Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup crazy_music Re: John deLaubenfels' ideas

Let me address your points as best I am able.

First, I agree that General MIDI is not the ideal way to share music.
Its vices are well known, and so are its virtues. If I had the means
to do so, I'd use something better. For now, I'm stuck with GM and
all its flaws.

[mclaren:]
>it's time for me to reveal that yet another member of this discussion
>group (who shan't be named) has also voiced hi/r disgust with 5-limit
>adaptive retuning.

Yes, some don't like it, and that's absolutely fine with me. I'm not
out to take over the world, only explore some options. Negative
feedback is actually more valuable than positive, as it often suggests
refinements I might make.

>Since these psychoacoustic experiments were performed way back in 1986,
>it stands to reason that the JI moonies have never heard of them. An
>old story. The JI moonies espouse a set of 2500-year-old musical fairy
>tales, so no one should find it surprising that they've never heard of
>listening experiments conducted 15 years ago.

I will freely admit that I'm shockingly ignorant. I worked with
adaptive tuning in a complete vacuum for years, and am still playing
catch-up. But the Mathews/Pierce/Roberts study would seem to suggest
that some of us are "JI moonies" by nature, no?

>With 4 members of this discussion group now speaking out against
>deLaubenfels' procedure...

Oh, I'm sure there are more than four who don't like it. I _do_ want
to get as clear a picture as possible of the like/dislike ratio, but
I'm content, ultimately, with pleasing only myself. To have
experienced, as I have, that some others are also delighted, is a
wonderful bonus.

I accept your challenge for a "double-blind" listening test. Shall I
pick the piece? Robert Walker's sequence of a C.P.E. Bach flute
(recorder?) sonata might be nice. Or a piano work by Mozart. Do you
have any preference?

(Just to pick a minor quibble: this will actually be a "single-blind"
test, will it not, since I will know which is which...)

>Is there any musical utility for adaptive retuning?

>That probably depends on what the adaptive retuning is retuning to, and
>retuning from. For example, there's no reason I can see why John
>deLaubenfels has to restrict his adaptive retuning algorithm to 5- or
>7-limit JI. What would happen if deLaubenfels tried, say, 31-limit JI,
>or 43-limit JI, or 17-limit JI, or 23-limit JI?

I agree, but there's a problem, one I have not been able to overcome so
far: when the input is 12-tET, serious ambiguities arise even for
7-limit, and become crippling at 13-limit and above. Perhaps there's
a way around this that I haven't thought of, so suggestions are welcome.

>Other issues involve the possibility of adaptively retuning 12-equal
>(or other non-12 ETs!) into some other non-12 tuning. This might offer
>real musical possibilties. In a Proceedings of a 1911 musicological
>congress I obtained recently on interlibrary loan, Melchior Sachs used
>a 19-equal harmonium to play 19-tone versions of Bach and Chopin
>compositions back in 1911.

>John deLaubenfels' general procedure might offer some very real musical
>possibilities if John would expand the retuning capabilities to go from
>any ET to any other ET, and from any JI limit to any other JI limit.

All excellent ideas. Just a question of finding the time to program
them.

>The idea of trying to get all the major and minor triads beatless and
>5-limit was tried back in the 19th century.

Yes, but without the tools available today to distribute out commas,
etc. Let's begin anew and see what falls out.

Please let me know if you have any thoughts on a piece for the blind
challenge, and I'll try to get it posted this weekend. Natch, it has
to be something that I can get ahold of an actual GM sequence of, and
that I agree is appropriate (i.e., no serial pieces ;-> ).

JdL

Re: John deLaubenfels' ideas

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>