The tunings you love (was: MMM description)

Hi all,

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Paul Erlich wrote:

[much snipt]

> In Pythagorean tuning, G# is *higher* than Ab by
> the Pythagorean comma, which you calculated above as ~23.46 cents. If
> you subtract 1/6 syntonic comma from each of the 12 fifths, hence
> effecting 1/6-comma meantone, the difference will be reduced by 2
> syntonic commas, so G# will now be higher than Ab by
>
> 23.4598998 - 2*21.5062896 = -19.55 cents;
>
> in other words, Ab is now *higher* than G# by +19.55 cents (ratio
> 2048/2025, the "diaschisma").
>
> So in the context we were discussing, the difference is not 2 cents
> as you said but two syntonic commas or about 43 cents! A big
> difference.

> Perhaps we should continue this on one of the other lists . . .

Thank you for the correction, Paul. Let's now leave the
maths for elsewhere and elsewhen ... You've convinced me.

---

On the _musical_ aspects of these two tunings (Pythagorean
and 1/6-syntonic-comma-meantone), I'm left to puzzle
over and ponder this question: What tuning system had I
so thoroughly internalised by age 11 (and remembering that
I heard mostly 12-EDO) that I consistently played altered
notes nearer to the unaltered note than equal? eg Ab higher
than G#. Naively, I would have thought it used simpler
ratios, thus favouring Pythagorean ...

Though I do remember listening, at age 5 or 6, with great
pleasure to Mozart played at a Community Sing-Along which
was led in part by a radio broadcast. The ABC (that is, the
Australian Broadcasting Commission) had regular broadcasts
for this purpose during the fifties when I was a wee lad, and
published a series of Community Song Books. I have their
book No. 40 here, which I found at a Trash'n' Treasure sale
a couple of years back, and cherish. Later, from about age
7, I listened to my grandmother's old 78s, some being pop
songs of the 20s to 40s, but mostly classics. They had a very
different sound to them, which I could never put my finger
on. At home during the sixties, I would listen to classics on
the ABC and from my father's collection of LPs at 33 1/3
rpm, all modern recordings. Apart from the blatant overuse
of stereo separation on those LPs, I always felt they were
NQR (not quite right).

Well, the point of this long-winded story is to justify my
thesis - the earliest sounds we hear are the ones that
probably feel best to us. And based on some discussions I've
observed on various lists in the past few months (sorry to be
so vague) it seems very likely that orchestral string players,
at least, have continued using some form of meantone well
into the twentieth century.

Of course, I can shoot my own theory down in flames quite
easily! :-) Why do I love Indian music, both classical and
popular, when I had never heard any until I was 17 or so?

A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 25/11/05

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> [much snipt]
>
> > In Pythagorean tuning, G# is *higher* than Ab by
> > the Pythagorean comma, which you calculated above as ~23.46
cents. If
> > you subtract 1/6 syntonic comma from each of the 12 fifths, hence
> > effecting 1/6-comma meantone, the difference will be reduced by 2
> > syntonic commas, so G# will now be higher than Ab by
> >
> > 23.4598998 - 2*21.5062896 = -19.55 cents;
> >
> > in other words, Ab is now *higher* than G# by +19.55 cents (ratio
> > 2048/2025, the "diaschisma").
> >
> > So in the context we were discussing, the difference is not 2
cents
> > as you said but two syntonic commas or about 43 cents! A big
> > difference.
>
> > Perhaps we should continue this on one of the other lists . . .
>
> Thank you for the correction, Paul. Let's now leave the
> maths for elsewhere and elsewhen ... You've convinced me.
>
> ---
>
> On the _musical_ aspects of these two tunings (Pythagorean
> and 1/6-syntonic-comma-meantone), I'm left to puzzle
> over and ponder this question: What tuning system had I
> so thoroughly internalised by age 11 (and remembering that
> I heard mostly 12-EDO) that I consistently played altered
> notes nearer to the unaltered note than equal? eg Ab higher
> than G#. Naively, I would have thought it used simpler
> ratios, thus favouring Pythagorean ...

I don't know if this will aid your *musical* puzzlement or not, but
Pythagorean tuning tends to use much more complex ratios than the
usual JI schemes for things like major and minor chords and
scales . . . a point Partch enjoys making . . .

> A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?

Are you talking about tunings for common-practice music, or more
generally? Either way, I can't answer that without knowing something
about the tempo, timbre, texture, and tessitura of the music, just
for a start . . .

Hi Paul,

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 "Paul Erlich" wrote:

> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> > "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
...
> > A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?
>
> Are you talking about tunings for common-practice music, or more
> generally? Either way, I can't answer that without knowing something
> about the tempo, timbre, texture, and tessitura of the music, just
> for a start . . .

