Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Pitfalls of 19

Hey CM Bryan...glad to see you have some new pieces happening, but it was interesting that you were somewhat concerned about potential criticism of 19 eq, and were sort of apologizing in advance, before anyone could nail you for your choice. I'd like to say a thing or two about this if I may. First, and I'm afraid this may get overlooked from time to time, the TUNING doesn't matter one bit; the MUSIC does. I never heard Bartok apologize for using 12 eq, and he did ok with it, as did many thousands of other composers over the last 250 years. What I tell all my students (and anybody else) is this: when you write a piece, make me FEEL something, make me weep, laugh, get angry, or whatever, but MOVE me, and that's all I ask.
Being a great composer is an entirely different skill from talking about tuning theory, and I hate to say it, not trying to start a ruckus here, but I have heard much non 12 music over the last 17 years, and very little of it was/is very good, by my standards of composition. That being said, I am always delighted to hear what folks are up to as composers, and I would always encourage folks to write and perform as much as possible, because we need to actually hear real music in other systems, not just chat about it...or so I believe.
But, just as a large vocabulary doesn't mean one can write a great book, advanced tuning knowledge doesn't mean you can write a good piece. I personally believe that a great (or even really good) composition is a rare breed, especially today. I reacall Wayne Shorter saying in an interview a few years back that "nobody is composing their asses off anymore," and I agree. So, CM, gogogo, use whatever tuning you want, but make your piece deep and profound, and I personally could care less where the decimal places are between intervals, or if the notes beat, or if the ratios are high or low. And neither will most other people...best...HHH
microstick.net

🔗daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>

thanks Neil .I'm with you 100% on this .Btw, I wish you'd stop over
to the kronoforum and contribute there,I think you'd fit right
in.hope things are going well for you .

daniel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick"
<microstick@m...> wrote:
>
> Hey CM Bryan...glad to see you have some new pieces happening,
but it was
> interesting that you were somewhat concerned about potential
criticism of 19
> eq, and were sort of apologizing in advance, before anyone could
nail you
> for your choice. I'd like to say a thing or two about this if I
may. First,
> and I'm afraid this may get overlooked from time to time, the
TUNING doesn't
> matter one bit; the MUSIC does. I never heard Bartok apologize for
using 12
> eq, and he did ok with it, as did many thousands of other
composers over the
> last 250 years. What I tell all my students (and anybody else) is
this: when
> you write a piece, make me FEEL something, make me weep, laugh,
get angry,
> or whatever, but MOVE me, and that's all I ask.
> Being a great composer is an entirely different skill from
talking about
> tuning theory, and I hate to say it, not trying to start a ruckus
here, but
> I have heard much non 12 music over the last 17 years, and very
little of it
> was/is very good, by my standards of composition. That being said,
I am
> always delighted to hear what folks are up to as composers, and I
would
> always encourage folks to write and perform as much as possible,
because we
> need to actually hear real music in other systems, not just chat
about
> it...or so I believe.
> But, just as a large vocabulary doesn't mean one can write a
great book,
> advanced tuning knowledge doesn't mean you can write a good piece.
I
> personally believe that a great (or even really good) composition
is a rare
> breed, especially today. I reacall Wayne Shorter saying in an
interview a
> few years back that "nobody is composing their asses off anymore,"
and I
> agree. So, CM, gogogo, use whatever tuning you want, but make your
piece
> deep and profound, and I personally could care less where the
decimal places
> are between intervals, or if the notes beat, or if the ratios are
high or
> low. And neither will most other people...best...HHH
> microstick.net
>

🔗Pete McRae <petesfriedclams@...>

Me, too! I have a lot of admiration for the folks who really know their tuning jargon, but that doesn't make them good (or bad!) composers. Some of the best "composers" I've ever heard were absolute beginners at any kind of music!

