Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Can microtonal tunings enhance the interpersonal meaning of music?

heeeee. . . did you ever know william malm? i took his class as a
youngster- he used to make us recite every mornign and sometimes several
times:
"Music is NOT an international language- it consists of a WHOLE series of
equally logical btu different systems"--

and i must say i agreed with him teh FIRST time. . . oh yes. . . .

> I understand music NOT to be a universal language. as someone who has
> a
> world music show and listen primarily to traditional music around the
> world, i am more and more aware of the differences in how music and
> scales are used. the function of music in different cultures is not even
> the same, much less how to express what is desired
> The great thing about mircotonality, is that it is the proper basis in
> which different cultures can exchange ideas .
> it is the means to the goal, but the goal is a long way off
>
> Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'd like your opinions on this question -
> >Does microtonal tuning enhance our abilities to use music to communicate
> >meanings that are the same for all listeners?
> >
> >You can find an interesting reference on the topic of "the
> interpersonal
> >meaning of music" at -
> >http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Knobloch_95.html
> >Regards,
> >Yahya
> >
> >
> >--
> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/159 - Release Date: 2/11/05
> >
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Music on hold Music for
> advertising Music licensing
>
> Music production education
> Music production schools
> Music
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> Visit your group "MakeMicroMusic" on the web.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> MakeMicroMusic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

--
Katt Hernandez
247 Cambridge Street #3
Allston, MA 02134
617-499-1994
katt at riseup dot net
http://www.katthernandez.com

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

On 11/3/05, Katt Hernandez <katt@...> wrote:

> "Music is NOT an international language- it consists of a WHOLE series of
> equally logical but different systems"

That might go a long way towards explaining my difficulties with Bach.
I've always been impressed by Carl Sagan and Douglass Hofstadter's
descriptions of the emotional complexity in Bach, but when I listened
to it all I could ever hear were notes. I just kept banging my head
against it for a while, though, and now I've figured out how to
approach Bach on his own terms and hear the emotions behind the notes.

Same thing happened with the Onkyo record "Good Morning/Good Night". I
was awed by a reviewer's description of the emotional content, but all
I could hear was beeping, until I figured out what "its own terms"
were, and then I could understand it.

Music is like speech, in a way. Speech could be called a universal
language, because nearly everyone (nearly) uses it to communicate. But
if I listen to a swedish man speaking, it's as meaningless to me as
Maqam music. Until I learn what the terms of the music are, until I
learn the language, it's just notes.

Call microtones, then, the International Phonetic Alphabet of music.

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

are his writing anywhere?

Katt Hernandez wrote:

>heeeee. . . did you ever know william malm? i took his class as a
>youngster- he used to make us recite every mornign and sometimes several
>times:
>"Music is NOT an international language- it consists of a WHOLE series of
>equally logical btu different systems"--
>
>and i must say i agreed with him teh FIRST time. . . oh yes. . . .
>
>
> >
>> I understand music NOT to be a universal language. as someone who has
>>a
>> world music show and listen primarily to traditional music around the
>> world, i am more and more aware of the differences in how music and
>> scales are used. the function of music in different cultures is not even
>> the same, much less how to express what is desired
>> The great thing about mircotonality, is that it is the proper basis in
>> which different cultures can exchange ideas .
>> it is the means to the goal, but the goal is a long way off
>>
>> Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >I'd like your opinions on this question -
>> >Does microtonal tuning enhance our abilities to use music to communicate
>> >meanings that are the same for all listeners?
>> >
>> >You can find an interesting reference on the topic of "the
>>interpersonal
>> >meaning of music" at -
>> >http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Knobloch_95.html
>> >Regards,
>> >Yahya
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> >Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/159 - Release Date: 2/11/05
>> >
>> >
>> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Kraig Grady
>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
>> The Wandering Medicine Show
>> KXLU 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>>
>>
>> SPONSORED LINKS
>> Music on hold Music for
>>advertising Music licensing
>>
>>Music production education
>>Music production schools
>>Music
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>> Visit your group "MakeMicroMusic" on the web.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> MakeMicroMusic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>> >>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

Katt, my good friend, I have to say I agree with this statement. And
Garo and I are dying to jam with you again, it's been too long!

-Paul

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Katt Hernandez" <katt@r...>
wrote:
>
>
> heeeee. . . did you ever know william malm? i took his class as a
> youngster- he used to make us recite every mornign and sometimes
several
> times:
> "Music is NOT an international language- it consists of a WHOLE
series of
> equally logical btu different systems"--
>
> and i must say i agreed with him teh FIRST time. . . oh yes. . . .
>
>
> > I understand music NOT to be a universal language. as someone
who has
> > a
> > world music show and listen primarily to traditional music
around the
> > world, i am more and more aware of the differences in how music
and
> > scales are used. the function of music in different cultures is
not even
> > the same, much less how to express what is desired
> > The great thing about mircotonality, is that it is the proper
basis in
> > which different cultures can exchange ideas .
> > it is the means to the goal, but the goal is a long way off
> >
> > Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >I'd like your opinions on this question -
> > >Does microtonal tuning enhance our abilities to use music to
communicate
> > >meanings that are the same for all listeners?
> > >
> > >You can find an interesting reference on the topic of "the
> > interpersonal
> > >meaning of music"; at -
> > >http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Knobloch_95.html
> > >Regards,
> > >Yahya
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.7/159 - Release Date:
2/11/05
> > >
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Music on hold Music for
> > advertising Music licensing
> >
> > Music production education
> > Music production schools
> > Music
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > Visit your group "MakeMicroMusic" on the web.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > MakeMicroMusic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
>
>
> --
> Katt Hernandez
> 247 Cambridge Street #3
> Allston, MA 02134
> 617-499-1994
> katt at riseup dot net
> http://www.katthernandez.com
>

🔗ambassadorbob <petesfriedclams@...>

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

On 11/3/05, ambassadorbob <petesfriedclams@...> wrote:

> I haven't lived up to it, but I like to think of microtonal music as
> having the potential for a new language with new meanings.

This is getting really close to my work in linguistics. There are lots
of languages that aren't written down (musical traditions: Maqam,
Shona, etcetera) and there are linguists who write them down using the
Phonetic Alphabet, so that they can better study the language. Then
there are hobby linguists who create their own languages, and write
down the phonetic structure, the word meanings, etc. These are called
Conlangs.

It sounds like what you intend to do (and what Sachiko Matsubara may
have done) is create a conlang of musicality. These are the pitches
and intervals in the system, their cents values and frequency ratios
are this, and the music is based on these structures. This structure
is generally considered happy, this one sad. Etcetera.