It's a completely open question; answer as you will.
I suspect your answer will start: "It depends ..."

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/190 - Release Date: 1/12/05

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...>
wrote:

> A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?

I like the sound of slightly detuned 7- or 9-limit music. 99, 130, 140
equal temperaments, and associated linear and planar temperaments,
seem especially good to me.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 "Paul Erlich" wrote:
>
> > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> ...
> > > A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?
> >
> > Are you talking about tunings for common-practice music, or more
> > generally? Either way, I can't answer that without knowing
something
> > about the tempo, timbre, texture, and tessitura of the music,
just
> > for a start . . .
>
> It's a completely open question; answer as you will.
> I suspect your answer will start: "It depends ..."
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

How about this highly conditional, highly evasive answer: adaptive
tunings sound best to me! That is, I seem to like the sound of music
when each section is based on a scale (not tuning) of about 5-10
notes, and each of these notes is retuned by less than 8 cents
according to harmonic context so as to bring the harmonies closer (or
all the way to) vertical JI. Larger retunings, as are typically
required in strict JI, don't usually sound musical to me, and a lot
more than 10 distinct notes in a short time usually loses me.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> How about this highly conditional, highly evasive answer: adaptive
> tunings sound best to me! That is, I seem to like the sound of music
> when each section is based on a scale (not tuning) of about 5-10
> notes, and each of these notes is retuned by less than 8 cents
> according to harmonic context so as to bring the harmonies closer (or
> all the way to) vertical JI. Larger retunings, as are typically
> required in strict JI, don't usually sound musical to me, and a lot
> more than 10 distinct notes in a short time usually loses me.

This doesn't really make sense so far as I can see, since a 5-10 note
scale, with retunings allowed on the notes, is in effect a larger scale.
So clearly larger scales are OK in your book; the question is, hiw
must they be structured?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > How about this highly conditional, highly evasive answer:
adaptive
> > tunings sound best to me! That is, I seem to like the sound of
music
> > when each section is based on a scale (not tuning) of about 5-10
> > notes, and each of these notes is retuned by less than 8 cents
> > according to harmonic context so as to bring the harmonies closer
(or
> > all the way to) vertical JI. Larger retunings, as are typically
> > required in strict JI, don't usually sound musical to me, and a
lot
> > more than 10 distinct notes in a short time usually loses me.
>
> This doesn't really make sense so far as I can see, since a 5-10
note
> scale, with retunings allowed on the notes, is in effect a larger
scale.

If each retuning leaves the note within an 8 cent range, then my ears
don't agree with this assessment.

> So clearly larger scales are OK in your book; the question is, hiw
> must they be structured?

I thought this was clear -- there should only be 5-10 'clusters'
where each 'cluster' is less than 8 cents wide.

But again, this was a highly conditional answer.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> If each retuning leaves the note within an 8 cent range, then my ears
> don't agree with this assessment.
>
> > So clearly larger scales are OK in your book; the question is, hiw
> > must they be structured?
>
> I thought this was clear -- there should only be 5-10 'clusters'
> where each 'cluster' is less than 8 cents wide.

I have to say, I don't see why this is desirable. But then, don't
write that way or think that way, and so far as I can tell, I don't
hear that way. The 26 notes of my last piece sound fine to me, but if
I had to listen to it and tell how many notes to the octave were
involved, I'd be lost. I don't think my way of hearing really demands
5-10 note scales.

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 "Paul Erlich" wrote:
...
> > > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?
> > >
> > > Are you talking about tunings for common-practice music, or more
> > > generally? Either way, I can't answer that without knowing
> > > something about the tempo, timbre, texture, and tessitura of the
> > > music, just for a start . . .
> >
> > It's a completely open question; answer as you will.
> > I suspect your answer will start: "It depends ..."
>
> How about this highly conditional, highly evasive answer: adaptive
> tunings sound best to me! That is, I seem to like the sound of music
> when each section is based on a scale (not tuning) of about 5-10
> notes, and each of these notes is retuned by less than 8 cents
> according to harmonic context so as to bring the harmonies closer (or
> all the way to) vertical JI. Larger retunings, as are typically
> required in strict JI, don't usually sound musical to me, and a lot
> more than 10 distinct notes in a short time usually loses me.

Totally unexpected! Thanks, anyway ... something for me to ponder
and perhaps experiment with. Do you have any samples of this kind
of tuning practice we could listen to?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 5/12/05

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005, "Gene Ward Smith" wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> > A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?
>
> I like the sound of slightly detuned 7- or 9-limit music. 99, 130, 140
> equal temperaments, and associated linear and planar temperaments,
> seem especially good to me.

Hallo Gene,

Sorry for the late reply (work, you know).

Thank for this. Could you please point me to some
examples, preferably from your own music?

