own unique take on intonation none of which can be proved.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> However, what I don't understand is why you are so hung up on getting
> scientific approval about it. It's a good tuning, so who cares? It's
> like what you really want is validation that your ruminations are
> valid. Sometimes they're valid as expositional ideas, but when you
> delve more deeply into them, there are experiments that contradict
> them in the end. So what?
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> I also haven't heard Charles Lucy say JI is pseudoscience ...

I hate to be all 'forum ageist' and whatnot, but you know... Charles has been on the list a *long* time, and a good number of us have been on the list a *long* time as well. You, however, have not.

This is not a bad thing, in the least. But the fact that you haven't heard him say something may very well be due in part to the fact that you haven't been around for his interactions as long as some of us, and I assure you that Mr. Lucy used to be *very* active on the list, and in a manner that bothered a good number of people.

For some fairly good reasons.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but please don't assume that something you haven't witnessed hasn't actually happened. Often, sometimes.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon wrote:

> You, however, have not.

Charles has made more than a few belligerent, insulting, and
factually nonsensical posts since Michael's been a member.

-Carl

Hi Cameron,

> Carl, you said it "isn't reasonable at all" to use rationals

I thought we were finally threatening to make progress in
this thread:

/tuning/topicId_93888.html#93991

and was hoping you'd reply.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> Charles has made more than a few belligerent, insulting, and
> factually nonsensical posts since Michael's been a member.

I'll take your word for that, but, c'mon: this stuff doesn't get really fun until it's gone on for weeks and weeks!

I think Robert really hits the nail on the head here. Sure, only
one-in-a-million eccentrics are Ramanujan or anything even close, but that
basic spirit of openness is one that seems so much more on the right path to
me than the posts of someone like Oz (who BTW, I agree with him, in that he did
not insult my son, but simply replied in the same condescending manner as he
does to any post that strays anywhere slightly outside the confines of his
personal interests, opinions and experiences).

Recently I watched an amazing homage to Henry Darger, In the realms of the
Unreal, and I was blown away by the discipline and utter purity in which he went
about his creative life... he amassed this amazingly eccentric, massive body of
work and nobody knew. He did it because he HAD to, and that's very different
from doing it because he wished to be known as having done so. Also the recent
story of Grigori Perelman is pretty eye-opening, as he turned down both the
Fields Medal and the Clay Institutes' million dollar reward for solving the
Poincare Conjecture and then quit mathematics altogether due in large
part to the underhanded pettiness and manifestly unethical nature of
"professional" academia... now that's backbone.
I've been on and off this list for over ten years now, and it still amazes me at
how vested certain people are in their pet theories to the utter exclusion of
other points of view and ways of looking at a given topic. I've certainly had my
share of posts that I wish I never posted, but at least I’m aware of that to
some extent. The degree of blind hubris and infighting from certain folks on
this list is really 10X anything I've ever experienced in any other forum I've
ever participated in. Not sure why, but that's just a fact… and it's ugly,
occasionally comical, and ultimately boorish, boring and incredibly
counter-productive to "the cause".
Anyway, while a guy like Robert chimes in around here about once a century, I
usually find a lot in what he says, and that type of attitude and POV is usually
enough to keep me coming back for more despite the profoundly muddled
signal-to-noise ratio in support of this topic here - alternate tuning.daniel  

________________________________
From: robert_inventor5 <robertwalker@robertinventor.com>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 1, 2010 12:02:06 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Future of this list

 
Michael,

Oh that's a shame!

I don't know what your theory is but I think the world is a richer place for the
likes of Charles Lucy! And I think he has absolutely no need at all to apologise
for his theories! Nor you either, whatever your ideas are.

I'm all for eccentrics, we can do with a few more. Science doesn't have the last
word, it's just one way of looking at things. And things that were considered
very eccentric with little in the way of experimental support, e.g. continental
drift, may become mainstream science to a future generation.

Eccentrics who aren't fettered by the rigours of science and maths can explore
areas that scientists and mathematicians can't even enter. Even in maths - you
get eccentrics such as Ramanujan the brilliant number theorist who proved things
in intuitive ways that had the mathematicians nonplussed - but somehow got to
correct results as a result.

It's a different matter if e.g. you are a reviewer for a maths or science
journal. If you submit a paper or even a letter to e.g. Physics Review, then of
course it will be vetted by reviewers who will check its scientific basis
carefully before publishing it, and they have to do that as that's what the
readers of the magazine expect.

But this is just a forum for goodness sake. A place where people share ideas.
Even if you had e.g. some eccentric who says that he gets the ideas for his
tunings from dreams sent to him by extra terrestrials living on the surface of
Saturn - or something - he is entirely entitled to his point of view, you can
try to argue with him, but he doesn't have to apologise for his point of view!

I feel that anything I say is likely to be at a bit of a tangent because I
haven't been involved lately. So - sorry if e.g. I step on any toes, it's not
intended. But maybe I can say something from a long term perspective, as someone
who was active a few years ago, and also someone who cares about alternative
tunings and would like to see the forum thriving in a friendly and respectful
way even if I can't take part much at present myself.

Anyway three cheers for tuning eccentrics! Keep it up!