What you're doing there is describing a musical culture, a way of
listening to, composing, and performing a kind of music that doesn't
exist. By doing this you create new terms on which to approach music,
terms which are entiely defined by your own whim. And that raises many
of the same questions it does in linguistics. Is there a Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis of music?

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

well even in charting single intervals, i can think of the example of how two low gongs are used in both the slendro and the pelog of a village lets say,
but in one scale it is a very large third, in the other it is a very small fourth.
so the meaning of the interval changes within the context it is presented.

Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:

>On 11/3/05, ambassadorbob <petesfriedclams@...> wrote:
>
> >
>>I haven't lived up to it, but I like to think of microtonal music as
>>having the potential for a new language with new meanings.
>> >>
>
>This is getting really close to my work in linguistics. There are lots
>of languages that aren't written down (musical traditions: Maqam,
>Shona, etcetera) and there are linguists who write them down using the
>Phonetic Alphabet, so that they can better study the language. Then
>there are hobby linguists who create their own languages, and write
>down the phonetic structure, the word meanings, etc. These are called
>Conlangs.
>
>It sounds like what you intend to do (and what Sachiko Matsubara may
>have done) is create a conlang of musicality. These are the pitches
>and intervals in the system, their cents values and frequency ratios
>are this, and the music is based on these structures. This structure
>is generally considered happy, this one sad. Etcetera.
>
>What you're doing there is describing a musical culture, a way of
>listening to, composing, and performing a kind of music that doesn't
>exist. By doing this you create new terms on which to approach music,
>terms which are entiely defined by your own whim. And that raises many
>of the same questions it does in linguistics. Is there a Sapir-Whorf
>hypothesis of music?
>
>--
>~Tristan Parker
>http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
>"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
>-- Terry Riley
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

Hi all,

Thank you to everyone who gave their answers to my question.
The consensus of the group appears to be that no music has a
definite universal meaning. Yet many feel that the idea of one
or more musical "languages" is a useful simile.

I had to grin at considering microtones as "the IPA of music".
This is a provocative idea. It is also quite an exact analogy,
since both speech and music deal with sounds, and as the IPA
denotes the recognisably distinct elemental classes of sounds
in speech - the phonemes and their allophones, such as various
vowels, consonants, approximants etc - so too a good symbolism
for microtones might denote the recognisably distinct elemental
classes of sounds in music. I don't think we have yet got such a
symbolism, but Sagittal, HEWM and other notation schemes are
laying the groundwork for it.

Perhaps, we could extend the analogy. Most linguists pay great
mind to the phonemics of language, yet few pay much attention
to suprasegmentals - the broader articulations and stress
patterns that cover phrases and whole utterances. Similarly,
microtonalists attend assiduously to nuances of intonation, but
(at least as microtonalists) tend to ignore the rï¿½les of motiv,
phrasing, dynamics and metrical stress patterns that shape a
melody, a thematic statement or a whole movement. I can't
help but think that in many of these areas, too, there may be
musical benefit from adopting a more thoroughgoing "micro"
approach. For example, how many levels of (relative) dynamic
stress can listeners readily distinguish? And how many could
they, with the sophistication that comes with greater practice?
Again, why do we only divide our metrical notes by twos, threes
and their products, rather than by fives, sevens and 53s? What
would music sound like with rhythms "in the 11-limit"?

On the original question, I feel that -

(a) Not all music is about communication. Some of it is about
exploration, some about exploitation. Yet most of it does have
communication of a mood or feeling as a an important goal.
However, to equate it to language is to suppose it capable of
communicating almost any kind of specific information with
great exactness, and I don't think it really can.

(b) Different musical cultures, and different musicians within
them, use musical resources in vastly different ways, so that
that they can and cannot "say" certain things. The musical
culture can be likened to a language of emotions (not of factual
assertions). The musician (composer or performer) in turn can
be likened to a writer - some are novelists, some are poets, some
write philosophical treatises, some write instruction manuals
and some write enigmatic riddles.

(c) From the above, most music does have an emotional meaning.
Put another way, it moves people. The ways in which it moves
people do depend on cultural associations and the expectations
they engender. Yet underlying these cultural norms, there is
the fact of our shared biology and our common feelings. Few
of us would have trouble identifying "creepy" music or "bold"
music, I think, and these categories may be more universal than
some other categories of music. In particular, the paradigm
that "major is happy and minor is sad", is, I believe, quite wrong.
As evidence, when I walk around whistling an old air in a minor
key, to one of the saddest bushranger ballads I know, more
often than not someone (usually a nonmusician) will say "You
must be happy!" And if you harmonise "The Eriskay Love Lilt"
with I IV V7, the tune sounds decidedly majorish (maybe it's
really a perverted pentatonic? ;-/ ), yet it is a sad song.
Despite the failure of this particular categorisation, I do feel
that all humans do respond emotionally to some aspects of
music in ways that are hard-wired into our brains. Eg, higher
notes and faster, driving rhythms tend to excite us all, and the
converse also applies.

In this particular "nature versus nurture" controversy, I favour
the notion that ineluctable nurture (culture) strongly conditions
the responses that arise in ineradicable nature (neurophysiology);
our brains encapsulate our evolutionary history, which has its
emotional seat in the primitive amygdala, yet they also record
the dictates of our cultures, through which we filter, modify and
transform our impulses into complex social experiences. Both
play a part in the whole experience of music. Although our
critical and analytical faculties, residing in the cerebral cortex,
can identify that a fugue theme has been repeated a fifth higher,
it is our emotional needs that first recognise the presence of,
and respond to, the structure-giving and reassuring repetition.
I postulate a two-stage process: that the fundamental emotional
response to any music is the same and is immediate for all normal
humans, but that the emotional response to that music of which
any human listener is aware is the result of mediating that first
response through the filters of culture and learnt experience.