And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book that we can still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all people- wouldn't expect you to read it _before_ you started making music, I don't think.

daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...> wrote:
thanks Neil .I'm with you 100% on this .Btw, I wish you'd stop over
to the kronoforum and contribute there,I think you'd fit right
in.hope things are going well for you .

daniel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick"
wrote:
>
> Hey CM Bryan...glad to see you have some new pieces happening,
but it was
> interesting that you were somewhat concerned about potential
criticism of 19
> eq, and were sort of apologizing in advance, before anyone could
nail you
> for your choice. I'd like to say a thing or two about this if I
may. First,
> and I'm afraid this may get overlooked from time to time, the
TUNING doesn't
> matter one bit; the MUSIC does. I never heard Bartok apologize for
using 12
> eq, and he did ok with it, as did many thousands of other
composers over the
> last 250 years. What I tell all my students (and anybody else) is
this: when
> you write a piece, make me FEEL something, make me weep, laugh,
get angry,
> or whatever, but MOVE me, and that's all I ask.
> Being a great composer is an entirely different skill from
talking about
> tuning theory, and I hate to say it, not trying to start a ruckus
here, but
> I have heard much non 12 music over the last 17 years, and very
little of it
> was/is very good, by my standards of composition. That being said,
I am
> always delighted to hear what folks are up to as composers, and I
would
> always encourage folks to write and perform as much as possible,
because we
> need to actually hear real music in other systems, not just chat
about
> it...or so I believe.
> But, just as a large vocabulary doesn't mean one can write a
great book,
> advanced tuning knowledge doesn't mean you can write a good piece.
I
> personally believe that a great (or even really good) composition
is a rare
> breed, especially today. I reacall Wayne Shorter saying in an
interview a
> few years back that "nobody is composing their asses off anymore,"
and I
> agree. So, CM, gogogo, use whatever tuning you want, but make your
piece
> deep and profound, and I personally could care less where the
decimal places
> are between intervals, or if the notes beat, or if the ratios are
high or
> low. And neither will most other people...best...HHH
> microstick.net
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

Hi all,

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Pete McRae chimed in:
>
> Me, too! I have a lot of admiration for the folks who really know their
tuning jargon, but that doesn't make them good (or bad!) composers. Some of
the best "composers" I've ever heard were absolute beginners at any kind of
music!
>
> And the fact that Harry Partch (for example(!) wrote a book that we can
still actually get is merely our good fortune. He -of all people- wouldn't
expect you to read it _before_ you started making music, I don't think.
>
> daniel_anthony_stearns [snip] wrote:
> thanks Neil .I'm with you 100% on this .Btw, I wish you'd stop over
> to the kronoforum and contribute there,I think you'd fit right
> in.hope things are going well for you .
>
> daniel
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey CM Bryan...glad to see you have some new pieces happening,
> > but it was interesting that you were somewhat concerned about
> > potential criticism of 19 eq, and were sort of apologizing in
> > advance, before anyone could nail you for your choice. I'd like
> > to say a thing or two about this if I may. First, and I'm afraid
> > this may get overlooked from time to time, the TUNING doesn't
> > matter one bit; the MUSIC does. I never heard Bartok apologize
> > for using 12 eq, and he did ok with it, as did many thousands of
> > other composers over the last 250 years. What I tell all my
> > students (and anybody else) is this: when you write a piece,
> > make me FEEL something, make me weep, laugh, get angry, or
> > whatever, but MOVE me, and that's all I ask.
> > Being a great composer is an entirely different skill from
> > talking about tuning theory, and I hate to say it, not trying to
> > start a ruckus here, but I have heard much non 12 music over
> > the last 17 years, and very little of it was/is very good, by my
> > standards of composition. That being said, I am always delighted
> > to hear what folks are up to as composers, and I would always
> > encourage folks to write and perform as much as possible,
> > because we need to actually hear real music in other systems,
> > not just chat about it...or so I believe.
> > But, just as a large vocabulary doesn't mean one can write a
> > great book, advanced tuning knowledge doesn't mean you can
> > write a good piece. I personally believe that a great (or even
> > really good) composition is a rare breed, especially today. I
> > reacall Wayne Shorter saying in an interview a few years back
> > that "nobody is composing their asses off anymore," and I agree.
> > So, CM, gogogo, use whatever tuning you want, but make your
> > piece deep and profound, and I personally could care less where
> > the decimal places are between intervals, or if the notes beat,
> > or if the ratios are high or low. And neither will most other
> > people...best...HHH
> > microstick.net

Well, I reckon Neil said a mouthful, and I agree
with everything he said except for one thing, and
that's where he quotes Shorter as saying that
"nobody is composing their asses off anymore".

It's just not true. And who are we to pass
judgement on anyone else's commitment to their
craft?!?!?