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Robert>"But if you stop after the other person has had their last word - that's
>
> often a good point to stop, let them have their say. Let them win. Especially
>if
>
> it is some really minor thing that has got blown up out of all proportion,
>which
>
> you don't really feel strongly about even."
>
> I only wish people like Chris and Carl would stop there. There have been
> times when I've been off the list for a month or more and they'll still be
> bringing up my so called "circular arguments". They'll bring out things like
> arguments we've had about scales I made over two years ago as if I were still
> "stuck" on those when I haven't mentioned them for years even when I do
> communicate on-list.
> I'm just thinking....for crying out loud, can't you guys just drop it and let
> me live?!?!
>
>
> For people like Marcel and John, they have both been off the list for many
> many months and still gets sparred (yet I digress, even I have sparred
> them...though I try to make clear their past actions on this list were bad but

> his actions on the tuning-research list have been very civil and they really
> does seem to honestly value productivity to the community, even if at times
> toward "odd" goals). John even wrote me a personal e-mail not to say how angry

> he was at me (which he actually had somewhat of a right to be), but to express

> his apologies and Marcel has done similar things. Both have also admitted their
>
> theories are not "perfect"...meanwhile I never mentioned my alternative
>theories
>
> were perfect in the first place, at best, I credited them as "equally strong
> alternatives" to things like 31TET and Ptolemy's scales.
>
> In fact the only person I see who has not apologized and admitted having
> non-perfect theories is Charles Lucy...and even then the guy commands some
> respect as a hard working person who, despite having a system based on
> mean-tone, has given of a gift of attracting a great deal of people to
> micro-tonality. And what's the point of beating him down anyhow? He's not
> slowing anyone else down or telling anyone else "either follow my theory or
>give
>
> up"...so what's the harm?
>
> I am just amazed how much smack is aimed toward generally good, honest, and
> hard-working people on here...EVEN after they have left for months, it's rather
>
> sickening. I am trying to stop making nasty references toward such people and
> suggest anyone on the list who is doing the same follow suit.
>
> _,_._,___
>

Kraig wrote:

> > Dividing the space between rational frets r1 and r2, where
> > r1 and r2 are RI pitches, gives their average, (r1+r2)/2.
> > Is there evidence such a procedure is used systematically
> > by maqam musicians or instrument makers?
>
> I think there would be a natural disposition for any string
> player to do this even those without mathematical approach.

Sure, but string players can naturally do lots of things.
The key word is "systematic". Remember, I'm not one of those
claiming to know the overarching system of maqam music here.

-Carl

You're asking me to describe something that can only be sensibly described in ways you've already dismissed as "not reasonable at all".

The fret positions were marked- not eyeballed- with a sharp (lightly incising) pen, each mark is precisely on a millimeter mark when you lay a metric straightedge on the fingerboard. This is "equal divisions of length", the age-old method. It's easy as pie to get your bearings immediately - the octave and perfect fourth were fretted exactly where you'd expect according to equal divisions of string length.

Right off the bat we've got a rational system, a rational system that's been used for two thousand years at least, and continues to be used.

The frets are deliberately placed at traditional and well-documented places. The half-flat second I earlier listed as "quarter-tone second" is actually the closest approximation possible in the EDL system used to 27/22 down from the 4/3, so, it's actually 88/81. Another traditional interval. The consistency here with yee olde rational intervals, placed at the closest position on a millimeter grid, is too much to be coincidence.

Note that I was VERY surprised to find such "medieval" fret placements. And I don't know even remotely enough about makam to say why this fret configuration was chosen, beyond the obvious like the typically Turkish Rast tetrachords at the first positions. 9 Holdrian commas, then a bit less than 8 HCs, then the remainder to 4/3, as I've heard it described in the "koma" system. And I don't know the specific ethnic group or region the guys were from- for all I know the fret placement I got is only done by the older generation in one Kurdish village or something.

It's not impossible that the fret placement I got is extremely rare- and I subconciously "caught" it as having intervals I like when I heard the guy playing it. Goodness knows I had to run away from enough high-pressure salesmen shredding on the instruments trying to sell them to me, LOL.

It's well known that you can get all kinds of fret placements when you buy a baglama. I saw some that were fretted in 24-tET, and some that seemed to have frets placed in a way I could only describe as "randomly". Doesn't matter- the point of moveable frets is to move them where you'd like. The finest shop I visited- where I'm heading directly next time- was a "pro shop", and almost all the instruments had no frets tied on at all. Many were not even completely finished instruments, waiting to be customized.

But why am I even telling you this, Carl? You've already preemptively dismissed the whole thing. Still if you're ever around here you're welcome to measure the thing yourself, and I will try to take a picture (I have "almost never" taken a photo in my life, strangely enough, but gotta start sometime I guess).

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> > Carl, you said it "isn't reasonable at all" to use rationals
>
> I thought we were finally threatening to make progress in
> this thread:
>
> /tuning/topicId_93888.html#93991
>
> and was hoping you'd reply.
>
> -Carl
>

Alright - now I have to add my 2 percents, too...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Robert
> > "But if you stop after the other person has had their last
> > word - that's often a good point to stop, let them have their
> > say. Let them win. Especially if > it is some really minor thing
> > that has got blown up out of all proportion, which you don't
> >really feel strongly about even."
>
> I only wish people like Chris and Carl would stop there.

Exactly this attitude - everybody exspecting that the other stops first - is what keeps flamewars going. So how about YOU stopping first? There are two people necessary for a flamewar.