Regards,
Yahya
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 3/11/05

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Tibetan Buddhist music is a good example of music where it function/ purpose can be quite a odds with how we perceive it in the west or elsewhere.
while i thoroughly enjoy this music, i assume i perceive it in a different way than them. possibly they have a similar emotional response and the purpose is to become detached from this, i do not know.
they always seem to be smiling though afterwards.
Anyway a long way around the idea of music having medical uses for many people with the idea of an emotional response not a part of the game.
I do think you are quite right about the notions of motivic influences and think this appears in most extended works by most , in one way or other. how different people perceive change or not change of an idea, has an emotional and , sometimes almost alchemical power to transform

Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Thank you to everyone who gave their answers to my question.
>The consensus of the group appears to be that no music has a
>definite universal meaning. Yet many feel that the idea of one
>or more musical "languages" is a useful simile.
>
>I had to grin at considering microtones as "the IPA of music".
>This is a provocative idea. It is also quite an exact analogy,
>since both speech and music deal with sounds, and as the IPA
>denotes the recognisably distinct elemental classes of sounds
>in speech - the phonemes and their allophones, such as various
>vowels, consonants, approximants etc - so too a good symbolism
>for microtones might denote the recognisably distinct elemental
>classes of sounds in music. I don't think we have yet got such a
>symbolism, but Sagittal, HEWM and other notation schemes are
>laying the groundwork for it.
>
>Perhaps, we could extend the analogy. Most linguists pay great
>mind to the phonemics of language, yet few pay much attention
>to suprasegmentals - the broader articulations and stress
>patterns that cover phrases and whole utterances. Similarly,
>microtonalists attend assiduously to nuances of intonation, but
>(at least as microtonalists) tend to ignore the rï¿½les of motiv,
>phrasing, dynamics and metrical stress patterns that shape a
>melody, a thematic statement or a whole movement. I can't
>help but think that in many of these areas, too, there may be
>musical benefit from adopting a more thoroughgoing "micro"
>approach. For example, how many levels of (relative) dynamic
>stress can listeners readily distinguish? And how many could
>they, with the sophistication that comes with greater practice?
>Again, why do we only divide our metrical notes by twos, threes
>and their products, rather than by fives, sevens and 53s? What
>would music sound like with rhythms "in the 11-limit"?
>
>On the original question, I feel that -
>
>(a) Not all music is about communication. Some of it is about
>exploration, some about exploitation. Yet most of it does have
>communication of a mood or feeling as a an important goal.
>However, to equate it to language is to suppose it capable of
>communicating almost any kind of specific information with
>great exactness, and I don't think it really can.
>
>(b) Different musical cultures, and different musicians within
>them, use musical resources in vastly different ways, so that
>that they can and cannot "say" certain things. The musical
>culture can be likened to a language of emotions (not of factual
>assertions). The musician (composer or performer) in turn can
>be likened to a writer - some are novelists, some are poets, some
>write philosophical treatises, some write instruction manuals
>and some write enigmatic riddles.
>
>(c) From the above, most music does have an emotional meaning.
>Put another way, it moves people. The ways in which it moves
>people do depend on cultural associations and the expectations
>they engender. Yet underlying these cultural norms, there is
>the fact of our shared biology and our common feelings. Few
>of us would have trouble identifying "creepy" music or "bold"
>music, I think, and these categories may be more universal than
>some other categories of music. In particular, the paradigm
>that "major is happy and minor is sad", is, I believe, quite wrong.
>As evidence, when I walk around whistling an old air in a minor
>key, to one of the saddest bushranger ballads I know, more
>often than not someone (usually a nonmusician) will say "You
>must be happy!" And if you harmonise "The Eriskay Love Lilt"
>with I IV V7, the tune sounds decidedly majorish (maybe it's
>really a perverted pentatonic? ;-/ ), yet it is a sad song.
>Despite the failure of this particular categorisation, I do feel
>that all humans do respond emotionally to some aspects of
>music in ways that are hard-wired into our brains. Eg, higher
>notes and faster, driving rhythms tend to excite us all, and the
>converse also applies.
>
>In this particular "nature versus nurture" controversy, I favour
>the notion that ineluctable nurture (culture) strongly conditions
>the responses that arise in ineradicable nature (neurophysiology);
>our brains encapsulate our evolutionary history, which has its
>emotional seat in the primitive amygdala, yet they also record
>the dictates of our cultures, through which we filter, modify and
>transform our impulses into complex social experiences. Both
>play a part in the whole experience of music. Although our
>critical and analytical faculties, residing in the cerebral cortex,
>can identify that a fugue theme has been repeated a fifth higher,
>it is our emotional needs that first recognise the presence of,
>and respond to, the structure-giving and reassuring repetition.
>I postulate a two-stage process: that the fundamental emotional
>response to any music is the same and is immediate for all normal
>humans, but that the emotional response to that music of which
>any human listener is aware is the result of mediating that first
>response through the filters of culture and learnt experience.
>
>Regards,
>Yahya
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 3/11/05
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

Hi Yahya,

I greatly enjoyed your essay.

My own brief foray, a few years ago, into composition with the use
of software was necessarily shaped by the capabilities and
limitations of the software. Sadly, the program would not "do"
microtones, anything other than 12tET, but its creator took an
approach to the definition of timing issues (including but not
limited to 'metrical divisions') that facilitated all kinds of
interesting experimentation. As I recall, one could define an atomic
pulse as a given fraction of a second and then specify how many
pulses one wanted to assign as the duration of a tone or of a
silence between tones (on a given MIDI track).

I created some "jazz" and music that was unlike any known genre that
exploited some very odd groupings of pulses. The jazzy music came
off sounding like syncopation plus metrical sloppiness that somehow
worked musically.

Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
periodically coincide. An example that humans can play and have
played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
of human players.

So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
produces an effect. Whether or not that effect is very musical or
meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
interesting sort of thing to play with.