In personal correspondence with several of the
members of this forum, I've formed a deep and
abiding impression that they are totally
committed to their (separate) muses. It would
be invidious to name names, but you know who
you are. :-) And you will probably recognise your
tutelatory deities when I mention Bacchus, Pan,
Aphrodite, Apollo, Claude Debussy and Erik Satie!

Please let's keep focussed on the making of micro
tuned music, and sharing useful info about the
process, as well as sharing the music too.

There are plenty of other places to discuss the
tuning theory or the maths behind it. So do please
remind ME whenever I cross that line, as I may
have done recently. In future I'll try to post such
stuff to the tuning or tuning-math lists, and post
at most a brief link here.

The most exciting thing I find on this forum is the
new and different music you guys are making.
Thank you SO much for this. More, please! :-)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 1/2/06

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

Paul Erlich wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" > <microstick@...> wrote:
> >> and I hate to say it, not trying to start a ruckus here, but >>I have heard much non 12 music over the last 17 years, and very >>little of it >>was/is very good, by my standards of composition.
> > > Neil, I feel exactly the same way. When I stated such an opinion here, > though, I was told about the "courage to encourage". Your reply struck > me as odd, since you didn't even mention that you've been playing in, > composing in, and writing books on 19-equal for much of this time. > Mentioning that might have been more encouraging to Chris, or at least > might have encouraged someone to check out your work!
> > Best,
> Paul

I should mention that in all the years I've been listening to non-12 music, I've also heard quite a bit of 12-ET music, and not much of that was good either! (It's just that there's so much more of it that there's still quite a lot of 12-ET music that's good.)

Still, I think I see the point; it isn't easy to write "good" music with an unfamiliar palette of musical colors. 12-ET has the whole history of meantone to draw on, with additional resources of its own that have been exploited by great composers like Bartï¿½k and Stravinsky, plus the advantage of familiarity.

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

On 2/15/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Still, I think I see the point; it isn't easy to write "good" music
> with
> > an unfamiliar palette of musical colors. 12-ET has the whole history
> of
> > meantone to draw on, with additional resources of its own that have
> been
> > exploited by great composers like Bartók and Stravinsky, plus the
> > advantage of familiarity.
> >
> ++++++++++++++++++I think the more tunings one tries to learn
> to compose in or play, the less intimate one can be. What I mean
> is, there is only so much time.

You definitely have a point there. Sometimes I get annoyed that my
Yamaha SY77 can only store two user-defined tunings at a time, but
overall I think it's been a good influence on me, forcing me to
explore a single tuning system in depth instead of throwing it away
and moving on to another one.

> 24 (in whatever version) has all the familiar notes, and others too.

I don't think being a multiple of 12 is a good criterion for how
"familiar" an EDO is. 19 and 31 sound much more familiar than 24 to
me. What's familar isn't 12-EDO, but meantone temperament, which has
been around for a lot longer and is the basis of the diatonic scale.

If you're still stuck on using a multiple of 12, 72 is the only way to go.

> Stephen Szpak

Keenan Pepper

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Hi,

Keenan Pepper escreveu:
> I don't think being a multiple of 12 is a good criterion for how
> "familiar" an EDO is. 19 and 31 sound much more familiar than 24 to
> me. What's familar isn't 12-EDO, but meantone temperament, which has
> been around for a lot longer and is the basis of the diatonic scale.
> > If you're still stuck on using a multiple of 12, 72 is the only way to go.

That ``familiarity'' depends on several factors. There is a lot of contemporany compositions using 24ET, just because it is, from a point-of-view, a logic extension of 12ET. 24ET is very good for music related to the post-tonal/atonal/serial thread. Its familiarity is mainly related to maintaining the known 12 chromatic pitches and their notation. For performers, this is an important reference for tuning. Just think of a clarinet player, who needs to learn new quartertone fingerings, but still uses the common chromatic ones, so that the global tuning is assured by the performer's familiarity with 50% the pitches.

By the other hand, ``meantone'' tunings like 19ET (or 31ET) can integrate all pitches and intervals as corresponding to the known diatonic/altered intervals/functions (rather than separate fields, like 24ET == 12ET + displaced 12 ET). From a listener perspective, they seem easier to understand. But for performer, there are some difficults to domain (the small deviations from the ``standard'' pitches, demanding possibly new fingerings even for the already known pitches).

In my opinion (for _my own_ use), the only multiple of 12 to go is 24, and perhaps, in some circunstances, 48!