Web-forums (and, before, mailing lists and usenet) have been around for quite some time, and there is a number of well-established standards and guidelines dealing with the special character of this medium. One of them is called "Don't feed the troll". In most of the flamewars here, I see this guideline violated.

(BTW, Michael, you may remember that quite a while ago I gave you the same advice as Robert did now.)
--
Hans Straub

Carl> "Charles has made more than a few belligerent, insulting, and factually
nonsensical posts since Michael's been a member."
"Non-sensical" may be a bit dramatic, but I can understand why you'd say that.
For example, Charles mentioned the idea that consonance can be based on the
number of octave-reduced chain of (tempered) fifths required to reach a note...
In that case, for example, 9/8 (about two cycles of a tempered 5th) would be
more consonant than 5/3 (about three cycles of a tempered fifth)...and I think
it's fair to say most people throughout historical practice (and likely current
practic) consider a major 6th more consonant than a major second).

But again my points (concerning Lucy Tuning) are
A) For whatever reason Lucy Tuning seems to work very well...EVEN if technically
it really is "just another meantone tuning"...I have yet to hear many people say
they think Lucy Tuning is not a particularly good meantone tuning.
B) Even if the validity of many of Charles posts were debatable, I have yet to
see one where he says his answer is the only answer. At worst, I've seen him
present a theory as a good answer/alternative when not just one but many people
on list say it isn't.
C <partly inspired by Kraig's post>) It seems that Lucy Tuning may indeed have
some unique properties related to difference tones and triads...and maybe, if
nothing else, we should stop all the whining and see if that is one (if the
only) thing we can learn from Lucy Tuning.

Jon>"I hate to be all 'forum ageist' and whatnot, but you know... Charles has
been on the list a *long* time, and a good number of us have been on the list a
*long* time as well. You, however, have not."
Maybe there's an easier way to solve this...like a direct link to a couple of or
a few examples from someone who has been here longer than myself?

_

Michael, for the love of God, (also in appreciation of your recent understanding and support, but) please, when you are quoting people, insert a space between your comments and theirs, and indent - if you can - other people's quotes so that we may know what you are saying without getting lost in the jumble of text.

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Michael wrote:
>
>
> Jon>"I hate to be all 'forum ageist' and whatnot, but you know...
> Charles has been on the list a *long* time, and a good number of us have
> been on the list a *long* time as well. You, however, have not."
> Maybe there's an easier way to solve this...like a direct link to a
> couple of or a few examples from someone who has been here longer than
> myself?
> _
>
>
> >

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Maybe there's an easier way to solve this...like a direct link to a couple of or
> a few examples from someone who has been here longer than myself?

I'm not suggesting a solution, just mentioning that because it hasn't been in your experience doesn't mean it hasn't occurred. I don't have time for these things, but I'm certain you can make use of the search function if you aren't willing to take someone's word for it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Michael, for the love of God, (also in appreciation of your recent
> understanding and support, but) please, when you are quoting people,
> insert a space between your comments and theirs, and indent - if you can
> - other people's quotes so that we may know what you are saying without
> getting lost in the jumble of text.

I'll second this, and even if you simply have a love of atheism or agnosticism :) - Michael's posts are, hands-down, the most difficult to read and parse. I have no idea what mail program he is using, but the mix of fonts (at times) and incoherent quoting make communication difficult.

>"Also the recent story of Grigori Perelman is pretty eye-opening, as he turned
>down both the Fields Medal and the Clay Institutes' million dollar reward for
>solving the Poincare Conjecture and then quit mathematics altogether due in
>large part to the underhanded pettiness and manifestly unethical nature of
>"professional" academia... now that's backbone."

This is rather similar to the character Matt Damon plays in the movie "Good
Will Hunting" and with the same point about how nasty academia can get. Pet
theories, I swear...we all have them to some extent (hey, this is an art, after
all), but all the better of us to realize which of our theories are pet theories
and have the discipline not to utterly exclude other points of view or even
vaguely credit them as intelligent.

A side note, it's great after all this bashing to have a few people, some
who haven't spoken up in ages, come out of the woodwork and speak up for
open-mindedness on this list. That and having the balls to oppose the
previously prevailing attitude of "the reason this list lacks valuable
information...is because the academic standards are not strict enough"
Puritanism that so often gets tossed around here.

Ozan>"please, when you are quoting people, insert a space between your comments
and theirs"...(other stuff Ozan said that really wasn't necessary to prove his
point goes here)
-------------
Ok ok, fine, I will. Before I've been criticized (I think by you, and if not
you probably Carl), FOR putting spaces and/or line-breaks in between quotes.

Personally I agree using line breaks is the way to go. Carl (for example),
if your browser messes up the line breaks or makes them more messy, oh well....I
like it this way and can't satisfy everyone (as history on this list shows, no
matter what I do someone always is going to whine about how I quote)!

Jon>"I'll second this, and even if you simply have a love of atheism or
agnosticism :) - Michael's posts are, hands-down, the most difficult to read and
parse. I have no idea what mail program he is using, but the mix of fonts (at
times) and incoherent quoting make communication difficult."

One thing...I don't change fonts at all and, in my browser running Yahoo
mail, the "multiple fonts" look the same. Perhaps when I copy someone's quote
it automatically switches that quote to another font without telling me when I
paste it...not sure. In summary: I don't know how to fix your supposed
"multiple fonts" as I can't see them. Yahoo Mail is a quirky son of a....
But let's at least get one thing straight: do you SEE the line break in this
message after my quoting you? And as a side question, does anyone has "severe
difficulty" with the format of THIS e-mail?