Regards,
George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you to everyone who gave their answers to my question.
> The consensus of the group appears to be that no music has a
> definite universal meaning. Yet many feel that the idea of one
> or more musical "languages" is a useful simile.
>
> I had to grin at considering microtones as "the IPA of music".
> This is a provocative idea. It is also quite an exact analogy,
> since both speech and music deal with sounds, and as the IPA
> denotes the recognisably distinct elemental classes of sounds
> in speech - the phonemes and their allophones, such as various
> vowels, consonants, approximants etc - so too a good symbolism
> for microtones might denote the recognisably distinct elemental
> classes of sounds in music. I don't think we have yet got such a
> symbolism, but Sagittal, HEWM and other notation schemes are
> laying the groundwork for it.
>
> Perhaps, we could extend the analogy. Most linguists pay great
> mind to the phonemics of language, yet few pay much attention
> to suprasegmentals - the broader articulations and stress
> patterns that cover phrases and whole utterances. Similarly,
> microtonalists attend assiduously to nuances of intonation, but
> (at least as microtonalists) tend to ignore the rôles of motiv,
> phrasing, dynamics and metrical stress patterns that shape a
> melody, a thematic statement or a whole movement. I can't
> help but think that in many of these areas, too, there may be
> musical benefit from adopting a more thoroughgoing "micro"
> approach. For example, how many levels of (relative) dynamic
> stress can listeners readily distinguish? And how many could
> they, with the sophistication that comes with greater practice?
> Again, why do we only divide our metrical notes by twos, threes
> and their products, rather than by fives, sevens and 53s? What
> would music sound like with rhythms "in the 11-limit"?
>
> On the original question, I feel that -
>
> (a) Not all music is about communication. Some of it is about
> exploration, some about exploitation. Yet most of it does have
> communication of a mood or feeling as a an important goal.
> However, to equate it to language is to suppose it capable of
> communicating almost any kind of specific information with
> great exactness, and I don't think it really can.
>
> (b) Different musical cultures, and different musicians within
> them, use musical resources in vastly different ways, so that
> that they can and cannot "say" certain things. The musical
> culture can be likened to a language of emotions (not of factual
> assertions). The musician (composer or performer) in turn can
> be likened to a writer - some are novelists, some are poets, some
> write philosophical treatises, some write instruction manuals
> and some write enigmatic riddles.
>
> (c) From the above, most music does have an emotional meaning.
> Put another way, it moves people. The ways in which it moves
> people do depend on cultural associations and the expectations
> they engender. Yet underlying these cultural norms, there is
> the fact of our shared biology and our common feelings. Few
> of us would have trouble identifying "creepy" music or "bold"
> music, I think, and these categories may be more universal than
> some other categories of music. In particular, the paradigm
> that "major is happy and minor is sad", is, I believe, quite wrong.
> As evidence, when I walk around whistling an old air in a minor
> key, to one of the saddest bushranger ballads I know, more
> often than not someone (usually a nonmusician) will say "You
> must be happy!" And if you harmonise "The Eriskay Love Lilt"
> with I IV V7, the tune sounds decidedly majorish (maybe it's
> really a perverted pentatonic? ;-/ ), yet it is a sad song.
> Despite the failure of this particular categorisation, I do feel
> that all humans do respond emotionally to some aspects of
> music in ways that are hard-wired into our brains. Eg, higher
> notes and faster, driving rhythms tend to excite us all, and the
> converse also applies.
>
> In this particular "nature versus nurture" controversy, I favour
> the notion that ineluctable nurture (culture) strongly conditions
> the responses that arise in ineradicable nature (neurophysiology);
> our brains encapsulate our evolutionary history, which has its
> emotional seat in the primitive amygdala, yet they also record
> the dictates of our cultures, through which we filter, modify and
> transform our impulses into complex social experiences. Both
> play a part in the whole experience of music. Although our
> critical and analytical faculties, residing in the cerebral cortex,
> can identify that a fugue theme has been repeated a fifth higher,
> it is our emotional needs that first recognise the presence of,
> and respond to, the structure-giving and reassuring repetition.
> I postulate a two-stage process: that the fundamental emotional
> response to any music is the same and is immediate for all normal
> humans, but that the emotional response to that music of which
> any human listener is aware is the result of mediating that first
> response through the filters of culture and learnt experience.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date:
3/11/05
>

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

On 11/7/05, George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...> wrote:
> Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
> technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
> juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
> periodically coincide. An example that humans can play and have
> played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
> with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
> interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
> because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
> of human players.
>
> So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
> with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
> played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
> state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
> identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
> produces an effect. Whether or not that effect is very musical or
> meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
> suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
> ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
> mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
> interesting sort of thing to play with.

I played with that for a while, using very simple ratios (2/3/5/7 and
subsets, mostly) but it never worked especially well. You ideas make
me want to try it again with more complex ratios, and continue my
experiments in complex rhythms.

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I did some play with high prime superimposed and enjoyed the idea that once you get about 6 or more , it can take hundred of years to repeat.
the perceived result is not so and shows how quickly the mind can grasp the nature in there being a structure, even if the mind cannot define it in detail or run the whole gambit. it can feel it and recognize the staticness of the field it is in.
Much with many random methods, i have found that we now can grasp the "field" we are end without knowing what it is.
Some intuitive sense of it 'limits'
While i do believe encourage such developments along these lines , i hope others beside myself might find some interest in exploring what human beings can do also. at this point this is far more interesting to myself, not that if might not change. What i mean is not so much how difficult music people can perform, but methods that explore the "fuzzy' thinking natures of us all that cannot be define in such homogeneous ways.

Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:

>On 11/7/05, George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...> wrote:
> >
>>Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
>>technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
>>juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
>>periodically coincide. An example that humans can play and have
>>played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
>>with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
>>interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
>>because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
>>of human players.
>>
>>So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
>>with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
>>played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
>>state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
>>identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
>>produces an effect. Whether or not that effect is very musical or
>>meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
>>suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
>>ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
>>mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
>>interesting sort of thing to play with.
>> >>
>
>I played with that for a while, using very simple ratios (2/3/5/7 and
>subsets, mostly) but it never worked especially well. You ideas make
>me want to try it again with more complex ratios, and continue my
>experiments in complex rhythms.
>
>--
>~Tristan Parker
>http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
>"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
>-- Terry Riley
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Chris Bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

much traditional western music moves from simpler to more complex combinations and likewise motifically.

In the future i imagine modulations to more complex eikosanies and those of the Et's schools modulating to more complex periodic blocks and such.

Stephen Taylor did one piece where the generating interval slowly expanded and worked with the resulting MOS formed therein.
Like wise Marcus hobbs also. It reminds me quite a bit of say a person like Cecil Taylor will shift the tempo downbeat and rhythms in the most spectacular ways.

this is how things could develop in a more complex way, if and when in a simpler way , since things go that way also.
i imagine a few pitches elaborated by timbral changes that increase the tension that way. Something i explored in my beyond the windows piece
Chris Bryan wrote:

>> Much with many random methods, i have found that we now can grasp the
>>"field" we are end without knowing what it is.
>> Some intuitive sense of it 'limits'
>> >>
>
>That's a very interesting observation, something I had not been able
>to define so concisely before.
>
>Then again, it's the same as we would do for pitch, isn't it? Even if
>we can't grasp a complex ratio, we can tell whether or not it's
>changing.
>
>So, as in pitch, the interest for the listener would not be in static
>rythmic ratios, but in the ways that those ratios change over time.
>
>-Chris
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Monday 07 November 2005 12:33 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> I did some play with high prime superimposed and enjoyed the idea that
> once you get about 6 or more , it can take hundred of years to repeat.
> the perceived result is not so and shows how quickly the mind can grasp
> the nature in there being a structure, even if the mind cannot define it
> in detail or run the whole gambit. it can feel it and recognize the
> staticness of the field it is in.
> Much with many random methods, i have found that we now can grasp the
> "field" we are end without knowing what it is.
> Some intuitive sense of it 'limits'
> While i do believe encourage such developments along these lines , i
> hope others beside myself might find some interest in exploring what
> human beings can do also. at this point this is far more interesting to
> myself, not that if might not change. What i mean is not so much how
> difficult music people can perform, but methods that explore the "fuzzy'
> thinking natures of us all that cannot be define in such homogeneous ways.