Another interesting thing is that even the ``complexity'' composer Brian Ferneyghough, when writting for string quartet, have limited himself to 24ET plus intonation deviations, resulting in an _imprecise_ 48ET. (If someone have notice of a different approach, please let me know.) There is a limit of precision in the use of microtonalism for pure acoustic instrumental music, then Ferneyghough's limit is significative (given the usual ``super-human'' demands of his music).

+++++++

By the way, I am thinking of to request a glass marimba in 19ET, thus I have a crucial question:

-- What could be an optimal reference pitch to use 19ET instruments along tradicional instruments?

So far, I have this 19ET pitch (14th degree):
A = 438.66 Hz
as a way to reduce the pitch ``errors'' from 12ET on A = 440 Hz.

Should I try minimize the ``errors'' relative to chromatic 12ET (as I did), or (for example) relative to C-Major in 12ET instead?

What are the experiences the people by here have this respect?

Best,
Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apóie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Gr�tis - Internet r�pida e gr�tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

On 2/17/06, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@yahoo.com.br> wrote:
[...]
> That ``familiarity'' depends on several factors. There is a lot of
> contemporany compositions using 24ET, just because it is, from a
> point-of-view, a logic extension of 12ET. 24ET is very good for music
> related to the post-tonal/atonal/serial thread. Its familiarity is
> mainly related to maintaining the known 12 chromatic pitches and their
> notation. For performers, this is an important reference for tuning.
> Just think of a clarinet player, who needs to learn new quartertone
> fingerings, but still uses the common chromatic ones, so that the global
> tuning is assured by the performer's familiarity with 50% the pitches.

Ah, I wasn't thinking of atonal or serial music because they're just
not my cup of tea. But wouldn't a real atonalist want to *avoid*
consonant relationships? Pick a temperament with a round number of
notes but really bad approximations to JI, like 16 or 32, and
transform tone rows to your heart's content. I think that weird guy
Bill Flavell was suggesting something like this...

> By the other hand, ``meantone'' tunings like 19ET (or 31ET) can
> integrate all pitches and intervals as corresponding to the known
> diatonic/altered intervals/functions (rather than separate fields, like
> 24ET == 12ET + displaced 12 ET). From a listener perspective, they seem
> easier to understand. But for performer, there are some difficults to
> domain (the small deviations from the ``standard'' pitches, demanding
> possibly new fingerings even for the already known pitches).

Well, that depends what instrument you're talking about. It's easy on
the trombone. =P

> In my opinion (for _my own_ use), the only multiple of 12 to go is 24,
> and perhaps, in some circunstances, 48!

What's wrong with 72? Or 36, which has good 8/7s and 7/6s at least.

> Another interesting thing is that even the ``complexity'' composer Brian
> Ferneyghough, when writting for string quartet, have limited himself to
> 24ET plus intonation deviations, resulting in an _imprecise_ 48ET. (If
> someone have notice of a different approach, please let me know.) There
> is a limit of precision in the use of microtonalism for pure acoustic
> instrumental music, then Ferneyghough's limit is significative (given
> the usual ``super-human'' demands of his music).

Google says his name is "Ferneyhough", and he sounds interesting.

> +++++++
>
> By the way, I am thinking of to request a glass marimba in 19ET, thus I
> have a crucial question:
>
> -- What could be an optimal reference pitch to use 19ET instruments
> along tradicional instruments?
>
> So far, I have this 19ET pitch (14th degree):
> A = 438.66 Hz
> as a way to reduce the pitch ``errors'' from 12ET on A = 440 Hz.
>
> Should I try minimize the ``errors'' relative to chromatic 12ET (as I
> did), or (for example) relative to C-Major in 12ET instead?
>
> What are the experiences the people by here have this respect?

Well, obviously it's a bad idea for 19-edo and 12-edo instruments to
play together, but I know what you mean. If A is 438.66 Hz then D
would be in tune with a 12-EDO D with A=440, right? That seems like it
*does* minimize the errors relative to C major already, because D is
the center of the C major scale (F-C-G-D-A-E-B).

I think it's futile to minimize the differences from chromatic 12-edo,
because if some notes on one side of the circle of fifths are in tune,
the ones on the opposite side will be the farthest apart from each
other. Making the Ds in tune seems like a good idea to me.