Jon>"Exactly this attitude - everybody expecting that the other stops first - is
what keeps flamewars going. So how about YOU stopping first? There are two
people necessary for a flamewar."

If I can "just sit" for a month and say nothing (as I have several times)
and people still mention me multiple times in insults...the flame war has NOT
stopped. I have stopped first, many times, only to watch Chris and Carl dig
things up from the grave and throw them at my reputation (and, ultimately, my
ability to get any unrelated new posts I make taken seriously).

You see this is what you are missing...some people/"trolls" are actually SO
aggressive they will keep a flame war going months after the "defender/victim"
has said anything to "feed them". Charles Lucy is a classic example of such a
victim...he has not said anything for maybe a year and yet there have been
threads (some of them quite large) brought up flaming him during that time.
Some people are so nasty the whole "leave it alone and it will go away"
technique just does not work.

>"One of them is called "Don't feed the troll". In most of the flamewars here, I
>see this guideline violated."
You can very easily not feed the troll (often for months!) and still get
screwed over, including having the troll call you a troll and having not one but
many people randomly join in and believe them! For dealing with certain people
it simply does not work: beyond a point it simply shows lack of healthy
self-respect. For me that means, if offenses are repeated often, that I can't
make any progress or get a fair "hearing".
Look at the thread I'm having about my old PHI scale with Margo...a topic that
got bullied of the list ages ago. When it got bullied off, people flamed me for
making a scale that's "really just a version of the Noble Mediant"...and now
Margo (who helped write that paper) has noted obvious differences. Now if I
would have just stood there and let Chris and Carl keep referencing that scale
as an ultimate example of "circular reasoning"...would others have much a chance
to enjoy the scale for what it is or take it seriously? That's where it gets
rough...some of us have our abilities to be productive on this list compromised
by the reputation such "trolls" give us...and as a result the whole community
suffers.

The whole "don't feed the troll" paradigm is like the advice parents often
give to kids about "ignore the bully and he'll eventually leave you alone".
While of course it's dumb to name call back or purposefully scramble other
people's communication efforts (which, go figure, I never do)...truth is the kid
who at least said "I do not deserve this!" and stands up for himself in a
controlled fashion makes progress. Even if you think of Martin Luther King,
Rosa Parks...the types of passive resistance he used (protests, filling up
jails, speeches) did not say "I'm running away" but rather "I'm here, I deserve
to be here, and there's no way you are going to make me move!"

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

> A) For whatever reason Lucy Tuning seems to work very well...EVEN if technically
> it really is "just another meantone tuning"...I have yet to hear many people say
> they think Lucy Tuning is not a particularly good meantone tuning.

I'll repeat myself: Lucy tuning is a completely normal meantone tuning for fifths on the flat side, neither especially good nor especially bad. If you want a meantone tuning which has a sound which stands out from the crowd (and there's no claim here such are better) it isn't a good choice. It cannot be distinguished by ear from 88et, just for starters, and it does not have any magical acoustic properties derived from pi or anything else.

Meantone tunings which *do* have unusual properties include 1/4 comma meantone, with a fifth f satisfying f^4 - 5 = 0. Close to the Lucy fifth and very hard to distinguish from it by ear, but not close enough to be identified with it, there is the Wilson fifth, satisfying f^4 - 2f - 2 = 0, and the nearby pure 9/7s fifth, satisfying 9f^8 - 224 = 0. But this isn't close enough to give the Lucy fifth the equal beating property; it has a brat of -0.7311, and the 9/7 is a cent sharp. The Lucy fifth, of course, is a transcendental number and satisfies no polynomial equation with integer coefficients.

> C <partly inspired by Kraig's post>) It seems that Lucy Tuning may indeed have
> some unique properties related to difference tones and triads...

Evidence? ANY argument of any kind?

and maybe, if
> nothing else, we should stop all the whining and see if that is one (if the
> only) thing we can learn from Lucy Tuning.

Stating facts is not "whining". If you have facts to state, and not unsubstantiated claims of unspecified "special properties", state them. Otherwise, the above is, frankly, a whine.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> But let's at least get one thing straight: do you SEE the line break in this
> message after my quoting you? And as a side question, does anyone has "severe
> difficulty" with the format of THIS e-mail?

The line break helps quite a bit. Thanks for that, and all the font stuff? Yeah, I know a lot of this is not evident to the writer of the posts, so no worries. In my Yahoo mail (which I only use occasionally) I have the option set to send mail as "plain text". Maybe that might help, but breaking after quotes is already a big clarity for the substance.

Cheers,
Jon

Cameron wrote:

> You're asking me to describe

I asked you for a photograph, among other specific things.
You're getting defensive again. I'm about to give up.

> This is "equal divisions of length", the age-old method.

The measurements you gave were not. If I even know what
you mean, which I probably don't. You do have the option
to present details about how you think it works. Or you
can just carry on shouting like this.

> But why am I even telling you this, Carl?
> You've already preemptively dismissed the whole thing.

Read this message again:

/tuning/topicId_93888.html#93991

I'm still hoping you'll reply to it.

> Still if you're ever around here you're welcome to measure
> the thing yourself,

Or you could just post the measurements in a normal,
expository way.