I did not understand a single sentence of this....LOL!!

Can anyone translate?

-Aaron.

> Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> >On 11/7/05, George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...> wrote:
> >>Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
> >>technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
> >>juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
> >>periodically coincide. An example that humans can play and have
> >>played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
> >>with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
> >>interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
> >>because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
> >>of human players.
> >>
> >>So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
> >>with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
> >>played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
> >>state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
> >>identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
> >>produces an effect. Whether or not that effect is very musical or
> >>meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
> >>suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
> >>ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
> >>mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
> >>interesting sort of thing to play with.
> >
> >I played with that for a while, using very simple ratios (2/3/5/7 and
> >subsets, mostly) but it never worked especially well. You ideas make
> >me want to try it again with more complex ratios, and continue my
> >experiments in complex rhythms.
> >
> >--
> >~Tristan Parker
> >http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
> >"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
> >-- Terry Riley
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

try taking 6 or maybe 8 different primes above 50 say. take a metronome marker of 120 and figure out how long it takes for it all to repeat

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>On Monday 07 November 2005 12:33 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>I did some play with high prime superimposed and enjoyed the idea that
>>once you get about 6 or more , it can take hundred of years to repeat.
>> the perceived result is not so and shows how quickly the mind can grasp
>>the nature in there being a structure, even if the mind cannot define it
>>in detail or run the whole gambit. it can feel it and recognize the
>>staticness of the field it is in.
>> Much with many random methods, i have found that we now can grasp the
>>"field" we are end without knowing what it is.
>> Some intuitive sense of it 'limits'
>> While i do believe encourage such developments along these lines , i
>>hope others beside myself might find some interest in exploring what
>>human beings can do also. at this point this is far more interesting to
>>myself, not that if might not change. What i mean is not so much how
>>difficult music people can perform, but methods that explore the "fuzzy'
>>thinking natures of us all that cannot be define in such homogeneous ways.
>> >>
>
>I did not understand a single sentence of this....LOL!!
>
>Can anyone translate?
>
>-Aaron.
>
>
> >
>>Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
>> >>
>>>On 11/7/05, George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>>>Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
>>>>technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
>>>>juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
>>>>periodically coincide. An example that humans can play and have
>>>>played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
>>>>with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
>>>>interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
>>>>because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
>>>>of human players.
>>>>
>>>>So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
>>>>with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
>>>>played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
>>>>state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
>>>>identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
>>>>produces an effect. Whether or not that effect is very musical or
>>>>meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
>>>>suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
>>>>ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
>>>>mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
>>>>interesting sort of thing to play with.
>>>> >>>>
>>>I played with that for a while, using very simple ratios (2/3/5/7 and
>>>subsets, mostly) but it never worked especially well. You ideas make
>>>me want to try it again with more complex ratios, and continue my
>>>experiments in complex rhythms.
>>>
>>>--
>>>~Tristan Parker
>>>http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
>>>"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
>>>-- Terry Riley
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>> >>>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 10:46 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> try taking 6 or maybe 8 different primes above 50 say. take a metronome
> marker of 120 and figure out how long it takes for it all to repeat

I think I got that part--It would just be to multiply....

like 5*7*11=385....

-A

> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >On Monday 07 November 2005 12:33 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >>I did some play with high prime superimposed and enjoyed the idea that
> >>once you get about 6 or more , it can take hundred of years to repeat.
> >> the perceived result is not so and shows how quickly the mind can grasp
> >>the nature in there being a structure, even if the mind cannot define it
> >>in detail or run the whole gambit. it can feel it and recognize the
> >>staticness of the field it is in.
> >> Much with many random methods, i have found that we now can grasp the
> >>"field" we are end without knowing what it is.
> >> Some intuitive sense of it 'limits'
> >> While i do believe encourage such developments along these lines , i
> >>hope others beside myself might find some interest in exploring what
> >>human beings can do also. at this point this is far more interesting to
> >>myself, not that if might not change. What i mean is not so much how
> >>difficult music people can perform, but methods that explore the "fuzzy'
> >>thinking natures of us all that cannot be define in such homogeneous
> >> ways.
> >
> >I did not understand a single sentence of this....LOL!!
> >
> >Can anyone translate?
> >
> >-Aaron.
> >
> >>Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> >>>On 11/7/05, George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...> wrote:
> >>>>Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
> >>>>technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
> >>>>juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
> >>>>periodically coincide. An example that humans can play and have
> >>>>played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
> >>>>with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
> >>>>interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
> >>>>because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
> >>>>of human players.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
> >>>>with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
> >>>>played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
> >>>>state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
> >>>>identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
> >>>>produces an effect. Whether or not that effect is very musical or
> >>>>meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
> >>>>suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
> >>>>ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
> >>>>mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
> >>>>interesting sort of thing to play with.
> >>>
> >>>I played with that for a while, using very simple ratios (2/3/5/7 and
> >>>subsets, mostly) but it never worked especially well. You ideas make
> >>>me want to try it again with more complex ratios, and continue my
> >>>experiments in complex rhythms.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>~Tristan Parker
> >>>http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
> >>>"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
> >>>-- Terry Riley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

Hi George,

You wrote:

> Hi Yahya,
>
> I greatly enjoyed your essay.

Thanks. :-)

> My own brief foray, a few years ago, into composition with the use
> of software was necessarily shaped by the capabilities and
> limitations of the software. Sadly, the program would not "do"
> microtones, anything other than 12tET, but its creator took an
> approach to the definition of timing issues (including but not
> limited to 'metrical divisions') that facilitated all kinds of
> interesting experimentation. As I recall, one could define an atomic
> pulse as a given fraction of a second and then specify how many
> pulses one wanted to assign as the duration of a tone or of a
> silence between tones (on a given MIDI track).

Nice! Do you know whether this program still exists, or any other
current program with similar timing abilities?

> I created some "jazz" and music that was unlike any known genre that
> exploited some very odd groupings of pulses. The jazzy music came
> off sounding like syncopation plus metrical sloppiness that somehow
> worked musically.

Love to hear some of it, if you could post any.