In particular, that you should single out 9-limit is
interesting. What would the nearest planar
temperaments be to 99, 130 and 140 EDO?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 5/12/05

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
<yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 "Paul Erlich" wrote:
> ...
> > > > > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > A question for you all: what tunings sound best to you?
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking about tunings for common-practice music, or
more
> > > > generally? Either way, I can't answer that without knowing
> > > > something about the tempo, timbre, texture, and tessitura of
the
> > > > music, just for a start . . .
> > >
> > > It's a completely open question; answer as you will.
> > > I suspect your answer will start: "It depends ..."
> >
> > How about this highly conditional, highly evasive answer:
adaptive
> > tunings sound best to me! That is, I seem to like the sound of
music
> > when each section is based on a scale (not tuning) of about 5-10
> > notes, and each of these notes is retuned by less than 8 cents
> > according to harmonic context so as to bring the harmonies closer
(or
> > all the way to) vertical JI. Larger retunings, as are typically
> > required in strict JI, don't usually sound musical to me, and a
lot
> > more than 10 distinct notes in a short time usually loses me.
>
> Totally unexpected! Thanks, anyway ... something for me to ponder
> and perhaps experiment with. Do you have any samples of this kind
> of tuning practice we could listen to?
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

Monz has made some, including:

http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji/audio/lassus-vicentino.mid

Any others, Monz?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
> <yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > [Paul]
> > > How about this highly conditional, highly evasive
> > > answer: adaptive tunings sound best to me! That is,
> > > I seem to like the sound of music when each section
> > > is based on a scale (not tuning) of about 5-10
> > > notes, and each of these notes is retuned by less
> > > than 8 cents according to harmonic context so as
> > > to bring the harmonies closer (or all the way to)
> > > vertical JI. Larger retunings, as are typically
> > > required in strict JI, don't usually sound musical
> > > to me, and a lot more than 10 distinct notes in a
> > > short time usually loses me.
> >
> > Totally unexpected! Thanks, anyway ... something for
> > me to ponder and perhaps experiment with. Do you have
> > any samples of this kind of tuning practice we could
> > listen to?
>
> Monz has made some, including:
>
> http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/a/adaptive-ji/audio/lassus-
vicentino.mid
>
> Any others, Monz?

"Halleluya, We Sing Your Praises!", at

http://tonalsoft.com/downloads/free-music.aspx

The reason i chose Vicentino's adaptive-JI for both
of these is because they are supposed to be sung
(_a capella_, presumably), and i think a tuning like
that is what unaccompanied singers will normally do.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...>
wrote:

> > I like the sound of slightly detuned 7- or 9-limit music. 99, 130, 140
> > equal temperaments, and associated linear and planar temperaments,
> > seem especially good to me.
>
>
> Hallo Gene,
>
> Sorry for the late reply (work, you know).
>
> Thank for this. Could you please point me to some
> examples, preferably from your own music?

You'll find some examples on my compositions page:

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/gene.html

Nonagenta et novem is in 99-et. Marvelous Penta is in marvel
temperament. Choraled is in 5120/5103-planar, or "hemifamity" as I
called it.

> In particular, that you should single out 9-limit is
> interesting. What would the nearest planar
> temperaments be to 99, 130 and 140 EDO?

They support various planar temperaments, but I'm not sure what you
mean. 99-et would work for, among others, 3136/3125, 5120/5103 and
6144/6125 planar. 130-et is also nice for 3136/3125 and 6144/6125, and
140-et is also good for 5120/5103 planar.

>> > I like the sound of slightly detuned 7- or 9-limit music. 99, 130, 140
>> > equal temperaments, and associated linear and planar temperaments,
>> > seem especially good to me.
>>
//
>> Thank for this. Could you please point me to some
>> examples, preferably from your own music?
>
>You'll find some examples on my compositions page:
>
>http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/gene.html
>
>Nonagenta et novem is in 99-et.

Gene, both links apparently point to the midi version.

-Carl

>> Any others, Monz?
>
>"Halleluya, We Sing Your Praises!", at
>
>http://tonalsoft.com/downloads/free-music.aspx

That's pretty.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Gene, both links apparently point to the midi version.

Thanks. VisualPage is so screwed up.

>> > I like the sound of slightly detuned 7- or 9-limit music. 99,
>> > 130, 140 equal temperaments, and associated linear and planar
>> > temperaments, seem especially good to me.
>>
>> Hallo Gene,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply (work, you know).
>>
>> Thank for this. Could you please point me to some
>> examples, preferably from your own music?
>
>You'll find some examples on my compositions page:
>
>http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/gene.html
>
>Nonagenta et novem is in 99-et.

