This is an Opt In Archive . We would like to hear from you if you want your posts included. For the contact address see About this archive. All posts are copyright (c).
Contents Hide Contents S 1211000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11200 - 11225 -
Message: 11203 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 03:50:51 Subject: Re: my paper nears completion From: Paul Erlich Thanks Herman. I like the way the second one is formatted -- just the chord progression. Tying common tones would be nice too, especially where enharmonic equivalence comes into play, if it's not too difficult. What do you say? -Paul
Message: 11207 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:16:01 Subject: Re: Gene's mail server From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > And your reason is not correct. It *isn't* the periodic unit in the tempered lattice? Where did I go wrong? > Just shortening them would help--dimip, dimis, negrip, negris, sensip, > sensis. Those don't strike me as better names, but thanks.
Message: 11209 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:26:57 Subject: origin of mork tuning (was: Gene's mail server) From: monz hi Paul and Gene, --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote: > <snip> > > > Graham, can you explain (maybe on tuning-math) what > > the melodic approach is? > > Take a look at Graham's webpages on meantone, schismic, > diaschismic . . . It seems to be closely wedded to the > val approach, which is why I suggested we use the term > "breeds" to refer to vals (as long as we're using "monzos" > to refer to lattice vectors). i like that !! ;-) i recall some posts a while back which complained of using "val", instead of a new term. >> > Why orson? > >> Son of Orwell, or ORson WELLs, or whatever . . . > >Why not just orwell? > > Different tuning, different horagrams. "Mork to Orson!" Hello? > > :) ... hmm ... monz predicts that Gene's next temperament family will be named "Mork" ... that will be one zany tuning !!! ... wonder what properties it will have? i'm sure Gene will give a full description of it, including all the monzos and breeds. :) (seems like this cyber-community is becoming a nice cozy family) what tuning concept will we ever call a "smith"? ;-) ;-) -monz
Message: 11211 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:28:31 Subject: Re: origin of mork tuning (was: Gene's mail server) From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote: > what tuning concept will we ever call a "smith"? > > ;-) ;-) Aaron J. suggested that the "wedgie" be renamed the "genie" . . .
Message: 11213 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:29:05 Subject: Re: Wedgies and generators From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > [to Gene] > If you were teaching a class, I would have failed out a > long time ago. imagine the trouble i'm having keeping up with Gene's work. :( -monz
Message: 11214 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:36:43 Subject: temperament names (was: Gene's mail server) From: monz hi Gene and Paul --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > <snip> > > Ah! The light dawns--you are proposing, in effect, > a naming system where two temperaments at different limits > carry the same name if, and only if, they have the same > TOP generators. This would indeed be simple and logical, > and the only problem would arise when they have *almost* > the same TOP generators, where you will be drawing a fine > distinction which may not mean much in practice. can you explain why TOP generators are so important? > I we adopt this plan, I suggest that we do link the names > of related systems, as in augmented-august-augene and > orson-orwell. I'd be interested in what other people think > of a sweeping revision of temperament nomenclature along > these lines; I've been trying to work it in this direction, > but not systematically. i support that idea whole-heartedly !!! -monz
Message: 11216 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:45:09 Subject: bimonzos, and naming tunings (was: Gene's mail server)) From: monz hi again, Gene and Paul, --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote: > <snip> > > > Are you expecting people to read the comma values > > off of the bimonzo? > > No. But as long as we're on the subject here, it might > be worth reviewing here for list memmbers how you do that. > Not in the paper. yes, please do review it! > > Anyway, since these names are so ugly, does *anyone* > have suggestions for renaming them (Dimipent, Dimisept, > Negripent, Negrisept, Sensipent, Sensisept) that preserves > their approximate alphabetical location? my suggestion: i think that the past decade has seen a great expansion of the study of tuning, thanks largely to the internet. now that we have so much broader a view of large numbers of tunings, we should subject the whole "tuning universe" to deep review, and come up with a really good and logical system of classification and naming. -monz
Message: 11217 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:52:09 Subject: Re: temperament names (was: Gene's mail server) From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote: > hi Gene and Paul > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > Ah! The light dawns--you are proposing, in effect, > > a naming system where two temperaments at different limits > > carry the same name if, and only if, they have the same > > TOP generators. This would indeed be simple and logical, > > and the only problem would arise when they have *almost* > > the same TOP generators, where you will be drawing a fine > > distinction which may not mean much in practice. > > > > can you explain why TOP generators are so important? I'm not actually proposing what Gene said I'm proposing above. TOP is great, but I wouldn't make it so all-important. I'm just naming horagrams in my paper, that's all.