> Another thing with which I experimented was ... not sure what the
> technical term for it is, although I feel there must be one ...
> juxtaposing two fundamentally different rhythmic cycles that
> periodically coincide. ...

Try the nouns (& adjectives): poly-rhythm (poly-rhythmic)
or poly-metre (poly-metrical). Polymetre refers specifically
to crossing time signatures; whilst polyrhythm refers to any
kinds of crossed rhythms at all: it can include such simple
things as playing triplets in a duple metre, duplets (if that's
the name?) in a triple metre, and more complex things such
as your 35 beat super-metre grouped variously as fives and
sevens. I've tried various experiments in both polymetre
and polyrhythm over the years; some even sound interesting!
The most ambitious effort is "Tzolkin" (1999) - a realisation
of the Mayan calendar, with its interlocking cycles of 13, 20
and 73. Some background details -

'The Mayan sacred year, the tzolkin, consisted of a cycle of
260 days, the product of a cycle of day-numbers from 1 to
13 with a cycle of 20 day-names.

Their solar year, the haab, contained 365 days, organised as
18 months each of 20 days, and a short 19th month of 5 days.

The two years combined in a grand cycle of 18,980 days, the
lcm (least common multiple) of 260 and 365, = 5 x 52 x 73.
The combination of day-number, day-name, day-of-month and
month would recur after exactly 73 tzolkin, or 52 haab.

I've given the 4 factors respectively to the tenor, counter-
tenor, baritone and bass in this quartet.'

This is, in my view, only an experiment with little musical value.
I've only ever had it performed by machine ... But despite the
strange numbers used, the regularity of the result is still quite
striking. It runs for over 65 minutes ... at which point,
everything coincides again, but it becomes 'predictable' long
before that.

> ... An example that humans can play and have
> played is a melody in 7 measures of 5 beats per measure combined
> with a melody in 5 measures of 7 beats per measure. This is
> interesting enough, but software opens up all sorts of possibilities
> because one is not constrained by the possible or actual limitations
> of human players.
>
> So, for example, one might take a cycle of 13 beats and layer it
> with a cycle of 17 beats. The progressive offsetting of the melodies
> played in the two cycles would "resynch" or return to its initial
> state every 13x17=221 beats. While one might not be able to readily
> identify what method lies behind this madness, it undeniably
> produces an effect. ...

I found both these statements true of 'Tzolkin'.

> ... Whether or not that effect is very musical or
> meaningful is for the decision of the composer and audience, I
> suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
> ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
> mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
> interesting sort of thing to play with.

I suspect that limit may be much higher than you think.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/05

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

Hi Kraig,

You wrote:
>
> I did some play with high prime superimposed and enjoyed the idea that
> once you get about 6 or more , it can take hundred of years to repeat.
> the perceived result is not so and shows how quickly the mind can grasp
> the nature in there being a structure, even if the mind cannot define it
> in detail or run the whole gambit. it can feel it and recognize the
> staticness of the field it is in.

Exactly my experience!

> Much with many random methods, i have found that we now can grasp the
> "field" we are end without knowing what it is.
> Some intuitive sense of it 'limits'

Kraig, I'm sure you're right; our minds are capable of
recognising all kinds of patterns intuitively which we
can only begin to grasp by analysis or logic.

> While i do believe encourage such developments along these lines , i
> hope others beside myself might find some interest in exploring what
> human beings can do also. at this point this is far more interesting to
> myself, not that if might not change. What i mean is not so much how
> difficult music people can perform, but methods that explore the "fuzzy'
> thinking natures of us all that cannot be define in such homogeneous ways.

As a percussionist manquï¿½, I've always been fascinated
at the extreme precision with which a good drummer can
split and tie beats to form rhythms of unending variety
and complexity. In my own limited experience, I find it
very much easier to produce an interesting rhythm, either
by tapping or singing, than to analyse or notate it. With
practice, I've found that the kinds of rhythm I can
construct analytically (in a notation program) and the
kinds I can improvise are tending to converge, but there's
still quite a gap between them. I always trust that my
improvisations will be musical, but my constructions are
pretty much hit and miss, though they are guided more
now by intuition than heretofore.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/05

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

Hello Yahya,

I shall reply to your questions by snipping and snorting ... er,
answering them in order.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
> Nice! Do you know whether this program still exists, or any other
> current program with similar timing abilities?

It's called A Musical Generator.
http://www.musoft-builders.com/links/amg.shtml

Again (unless more development has occurred since I used it), there
is no support for microtones. :( One can do some interesting things
with it, nonetheless. I became frustrated with the program's
limitations and felt that I could improve on certain aspects of the
user interface, and being a programmer, I did some prototyping. I
figured it would absorb most of my free time for a year or two to
get the results I wanted, so I never really did much with my ideas.
I also approached the developer about collaboration; he was
understandably very hesitant, and I didn't press the idea too much.

>
>> I created some "jazz" and music....

> Love to hear some of it, if you could post any.

Thanks, but it disappeared due to a geographical transplantation
that I undertook under desperate circumstances in 2001 (a highly
dramatic story, but out of place here, and no I wasn't
[exactly] "running from the law.") My computer ended up being left
with my ex-wife, who viewed my musical hobby with amused tolerance,
at best.

> Try the nouns (& adjectives): poly-rhythm (poly-rhythmic)
> or poly-metre (poly-metrical).

Okay, yes. I am familiar with the terms relative to African music
and Partch's 'Castor and Pollux' - examples which spring to mind
from my listening experience and of course there are others. What I
had in mind was along the lines of specifically overlaying cycles
rather than metrical "measures" per the Western notion. SO yes, poly-
rhythm being the more general term, I s'pose that would apply.

>> I suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
interesting sort of thing to play with.

> I suspect that limit may be much higher than you think.

Yes, probably.

One thing I did while toying with A Musical Generator was that, when
I got results that I deemed worthy of proeservation, I wrote out a
text description of the noteworthy elements of the piece and the
methodology I used to construct it. This document was lost with the
music itself, but I thought it might be useful to track my progress
(or at least changes in my approach) over time, might be fun to go
back to and pick up old ideas from for renewed exploration, and (not
least) might be helpful to listeners who would otherwise be stuck
with trying to figure out WHAT was going on. I should say that my
descriptions were quite detailed and specific, to the point that if
someone who knew how to operate the program picked them up and tried
to produce results similar to mine, they would probably in many
cases succeed.