> and I will try to take a picture (I have "almost never"
> taken a photo in my life, strangely enough, but gotta start
> sometime I guess).

I understand it's a hassle to mess with cameras and such;
I've lately had to force myself to take a few shots of my
kids just so some will exist. So a photo isn't absolutely
necessary, though it would probably enhance the conversation.
All you need to do is describe the freakin' instrument
(since you brought it up). How many strings? What's the
length from nut to bridge? How many frets total? And the
distance of each from the bridge? And, if you like, your
interpretation of the tuning.

-Carl

Wilson's Equal beating meantone is here
http://anaphoria.com/meantone-mavila.PDF
yes you correct that 88 is in this ball park too (51/88)
There is a paper on 88cents which i will put up and let you know also.
the pi appears to be a coincidence

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
>
> > A) For whatever reason Lucy Tuning seems to work very well...EVEN if technically
> > it really is "just another meantone tuning"...I have yet to hear many people say
> > they think Lucy Tuning is not a particularly good meantone tuning.
>
> I'll repeat myself: Lucy tuning is a completely normal meantone tuning for fifths on the flat side, neither especially good nor especially bad. If you want a meantone tuning which has a sound which stands out from the crowd (and there's no claim here such are better) it isn't a good choice. It cannot be distinguished by ear from 88et, just for starters, and it does not have any magical acoustic properties derived from pi or anything else.
>
> Meantone tunings which *do* have unusual properties include 1/4 comma meantone, with a fifth f satisfying f^4 - 5 = 0. Close to the Lucy fifth and very hard to distinguish from it by ear, but not close enough to be identified with it, there is the Wilson fifth, satisfying f^4 - 2f - 2 = 0, and the nearby pure 9/7s fifth, satisfying 9f^8 - 224 = 0. But this isn't close enough to give the Lucy fifth the equal beating property; it has a brat of -0.7311, and the 9/7 is a cent sharp. The Lucy fifth, of course, is a transcendental number and satisfies no polynomial equation with integer coefficients.
>
> > C <partly inspired by Kraig's post>) It seems that Lucy Tuning may indeed have
> > some unique properties related to difference tones and triads...
>
> Evidence? ANY argument of any kind?
>
> and maybe, if
> > nothing else, we should stop all the whining and see if that is one (if the
> > only) thing we can learn from Lucy Tuning.
>
> Stating facts is not "whining". If you have facts to state, and not unsubstantiated claims of unspecified "special properties", state them. Otherwise, the above is, frankly, a whine.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> The whole "don't feed the troll" paradigm is like the advice
> parents often give to kids about "ignore the bully and he'll
> eventually leave you alone".
> While of course it's dumb to name call back or purposefully
> scramble other people's communication efforts (which, go figure, I
> never do)...truth is the kid who at least said "I do not deserve
> this!" and stands up for himself in a controlled fashion makes
> progress. Even if you think of Martin Luther King, Rosa
> Parks...the types of passive resistance he used (protests, filling
> up jails, speeches) did not say "I'm running away" but rather "I'm
> here, I deserve to be here, and there's no way you are going to
> make me move!"
>

Now, now. Let's not get too pathetic. Of course you deserve to be here - but you ARE here, right? If you would have been banned from this list, you might have a point, but very obviously you have NOT been banned! You can post, you can discuss everything on-topic you like - what of this would change if you stopped trollfeeding? Nothing. Really, citing Martin Luther King is ridiculous.

But - well, alright. I get it you will not stop trollfeeding. And from the history in this list, it is quite clear that Carl won't stop, either. This makes it easy to predict, to come back to the title of this thread, the future of this list: the flamewars will continue, forever. I have to say there are worse things than that, for, fortunately, this list has much more to offer than flamewars. And it will sure not "fade away", no matter what Marcel says or hopes.
As for me, I will probably start ignoring both you and Carl (and Marcel, too).

I will leave you the last word.
--
Hans Straub

http://www.activemusician.com/item--MD.SAZR

This might as well be a picture of mine. It was not tuned as usual, A-D-G, but as the next larger version, bozuk düzen, usually is, fifths from G. As typical, it has 15 frets to the octave.

The pricing of these things is tragically low, it almost makes me cry to think of the underpaid workers involved, from forest through manufacture to retail outlet.

The frets without exception were marked and placed precisely (leading edge of filament wound to mark) only on millimeter marks within the 556 millimeter scale. These instruments are nominally "260 mm" models, but this one was set to 556mm, verifiable by the (perfectly tuned, as far as I can tell) fourth and octave fret marks and placements.

The strings are very thin, very low and parallel to the fretboard, so string displacement issues in the lower region are effectively nil. Of course there's a +/- on any stringed instrument.

556/527
556/511
556/495
556/476
556/449
556/417

Here are the millimeter measurements of the fret placements within first 4/3. I checked them once again. Given that the frets were all tied to millimeter marks and the purity of the 4/3 and 2/1, I highly doubt that these are sloppy renditions of nearby targets. Nevertheless I measured some reasonable speculative possibilities such as from the back and middle rather than the leading edge of the nut and even the unlikely (given the marked pure octave) possibility that the frets were marked within a 260mm scale. I would consider it reasonable to speculate that the markings could be "meant" to be a millimeter less (higher pitch) up to two millimeters more (lower pitch).

So if you want to view these as, say, +/- 2 cents, I think that is fair.