Message: 11218 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:53:02 Subject: Re: my paper nears completion From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote: > Paul Erlich wrote: > > > Thanks Herman. > > > > I like the way the second one is formatted -- just the chord > > progression. Tying common tones would be nice too, especially where > > enharmonic equivalence comes into play, if it's not too difficult. > > What do you say? > > Well, I'll have to draw the arcs in by hand, since I don't have proper > notation software. > > Hmm, Paint Shop Pro does Bezier curves, so I guess that'll have to do. > > http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/porcupine-b.gif * Thanks, Herman!
Message: 11219 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:54:28 Subject: Re: bimonzos, and naming tunings (was: Gene's mail server)) From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote: > hi again, Gene and Paul, > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote: > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > Are you expecting people to read the comma values > > > off of the bimonzo? > > > > No. But as long as we're on the subject here, it might > > be worth reviewing here for list memmbers how you do that. > > Not in the paper. > > > yes, please do review it! > > > > > > > Anyway, since these names are so ugly, does *anyone* > > have suggestions for renaming them (Dimipent, Dimisept, > > Negripent, Negrisept, Sensipent, Sensisept) that preserves > > their approximate alphabetical location? > > > my suggestion: > > i think that the past decade has seen a great expansion > of the study of tuning, thanks largely to the internet. > > now that we have so much broader a view of large numbers > of tunings, we should subject the whole "tuning universe" > to deep review, and come up with a really good and logical > system of classification and naming. OK, but this was asked in the context of my paper, which has to be submitted very soon. Did you see the draft?
Message: 11220 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:54:44 Subject: dual, and inner product space (was: Gene's mail server) From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > Not when you've already introduced the > > "monzos" concept but haven't introduced > > the "vals" concept. > > You introduce both, more or less, in your paper, > at least to the extent of an implictly defined > vector space togher with its dual. is that "together with its dual"? what is the dual? if you could explain it along the lines of my "prime-space" definition, that would help me. Definitions of tuning terms: prime-space, (c) 2003 by Joe Monzo * > That is how you ended up with a bracket product > despite the fact that no inner product space is > being discussed, or would make any sense in the context. what's an "inner product space"? is "vector space" here synonymous with my definition of "prime-space"? -monz
Message: 11221 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:58:38 Subject: Re: origin of mork tuning (was: Gene's mail server) From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote: > > > what tuning concept will we ever call a "smith"? > > > > ;-) ;-) > > Aaron J. suggested that the "wedgie" be renamed the "genie" . . . ok, so my encylopaedia needs TV themes for these shows, *in* the tunings named after them, for this new category of tuning names! Herman, what do you say? :) i write the definitions, you make the webpages full of MIDI files, and we link to each other. -monz
Message: 11222 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 06:00:05 Subject: Re: Gene's mail server From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > Not when you've already introduced the "monzos" concept but haven't > > introduced the "vals" concept. > > You introduce both, more or less, in your paper, at least to the > extent of an implictly defined vector space togher with its dual. Something "implicit" isn't a concept that I introduced in the paper. Is it possible for you to think like a non-mathematician for a moment? Look, the next version of the paper will show, a little more explicitly, what you call the "JIP val" -- and what I would call "pitch altitude" or something -- in the 3-limit lattice. At that point, maybe you could meet me halfway and try to give specific suggestions that I can implement readily, rather than overarching criticisms which would require, essentially, a new paper . . .
Message: 11223 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 18:26:33 Subject: Re: from linear to equal From: Carl Lumma >Linear temperaments (or 2-dimensional tunings) are infinitely >extendable. Once you extend a linear temperament eonugh you'll start >getting different pitches that nevertheless are more or less >indistinguishable from each other. Even before that you'll get >approximations that are better than those the linear temperament is >supposed to give. > >So what would be a good place to close the circle and go from linear >to equal? > >For TOP tempered linear temperaments I suggest closing the circle >when you start getting better approximations to the primes for which >the tuning is optimized. > >What are your thoughts about this? Hi Kalle, I wouldn't indicate such a hard-and-fast rule. If you reach those notes (the better approximations) by modulating in a piece of music, I'd say use them. If not, don't. Of course you're not allowed to use them as direct approximations and still call it the same regular temperament you started with. Maybe Gene will correct me but I think changing the map in this fashion means you're using a different temperament. There's nothing wrong with that of course -- or one could remain faithful to the original map and keep the fine distinctions of the extended progression -- or one could equalize. All seem valid. -Carl
Message: 11224 Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 06:12:00 Subject: Re: Gene's mail server From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> >Here's what Math World has on dual vector spaces: > >Dual Vector Space -- from MathWorld * > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LinearFunctional.html * Did you notice that this second link was in the footnotes of my paper? And here's what it says on Angle Bracket: Angle Bracket -- from MathWorld * It says that the bra is a covariant 1-vector, and the ket is a contravariant one-form. It also says that the combination of the two, as in <v|w>, is an inner product. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/ * <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: Yahoo! Terms of Service *
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11200 - 11225 -