Regards,
George

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

that would be something if any of us had such skill.
there is a book called
the thematic process of music
that illustrates exactly this type of idea in a great variety of western music
I do think that great art does more that fulfill our expectations, it is how it does it that i think matters and causes us to be thrilled by the process. something to be said for a little bit of surprise, or an awe at the unexpected.
Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

>Kraig,
>
>You wrote, in part:
> >
>>On a simpler basis , being able to grasp the 'essence " of longer cycles
>>might make what makes certain composers and performers work so
>>'timeless' in that it represents what is going on on such a long time
>> >>
>scale
>
>Do you mean that after we have heard, say, the first four bars
> of such a long work, the rest of the piece only fulfils our
>expectations? Some writers speak of the 'inevitability' of all
>great art; it 'starts as it means to go on', and when complete,
>gives its audience great satisfaction because it feels that it
>could not properly be altered by so little as a note.
>
>I'd like to produce such satisfying work.
>
>Yahya
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/164 - Release Date: 9/11/05
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

Hi Yahya, Kraig and all,

Great art may be "inevitable" but that doesn't mean that I want my
music (or other art forms) to follow predictable or familiar
directions. Much of the music that I have found most satisfying is
that which is largely incomprehensible on first listening, and yet
engages my interest. The reward for sustained interest then becomes
the revelation of greater and greater depths of ingenuity on the
part of the composer, depths of meaning via the communicative
process, etc.

It seems there is always a limit, or a point of diminishing returns.
I don't think it's humanly possible to create music that, like the
Mandelbrot set, will continue revealing limitless depths of
complexity and meaning no matter where one looks or at what scales
(macro / micro).

In addition to music that studiously defies a listener's initial
expectations, I like pieces that reveal themselves to me as windows
into a smal segment of space and time within a larger, mostly unseen
universe that remains very mysterious because no attempt is made to
fully reveal its parameters. Perhaps all music has this quality, but
I am writing about music that presents this quality very overtly, or
in which the quality seems dominant. I used to call this "music that
starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and does nothing in between" - but
does so with great style, eloquence, and beauty. Some of the more
abstract and highly improvised jazz fits this criterion for me.

This is an interesting subject area to contemplate and discuss.

Regards,
George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Kraig,
>
> You wrote, in part:
> > On a simpler basis , being able to grasp the 'essence " of
longer cycles
> > might make what makes certain composers and performers work so
> > 'timeless' in that it represents what is going on on such a long
time
> scale
>
> Do you mean that after we have heard, say, the first four bars
> of such a long work, the rest of the piece only fulfils our
> expectations? Some writers speak of the 'inevitability' of all
> great art; it 'starts as it means to go on', and when complete,
> gives its audience great satisfaction because it feels that it
> could not properly be altered by so little as a note.
>
> I'd like to produce such satisfying work.
>
> Yahya
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/164 - Release Date:
9/11/05
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Hello George!
I completely agree that the most satisfying music for me has been music that has been incomprehensible at first, that reveals itself over time.
For me though things like music based on the mandelbrot set falls into the category of what i have been trying to get at as being although infinitely complex, is perceived as a homogeneous staticness where i can some how grasp the underlying structure. ( i also find the visuals some of the worse use of color possible)
Free improv has pretty much for me fallen into the same category. the difference in sound of the same genre 30 years ago sounds and says little to hold much interest for me. This is surely just a subjective difference on this
The second point that i completely do agree with you on is the third paragraph where you imply the axiom, good form does not show.
It seems like i like there to be a form in the end on a macro level ,where possibly it is the micro substructure for you is enough to carry you through.
once again i am sure this is mere subjective preferences. I do agree it is something to contemplate as to just what are the limits we can push things and how far we can expand the language and it what directions. I do feel this area has not been exhausted at all as there are quite a few works that do work that are put together in unique ways that this aspect has not been explored.form is not just a set of building blocks either but a series of dynamic forces that interact and transform.what it falls upon.
The other day i returned to a Cezanne /Pisarro exhibit here with an artist friend who is a quite tough teacher. it was quite enlightening to have him point out the different areas of how he worked them up making some areas more important in negative space, some positive and how the two men took the same subject, as they painted often side by side and took it into different directions. both radical for their time in opposite directions

George Henry wrote:

>Hi Yahya, Kraig and all,
>
>Great art may be "inevitable" but that doesn't mean that I want my >music (or other art forms) to follow predictable or familiar >directions. Much of the music that I have found most satisfying is >that which is largely incomprehensible on first listening, and yet >engages my interest. The reward for sustained interest then becomes >the revelation of greater and greater depths of ingenuity on the >part of the composer, depths of meaning via the communicative >process, etc.
>
>It seems there is always a limit, or a point of diminishing returns. >I don't think it's humanly possible to create music that, like the >Mandelbrot set, will continue revealing limitless depths of >complexity and meaning no matter where one looks or at what scales >(macro / micro).
>
>In addition to music that studiously defies a listener's initial >expectations, I like pieces that reveal themselves to me as windows >into a smal segment of space and time within a larger, mostly unseen >universe that remains very mysterious because no attempt is made to >fully reveal its parameters. Perhaps all music has this quality, but >I am writing about music that presents this quality very overtly, or >in which the quality seems dominant. I used to call this "music that >starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and does nothing in between" - but >does so with great style, eloquence, and beauty. Some of the more >abstract and highly improvised jazz fits this criterion for me.
>
>This is an interesting subject area to contemplate and discuss.
>
>Regards,
>George
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" ><yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
>>Kraig,
>>
>>You wrote, in part:
>> >>
>>>On a simpler basis , being able to grasp the 'essence " of >>> >>>
>longer cycles
> >
>>>might make what makes certain composers and performers work so
>>>'timeless' in that it represents what is going on on such a long >>> >>>
>time
> >
>>scale
>>
>>Do you mean that after we have heard, say, the first four bars
>> of such a long work, the rest of the piece only fulfils our
>>expectations? Some writers speak of the 'inevitability' of all
>>great art; it 'starts as it means to go on', and when complete,
>>gives its audience great satisfaction because it feels that it
>>could not properly be altered by so little as a note.
>>
>>I'd like to produce such satisfying work.
>>
>>Yahya
>>--
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/164 - Release Date: >> >>
>9/11/05
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005, George Henry wrote:
>
> Hello Yahya,
>
> I shall reply to your questions by snipping and snorting ... er,
> answering them in order.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
> <yahya@m...> wrote:
> > Nice! Do you know whether this program still exists, or any other
> > current program with similar timing abilities?
>
> It's called A Musical Generator.
> http://www.musoft-builders.com/links/amg.shtml

Yes, I've used this before, but to no great effect ...
In my hands, at least, it tended to produce mostly
'curious noise' rather than 'music'. Part of the
difficulty is in knowing where to start. I downloaded
it again tonight, and played with it a little. Perhaps I
would make more headway by trying out some of the
samples included with the program.