Remember that we're talking about measured markings. String displacements issues are unusually low on this instrument, but of course the sounding intervals will vary some. Nevertheless, it's the targeted intervals we're looking at. A friend of mine with powerful hands always concretely sharps a 12-tET guitar, and there are many intonational issues in fretting, but we could still determine that his guitars are deliberately fretted to 12-tET.

-Cameron Bobro

Hans>"Now, now. Let's not get too pathetic. Of course you deserve to be here -
but you ARE here, right?"
To be more specific, let me use the old Rosa Parks example. She wasn't just
saying I'm here as in "physically around", she insisted on being in the front of
the bus as in a place of decent (though by no means over-inflated) respect. If
you are somewhere but not allowed to be heard and respected, you're often as
good as "not there": that's my point. Also, I surely don't feel "absurd" using
the MLK example...there's a huge difference between passive resistance and just
walking away or "even" physically being somewhere but not allowing yourself
communicative bandwidth to actually get a fair chance to get anything done.

>"You can post, you can discuss everything on-topic you like"
Don't get me wrong, it has gotten better...but it still happens. One
example: I posted a simple, honest post about the list double standard of "we're
not taking your point seriously because you have only managed to get a small (IE
4-5 people) double-blind survey to back it up with" and, on the other hand "I
refuse to help you get people to participate in such a survey or give credit for
your surveying efforts". Not only was the post blocked from public but I was
called a troll several times (by a troll, obviously) in public afterward.
Another: my first introduction of the PHI section scale and the whole Noble
Mediant mix-up where a troll forced others to believe a definition of the scale
I never made...it got so bad people would publish his (wrong) version of the
scale, his (wrong) assumption of properties that go with it, and call it mine!

>"And it will sure not "fade away", no matter what Marcel says or hopes."
Marcel hasn't said anything like that for ages...if at all. Like I said
before, why do people start fights like that?!

>"But - well, alright. I get it you will not stop trollfeeding."
So saying things like "I will not leave until someone attempts to get my
theory correctly instead of repeatedly misconstruing it to death to the public"
or re-posting if a get a moderator note back that "your post was refused because
it show 'circular logic' (without explaining why)" counts as "feeding the
trolls" and that if I stop doing that I'll be left in a "decent/fair" position
to voice myself on this list fairly?

I can understand IF this "trolling" issue were about, say, accepting that
someone does not like your theory: it would be solved in my case. I've had
people say my difference tone ideas and other theories were useless and said
'fine, let them be and do that' because they did not distort what I said but
simply said they didn't like it (which is OK).

But then they'd do things like say my simply communicating my ideas has the
implication of my having ego issues, of being a troll, and end up
misinterpreting my theories, re-posting them incorrectly, and in general
confusing other people. That's where I draw the line and say "it doesn't help
anyone for me to just stand here and take this". Meanwhile, I don't
particularly find useful Carl's favored theory of Tenney Height, but I surely
don't go around distorting that theory's meaning or saying "it's wrong so Carl's
must be a psuedoscientist" or anything like that...yet when I have said I don't
like Carl's theories in the past his usual response is "that's because you don't
understand it" (IE I explained periodicity in terms of both cycles and periods
and got the answer checked and confirmed by a Doctorate Geophysicist...and Carl
still refused to give me fair credit for learning it and said 'he knows NOTHING
about periodicity' about me on the list afterward). This is not a simple issue.

>" And from the history in this list, it is quite clear that Carl won't stop,
>either."
In most cases, I've found Carl being the troll rather than feeding the
troll. If he doesn't think a theory matches with his areas of expertise...he'll
quite often go a step further than saying "it's wrong" and actually blame said
person for ruining the list by posting "psuedo-science" to it and even telling
others on the list "you should never listen to this person...he's an idiot".
That's beyond childish harrassment, that's all out direct defamation.

Another example, Mike B created his tuning-research list, as I understand
it, mostly to create an environment where people could speak their minds without
fear of that happening.

I figure, let's at least get the facts straight on what types of "trolling"
we are dealing with...it's not the type you can just ignore and watch it go
away.

Cameron wrote:

> http://www.activemusician.com/item--MD.SAZR
>
> This might as well be a picture of mine.

I can't see any fret markings on that. Maybe the markings
weren't as revealing as I thought you were saying. Maybe
you were just saying, they were done by measurement.

> 556/527 ! 93
> 556/511 ! 146
> 556/495 ! 201, 9/8
> 556/476 ! 269, 7/6
> 556/449 ! 370
> 556/417 ! 498, 4/3
>
> Here are the millimeter measurements of the fret placements
> within first 4/3. I checked them once again.

Thanks. Still would be good to know all the frets.
Is it 17/oct?

I put cents and some JI intervals there.

> So if you want to view these as, say, +/- 2 cents, I think
> that is fair.

The way to determine this is to fret and play each string
on each fret several times, record it, and measure.
I think notes vary more than 2 cents even as they are
sounding, even if you fret it with a c-clamp -- due to
changing couplings at the bridges, flexure in the neck, etc.

> Nevertheless, it's the targeted intervals we're looking at.

Right.

> My mention of 81:64 was to point out that it contains a
> "bearing plan".

It doesn't contain a bearing plan, but it is tunable by
a relatively simple bearing plan. It would still be good
to find evidence of such bearing plans, as in, written
instructions. Kinda like this:

> http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/Al-Farabi%27s_%27Uds.htm

However I note that the instructions and ratios given do
not seem to match up!

