Re: [MMM] Re: what the world needs now (is not another love song)

Uhh, sure. I don't think I meant to pit anything against any other thing. I
just kept reading about one mans attempt to get into tuning, and it sounded
like it was costing him alot of money, and time figuring out programs, when
he could be humming along on some simple instrument actually learning music
through the physics of sound. People of "primitive" cultures around the
world are intellectualy kicking our butts in regard to what we know about
tuning. Tune up and play and really listen to a hammered dulcimer, and
you'll see what I mean. A 5th grade persian dulcimer player knows more about
the physics of tuning than 95% of all members of any tuning list. I am in
the lowest ten percentile of that 95%.
I've heard so many excuses for not learning about tuning. I would hate
to see yet another person become discouraged because for them, the road to
tuning seems to involve $1500- and the reading and understanding of
thousands of pages of software manuals.

Start with a harmonic series. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. teach the
relations. 3 over 2 is... 7 over 4 is...
you get the jpeg. It just seems like so much in the west, we can't validate
something until it costs alot of money, requires "specialized" knowledge,
and requires someone to basically become a zealot.

Again, rant over,
GZ

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

> [George Zelenz wrote:]
> >Twiddle sound, not knobs. I'm not a technophobe. I am now chest deep in
> >state of the art gizmos, and loving it. But I didn't start here. I
> >don't mean to say that the route your on is wrong, it is fine. But all
> >this talk about electric this and that for learning JI is rubbish. The
> >greatest thinkers EVER in JI never even used electricity to learn. Ears
> >work in the dark.
>
> Well, I have to disagree. Sure, acoustic instruments are the cat's
> meow, but twiddling electronic knobs is the best way to listen to
> various tunings precisely. "Rubbish"? Not in my book! I can't claim
> to belong to the cadre of "greatest thinkers ever" (in JI or anything
> else), but I _can_ lay claim to having benefitted greatly from having
> tunable electronic synths under my hands. If I can ever retrofit
> adaptive tuning to an acoustic piano, I'll be in heaven!
>
> I guess I don't see why electronic and acoustic instruments should be
> pitted against each other, with one declared a "winner" by one camp,
> and a "loser" by the other. I would rather encourage everyone to make
> use of all available instruments of every sort.
>
> I agree that ears work best in the dark. Luckily it is perfectly
> possible, even easy, to listen to music, acoustic or electronic, in any
> lighting conditions one desires.
>
> JdL
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

George Zelenz wrote:

> Uhh, sure. I don't think I meant to pit anything against any other
> thing. I
> just kept reading about one mans attempt to get into tuning, and it
> sounded
> like it was costing him alot of money, and time figuring out programs,
> when
> he could be humming along on some simple instrument actually learning
> music
> through the physics of sound. People of "primitive" cultures around
> the
> world are intellectualy kicking our butts in regard to what we know
> about
> tuning. Tune up and play and really listen to a hammered dulcimer, and
>
> you'll see what I mean. A 5th grade persian dulcimer player knows more
> about
> the physics of tuning than 95% of all members of any tuning list. I am
> in
> the lowest ten percentile of that 95%.
> I've heard so many excuses for not learning about tuning. I would
> hate
> to see yet another person become discouraged because for them, the
> road to
> tuning seems to involve $1500- and the reading and understanding of
> thousands of pages of software manuals.
>
> Start with a harmonic series. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. teach the
> relations. 3 over 2 is... 7 over 4 is...
> you get the jpeg. It just seems like so much in the west, we can't
> validate
> something until it costs alot of money, requires "specialized"
> knowledge,
> and requires someone to basically become a zealot.
>
> Again, rant over,
> GZ
>

If I might come in here with a middle way.

I have benefited immensely from building and tuning instruments. I've
never been so content with my musical endeavours. I would urge all of
you in this present incarnation to build just one instrument and tune it
up even if you only make a slit drum.

This is not easy though and indeed it took me a bit of a lifestyle
change and physical relocation to access the necessary resources. I also
agree that we all get caught up in gear and money. Do we blame the
capitalists for that or just our own acquisitive minds? I've seen myself
go from lusting after the biggest spec sampler and synth to drooling
over exotic hardwoods (sad but true).

With judicious planning and purchasing you can have an excellent
microtonal studio that won't suffer from built in obsolescence. I
believe it's worth some time and effort to have this if you're serious,
particularly with composition. Using the technology as a means to an end
or as an end in itself or somewhere on a sliding scale between the two
is an artistic choice.

But when St. Peter at the Pearly Gates asks me what I did good I can't
see myself banging on about resonant filters. I'll be telling him all
about the instruments I've made and the music I wrote for them.

hi -- i've been reading the tuning list for a long time and just found out
about this list. as far as learning JI / alternate tunings goes, i can
say something on it and introduce myself at the same time..

i read the tuning list for a long time without being able to do much
with the information i was reading since i didn't have a way to
hear what they were talking about. someone at some point recommended
the book "the harmonic experience" by w.a. mathieu. this book gave me
my first in-depth hands-on (or ears-on) experience with JI. it shows you
how to experience JI via the simple and cheap instrument of your voice
along with a drone.

i've done computer / MIDI music for a long time. around the time i was
finally getting to hear and sing JI, i began to use and program audio
in Max/MSP for macintosh. at first my computer was too lame to be able
to do much with digital audio, but an eventual upgrade openned the
floodgates for MSP and i've been learning and creating music with it
ever since.

once i got past the learning curve of programming for digital audio,
i began to make little programs that made it easier to explore and
use JI tunings. now i have a little program in which i can map keys
on a midi keyboard to various pitch ratios, changeable on the fly.
so i can say, hmm, what would a 1:1 - 11:8 -- 8:5 chord sound like?
oh, ok, hmm, what if that 11:8 was a 7:6? etc...

the question now is, as always, where do i go from here? :)

paul

--
. . . p f l y . . .
http://www.neuron.net/~pfly/
...music and graphics for the 3rd millennium...

Indeed. Where do we go. Thats always the fun part.

Your program sounds cool! What do you need to run it? Can I use it?
GZ

>
>
> once i got past the learning curve of programming for digital audio,
> i began to make little programs that made it easier to explore and
> use JI tunings. now i have a little program in which i can map keys
> on a midi keyboard to various pitch ratios, changeable on the fly.
> so i can say, hmm, what would a 1:1 - 11:8 -- 8:5 chord sound like?
> oh, ok, hmm, what if that 11:8 was a 7:6? etc...
>
> the question now is, as always, where do i go from here? :)
>
> paul
>
> --
> . . . p f l y . . .
> http://www.neuron.net/~pfly/
> ...music and graphics for the 3rd millennium...
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/