Wow, do I like Nona. This has to be one of my favorite pieces
of yours. But I much prefer my soundcard's version of the MIDI
file to the ogg. Ocarina? So I'm glad VisualPage was having
a bad hair day (I already had the ogg in my collection, it turned
out).

>Marvelous Penta is in marvel temperament.

Glad to have listened to this again. Also I went back and
compared it to Andrew's original piece. Very much improved!

I'm liking Choraled much better today, too. Must be having
a good hair day myself.

Wait, 45,000 Fingers sounds problematic. I think I have the
most recent version (an ogg dated 6/30/2004) but it sounds
like there are still glitches.

But getting back to the original point... some study somewhere
or other reported two types of listeners: those who are bothered
by small pitch shifts and those who aren't. I actually like
them, especially when used creatively as you (and David Doty,
among others) have done. But I think it's true the results are
harder to sing/remember. There's definitely something cool about
a small fixed scale working in a larger harmonic context.

-Carl

>>Nonagenta et novem is in 99-et.
>
>Wow, do I like Nona. This has to be one of my favorite pieces
>of yours. But I much prefer my soundcard's version of the MIDI
>file to the ogg. Ocarina? So I'm glad VisualPage was having
>a bad hair day (I already had the ogg in my collection, it turned
>out).

The bass line around 0:40 is killer. It should be brought out
more.

>>Marvelous Penta is in marvel temperament.

I'm getting some nasty echo on the rests near 0:32 and 0:37.
Ogg artifact?

>I'm liking Choraled much better today, ...

These three pieces might do well together in a quartet!
Nona could be the closing movement, Choraled a chorale,
and Penta a sherzo. You just need a killer first mvmt.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Wow, do I like Nona. This has to be one of my favorite pieces
> of yours.

Really?? I thought people mostly hated that.

But I much prefer my soundcard's version of the MIDI
> file to the ogg. Ocarina?

It's synth voice, but an ocarina is an interesting idea to try
instead. Ocarinas have a neat sound and maybe I should give one a
starring role.

> But getting back to the original point... some study somewhere
> or other reported two types of listeners: those who are bothered
> by small pitch shifts and those who aren't. I actually like
> them, especially when used creatively as you (and David Doty,
> among others) have done. But I think it's true the results are
> harder to sing/remember. There's definitely something cool about
> a small fixed scale working in a larger harmonic context.

Yes, but there's also something cool about stacking small intervals
together, and making music ooze around. I haven't done that recently.

What about Paul's idea that you can have a small fixed-band scale?
Bands of notes no more than 8 cents apart or what have you. It's
certainly something not much explored so far as scale construction goes.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> These three pieces might do well together in a quartet!
> Nona could be the closing movement, Choraled a chorale,
> and Penta a sherzo. You just need a killer first mvmt.

I've been thinking of choraled as maybe eventually a second movement
for a sring quartet. Of course, getting an actual string quartet to
play it would be another story.

>> But I much prefer my soundcard's version of the MIDI
>> file to the ogg. Ocarina?
>
>It's synth voice, but an ocarina is an interesting idea to try
>instead. Ocarinas have a neat sound and maybe I should give one a
>starring role.

Uh, my suggestion would be to scrap it.

>> But getting back to the original point... some study somewhere
>> or other reported two types of listeners: those who are bothered
>> by small pitch shifts and those who aren't. I actually like
>> them, especially when used creatively as you (and David Doty,
>> among others) have done. But I think it's true the results are
>> harder to sing/remember. There's definitely something cool about
>> a small fixed scale working in a larger harmonic context.
//
>What about Paul's idea that you can have a small fixed-band scale?
>Bands of notes no more than 8 cents apart or what have you. It's
>certainly something not much explored so far as scale construction
>goes.

That's what I was referring to in the last sentence.

-Carl

>> These three pieces might do well together in a quartet!
>> Nona could be the closing movement, Choraled a chorale,
>> and Penta a sherzo. You just need a killer first mvmt.
>
>I've been thinking of choraled as maybe eventually a second movement
>for a sring quartet. Of course, getting an actual string quartet to
>play it would be another story.

I'd print up regular notation with maybe one additional
accidental pair to get them in the ballpark, and then use the
rendered version for training. You can make each player a
version with his part on the right channel and the other three
parts on the left. The balance knob then becomes a good
training tool. Or go one further and use a Toby Twining -like
setup with headphones during performance, with each player's
part synthesized in one ear and live monitoring of their
instrument in the other ear.

As for finding willing players, any amateur quartet around
a campus should do for a start. You'll need money, though.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

>
> As for finding willing players, any amateur quartet around
> a campus should do for a start. You'll need money, though.
>
> -Carl
>

Don't bother with campus players, and don't hire anyone. If you
believe in the work, send the score to the best specialists.

Daniel Wolf