>> > So, you find 81:64 an unlikely bit of numerology?
>>
>> Dude, I've only written to you four times so far that
>> Pythagorean intonation is perfectly plausible. Do you
>> read what you reply to?
>
> I know that you have said that Pythagorean intonation is
> perfectly plausible. That is why I remind you of this.

I think you missed the keyword "random". You didn't pick
81/64 at random.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > http://www.activemusician.com/item--MD.SAZR
> >
> > This might as well be a picture of mine.
>
> I can't see any fret markings on that. Maybe the markings
> weren't as revealing as I thought you were saying. Maybe
> you were just saying, they were done by measurement.

I'd have to do a real close-up photo for you to see the marks. Yes, I was saying that they were done by deliberate measurement.

You didn't make a critical remark that needs to be made: how do we know the frets weren't tied then placed by ear first, and the marks made afterward as reference points for quickly returning to the preferred usual tuning? I asked myself this immediately upon seeing the marks. This is easily answered: the frets were tied with admirable consistency to the middle of the marks. That is, each mark was halfway (of course there are fraction of millimeter variances) covered by the marks. This still doesn't rule out the possibility that the frets weren't placed by ear, moved at some point, then moved back. :-) BUT, this also is extremely unlikely, because it is plain to see that the frets were tied on before the finish was 100% dry!

If you were to inspect the instrument closely, I'm sure you'd agree that the frets were marked and tied on at the point of manufacture, or very soon thereafter, and not moved.

>
> > 556/527 ! 93
> > 556/511 ! 146
> > 556/495 ! 201, 9/8
> > 556/476 ! 269, 7/6
> > 556/449 ! 370
> > 556/417 ! 498, 4/3
> >
> > Here are the millimeter measurements of the fret placements
> > within first 4/3. I checked them once again.
>
> Thanks. Still would be good to know all the frets.
> Is it 17/oct?

15 per octave. That's usual as far as I know, though of course you might find all kinds of custom variations.
>
> I put cents and some JI intervals there.

Yes those are accurate. The 370 is right on as a characteristic Turkish interval.

>
> > So if you want to view these as, say, +/- 2 cents, I think
> > that is fair.
>
> The way to determine this is to fret and play each string
> on each fret several times, record it, and measure.
> I think notes vary more than 2 cents even as they are
> sounding, even if you fret it with a c-clamp -- due to
> changing couplings at the bridges, flexure in the neck, etc.

Of course I did this, I mentioned that I spent hours on the thing. I did it only for the first tetrachordal area, but unfortunately didn't save the Adobe Audition session. I just don't have room for this stuff, and haven't got an external drive yet.

Cleanly played, more cleanly than likely in a usual musical sesssion, the attack does indeed fluctuate more than 2 cents- much more- but it settles down into a really clean state around a central point.

>
> > Nevertheless, it's the targeted intervals we're looking at.
>
> Right.
>
> > My mention of 81:64 was to point out that it contains a
> > "bearing plan".
>
> It doesn't contain a bearing plan, but it is tunable by
> a relatively simple bearing plan. It would still be good
> to find evidence of such bearing plans, as in, written
> instructions. Kinda like this:
>
> > http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/Al-Farabi%27s_%27Uds.htm

Well that's why I posted that link. Look and you'll find more. Once you're tuned into the bearing/fretting plan nature of the intervals given in old texts, you'll see that there is indeed far less "complexity" than at first meets the eye.

And 81:64 certainly does contain a bearing plan: it's in the "etymology" as Cris described it.
>
> However I note that the instructions and ratios given do
> not seem to match up!
>
> >> > So, you find 81:64 an unlikely bit of numerology?
> >>
> >> Dude, I've only written to you four times so far that
> >> Pythagorean intonation is perfectly plausible. Do you
> >> read what you reply to?
> >
> > I know that you have said that Pythagorean intonation is
> > perfectly plausible. That is why I remind you of this.
>
> I think you missed the keyword "random". You didn't pick
> 81/64 at random.
>
> -Carl
>

I wrote:

> Dividing the space between rational frets r1 and r2, where
> r1 and r2 are RI pitches, gives their average, (r1+r2)/2.
> Is there evidence such a procedure is used systematically
> by maqam musicians or instrument makers?

Sorry, I screwed that up. For rational frets a and b the
formula is:

2ab/(a+b)

> In the fret data you gave, 26/21 is not the result of
> dividing any of the other frets this way.

Revisiting this, I still don't see any of the frets in the
first tetrachord on your saz being produced by dividing this
way after starting with 1/1, 9/8, 7/6, and 4/3.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> > Dividing the space between rational frets r1 and r2, where
> > r1 and r2 are RI pitches, gives their average, (r1+r2)/2.
> > Is there evidence such a procedure is used systematically
> > by maqam musicians or instrument makers?
>
> Sorry, I screwed that up. For rational frets a and b the
> formula is:
>
> 2ab/(a+b)

Yes, I saw that but brainfarts are no big deal.
>
> > In the fret data you gave, 26/21 is not the result of
> > dividing any of the other frets this way.
>
> Revisiting this, I still don't see any of the frets in the
> first tetrachord on your saz being produced by dividing this
> way after starting with 1/1, 9/8, 7/6, and 4/3.