> Again (unless more development has occurred since I used it), there
> is no support for microtones. :( One can do some interesting things
> with it, nonetheless. I became frustrated with the program's
> limitations and felt that I could improve on certain aspects of the
> user interface, and being a programmer, I did some prototyping. I
> figured it would absorb most of my free time for a year or two to
> get the results I wanted, so I never really did much with my ideas.
> I also approached the developer about collaboration; he was
> understandably very hesitant, and I didn't press the idea too much.

Having spent a good few of my years doing at least
part-time programming, I felt much the same, but
didn't bother estimating the task. At the current
version 3.0, I find the user interface is ... acceptable
(much easier to use than, say, a command-line
interface) if not awesome. To me the greatest
limitations relate to the (micro-)tuning and to the
apparent lack of sequencer editing functions, such as
block copy and paste.

> >> I created some "jazz" and music....
>
> > Love to hear some of it, if you could post any.
>
> Thanks, but it disappeared due to a geographical transplantation
> that I undertook under desperate circumstances in 2001 (a highly
> dramatic story, but out of place here, and no I wasn't
> [exactly] "running from the law.") My computer ended up being left
> with my ex-wife, who viewed my musical hobby with amused tolerance,
> at best.
>
> > Try the nouns (& adjectives): poly-rhythm (poly-rhythmic)
> > or poly-metre (poly-metrical).
>
> Okay, yes. I am familiar with the terms relative to African music
> and Partch's 'Castor and Pollux' - examples which spring to mind
> from my listening experience and of course there are others. What I
> had in mind was along the lines of specifically overlaying cycles
> rather than metrical "measures" per the Western notion. SO yes, poly-
> rhythm being the more general term, I s'pose that would apply.
>
> >> I suppose, but as with people's ability to distinguish frequency
> ratios, there is undoubtedly a natural limit to humans' ability to
> mentally track such temporal complexities. In any event, it's an
> interesting sort of thing to play with.
>
> > I suspect that limit may be much higher than you think.
>
> Yes, probably.
>
> One thing I did while toying with A Musical Generator was that, when
> I got results that I deemed worthy of proeservation, I wrote out a
> text description of the noteworthy elements of the piece and the
> methodology I used to construct it. This document was lost with the
> music itself, but I thought it might be useful to track my progress
> (or at least changes in my approach) over time, might be fun to go
> back to and pick up old ideas from for renewed exploration, and (not
> least) might be helpful to listeners who would otherwise be stuck
> with trying to figure out WHAT was going on.

That would have been useful! Pity it's gone :-(

> ... I should say that my
> descriptions were quite detailed and specific, to the point that if
> someone who knew how to operate the program picked them up and tried
> to produce results similar to mine, they would probably in many
> cases succeed.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/166 - Release Date: 10/11/05

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

Hello Yahya,

I shall answer selected quotes from your post below. If anything has
been lost or distorted due to removal of context, please alert me.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
> > ... It's called A Musical Generator.
> > http://www.musoft-builders.com/links/amg.shtml
>
> Yes, I've used this before, but to no great effect ...
> In my hands, at least, it tended to produce mostly
> 'curious noise' rather than 'music'. Part of the
> difficulty is in knowing where to start. I downloaded
> it again tonight, and played with it a little. Perhaps I
> would make more headway by trying out some of the
> samples included with the program.
...
> Having spent a good few of my years doing at least
> part-time programming, I felt much the same, but
> didn't bother estimating the task. At the current
> version 3.0, I find the user interface is ... acceptable
> (much easier to use than, say, a command-line
> interface) if not awesome. To me the greatest
> limitations relate to the (micro-)tuning and to the
> apparent lack of sequencer editing functions, such as
> block copy and paste.

One answer to knowing where to start is: be very exploratory and
when you find something algorithmically-generated that you kind of
like (that manifests musical possibilities), try tweaking it so that
you like it better (some of its potentials are better realized).
Eventually you may like the result enough to christen it "done."

I did not try so much to produce great art as to do the best I could
with the given resources - taking into account my limitations and
that of the program. Was I still left with only "curious noise?" In
many cases, I think that's true, but there were a few pieces that I
liked enough to listen to them occasionally, and not just because
they were my own handiwork.

One can tweak parameters in a variety of ways. The array editor is
the most general and you can get very detailed with it; however, I
felt that it should have offered at least 3-4 times the number of
math functions and a much easier-to-use interface. I was also
frustrated because the mapping of generated (or input) numbers to
the selected scale was not completely controllable. I am a not
completely clear on this now, but as I recall I came up with a
(theoretical) solution that involved creating a "mapping template"
and then matching the actual numbers as closely as possible to the
template, interpolating where necessary. I'm sorry that isn't
entirely clear, but maybe if you play with the program a bit you
will get an idea of what I am talking about. When I say the solution
was theoretical, I mean it could not be implemented using AMG.

I found that by using the array editor and some other functions, one
could do many of the functions offered by sequencers, although
creativity was required and as you say there is no straightforward,
obvious way to do such things - no analog to a sequencer interface.

I found the graphical views of the fractals to be interesting,
curious and flashy but hardly useful in musical terms. What I did
find very useful was the piano roll view, in that I could easily and
directly map between the visual view of the music (er, curious noise
or whatever) and what I was hearing.

If you develop enough interest in that little program and spend
enough time with it, you will find that it's possible to create
music covering the spectrum from "a selection of algorithmically-
generated 'found sounds' that the user happens to like" all the way
to completely-composed music comparable to results obtained using a
sequencer. (The latter is not what the program is primarily designed
to do, and is more difficult to achieve.)

One of the pieces that I favored resulted from layering five
algorithmically-generated piano tracks. The music gradually waxed
and waned (with little punctuations of the opposite of whatever
character was dominant at the time) between very sparse and very
dense. It reminded me of human activity in and around a city in a 24-
hour period, and I think I named the piece accordingly. Too bad that
a description can't compare to an actual example.

If I can find the time, perhaps I will download the program again
and see if I can come up with a "composition," but please,
everyone, "don't hold your breath" in anticipation. It's most likely
that this will not happen.

Regards,
George

Can microtonal tunings enhance the interpersonal meaning of music?

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@...>

🔗Katt Hernandez <katt@...>

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <petesfriedclams@...>

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Chris Bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗George Henry <cruithnelaluna@...>