I never claimed that any of the frets on my baglama were fretted this way. I did claim- accurately as you can see at the link to Cris Forster's site I gave- that ratios can be the product of such simple mechanical processes, and such simple mechanical processes are given in old texts.

So what's your explanation for the 370 cent interval on the bagalama? My explanation is simple- that interval and intervals very close to it are completely normal Turkish intervals, there's no reason for it NOT to be there except for a deliberately "modern" fretting at a degree of
24-tET, or at the ever-plausible 5:4. There's no indication as far as I can see of implementation of the old 17-tone Pythagorean theory either.

We can't overlook the possibility that the fret distances were simply copied from another instrument which was tuned by ear to something like "well, that's just the way they're supposed to sound around these parts".

-Cameron Bobro

Oh- I spent a long and careful time on the intervals fretted within the first 4:3. Before giving further frettings, I'd have to spend time remeasuring the marks beyond that, and even then I wouldn't be able to check the measured intervals against the sounding intervals without moving the frets back from where they now are, and that ain't gonna happen, as I not only spent a long time nudging those things into my own fretting, but I moved the bridge back as well.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > > Dividing the space between rational frets r1 and r2, where
> > > r1 and r2 are RI pitches, gives their average, (r1+r2)/2.
> > > Is there evidence such a procedure is used systematically
> > > by maqam musicians or instrument makers?
> >
> > Sorry, I screwed that up. For rational frets a and b the
> > formula is:
> >
> > 2ab/(a+b)
>
> Yes, I saw that but brainfarts are no big deal.
> >
> > > In the fret data you gave, 26/21 is not the result of
> > > dividing any of the other frets this way.
> >
> > Revisiting this, I still don't see any of the frets in the
> > first tetrachord on your saz being produced by dividing this
> > way after starting with 1/1, 9/8, 7/6, and 4/3.
>
> I never claimed that any of the frets on my baglama were fretted this way. I did claim- accurately as you can see at the link to Cris Forster's site I gave- that ratios can be the product of such simple mechanical processes, and such simple mechanical processes are given in old texts.
>
> So what's your explanation for the 370 cent interval on the bagalama? My explanation is simple- that interval and intervals very close to it are completely normal Turkish intervals, there's no reason for it NOT to be there except for a deliberately "modern" fretting at a degree of
> 24-tET, or at the ever-plausible 5:4. There's no indication as far as I can see of implementation of the old 17-tone Pythagorean theory either.
>
> We can't overlook the possibility that the fret distances were simply copied from another instrument which was tuned by ear to something like "well, that's just the way they're supposed to sound around these parts".
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Cameron wrote:

> So what's your explanation for the 370 cent interval
> on the bagalama? My explanation is simple- that interval and
> intervals very close to it are completely normal Turkish
> intervals ... There's no indication as far as I can see of
> implementation of the old 17-tone Pythagorean theory either.
> We can't overlook the possibility that the fret distances were
> simply copied from another instrument which was tuned by ear to
> something like "well, that's just the way they're supposed to
> sound around these parts".

For once we are in complete agreement! At least, this is
how I would guess these intervals come up. People play them,
create a cultural expectation, and that is handed down. Just
like blues singing. It isn't 12-ET, nobody really knows what
it is, a bunch of JI nuts claim it's 7-limit JI and it may
tend to hit 7:4 and 7:6 at various points but that's not really
explaining the overall phenomenon... people learn it by
listening to those who have come before... you know it's wrong
because it just doesn't sound right, not by taking measurements
and comparing to some theory... etc.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron wrote:
>
> > So what's your explanation for the 370 cent interval
> > on the bagalama? My explanation is simple- that interval and
> > intervals very close to it are completely normal Turkish
> > intervals ... There's no indication as far as I can see of
> > implementation of the old 17-tone Pythagorean theory either.
> > We can't overlook the possibility that the fret distances were
> > simply copied from another instrument which was tuned by ear to
> > something like "well, that's just the way they're supposed to
> > sound around these parts".
>
> For once we are in complete agreement! At least, this is
> how I would guess these intervals come up. People play them,
> create a cultural expectation, and that is handed down. Just
> like blues singing. It isn't 12-ET, nobody really knows what
> it is, a bunch of JI nuts claim it's 7-limit JI and it may
> tend to hit 7:4 and 7:6 at various points but that's not really
> explaining the overall phenomenon... people learn it by
> listening to those who have come before... you know it's wrong
> because it just doesn't sound right, not by taking measurements
> and comparing to some theory... etc.
>
> -Carl
>

Heh, I had assumed that we all had this basic take for it's common sense. Obviously I don't buy the "JI nuts" comment, as I find the tendency to 7:6 downright irksome in its strength, preventing me from practically using intervals a little lower, intervals which I find delightful to listen to but difficult to perform by ear because of that dang 7:6 in the way.

But let's take a look at what "those who have come before..." might actually entail. Take a look at tetrachord #459 in John Chalmer's Divisions of the tetrachord, for example. The intervals are ordered for Rast (I presume) on the baglama, but they're indistinguishable from those of an Ibn Sin tetrachord. There is more such going on on this baglama, you can figure it out if you'd like.

At this point in time we will probably never solve the chicken or egg? questions in this matter, but I'd those guys of olden days were doing a fine job of documenting and instructing, NOT playing number games.

-Cameron Bobro