> Best,
> Hudson

Keenan

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Keenan,

{you wrote...}
>Ah, I wasn't thinking of atonal or serial music because they're just not my cup of tea. But wouldn't a real atonalist want to *avoid* consonant relationships? Pick a temperament with a round number of notes but really bad approximations to JI, like 16 or 32, and transform tone rows to your heart's content.

That would be my thinking. OTOH, the Boston group of people, centered around Maneri, have pretty much settled on 72, but not for reasons of consonance or approximating JI (far from those goals, actually).

>Well, that depends what instrument you're talking about. It's easy on the trombone. =P

Yep, or the unfretted string family, or voice.

>Google says his name is "Ferneyhough", and he sounds interesting.

Patron saint of the "new complexity" school. For all his professed used of microtones (notably 1/4 tones), upon listening to even world-class performances one wonders why he even bothered, outside of 'effects'. But I'm sure he could write a multi-chapter essay just on why he did! :)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Keenan Pepper escreveu:
[...]
> Ah, I wasn't thinking of atonal or serial music because they're just
> not my cup of tea. But wouldn't a real atonalist want to *avoid*
> consonant relationships? Pick a temperament with a round number of
> notes but really bad approximations to JI, like 16 or 32, and
> transform tone rows to your heart's content. I think that weird guy
> Bill Flavell was suggesting something like this...

I don't think so. There is no an opposition consonance/dissonance in atonal music, but several levels of affinity between tones instead, from the ``soft'' traditional ``consonances'' til ``hard'' complex relations (``dissonances'').

Atonal music -- in the sense in which Schoenberg's music can be called atonal -- is just a sort of extreme chromatic tonal music, but not ``mistuned'' music or simply ``dissonant'' music (as ``bad approximations to JI could suggest''). Schoenberg prefered the word ``pantonal'' (all tones, or all keys) to describe his music.

BTW, I find it is a good idea integrate material elements from the tradition rather than exclude them. 19ET, 24ET, 31ET and other scales can do microtonal modal, tonal *and* atonal music (not 12-tone, obviously, but sounding atonal still).

[...]
>>In my opinion (for _my own_ use), the only multiple of 12 to go is 24,
>>and perhaps, in some circunstances, 48!
> > > What's wrong with 72? Or 36, which has good 8/7s and 7/6s at least.

Yes, but for instrumental music, a high number of divisions is problematic, and the notation itself imposes other questions: the near pure intervals vs. the usual tempered ones can causes confusion (because the needed tuning adjusts in complex chords).

I misses 36ET which can be interesting really, but I am not sure that some intervals can be understood as such, given the tuning errors from JI (I need try it).

72ET is too divided to me for general use (harmonic mainly) -- its pitch classes are not clearly discrete for the perception -- one perceives mainly different ``flavors'' of an interval, instead of really independent intervals classes.

Anyway, this is a personal opinion. I prefer let to the performers a considerable margin for expressive intonation (adjusting the tuning by ear and accoding to the feeling) rather than write the precise pitches in detail. 72ET is too difficult to tune by ear during a performance, except for simple textures using small melodic intervals. Harmony demands some flexibility, and this is an important reason to the existence of 12ET: it is an artificial tuning reference to be corrected by ear in the practice.

The choice of the scales depends on each specific compositional project. Whatever scale can be useful in some circunstance. I was talking about scales for a general use, which could be tied to western music tradition and instruments (tonal, modal, atonal, serial music).

>>Another interesting thing is that even the ``complexity'' composer Brian
>>Ferneyghough, when writting for string quartet, have limited himself to
>>24ET plus intonation deviations, resulting in an _imprecise_ 48ET. (If
>>someone have notice of a different approach, please let me know.) There
>>is a limit of precision in the use of microtonalism for pure acoustic
>>instrumental music, then Ferneyghough's limit is significative (given
>>the usual ``super-human'' demands of his music).
> > > Google says his name is "Ferneyhough", and he sounds interesting.

Yes, that is his correct surname. His music is really very interesting.

[...]
> Well, obviously it's a bad idea for 19-edo and 12-edo instruments to
> play together, but I know what you mean.

Not a too bad ideia for ``12ET'' instruments which can make the tuning on the fly (flute, trumpet, violin, trombone...). Of course, OTH, a duet of 19ET glass marimba and conventional piano would sound really a very bad ideia!

> If A is 438.66 Hz then D
> would be in tune with a 12-EDO D with A=440, right? That seems like it
> *does* minimize the errors relative to C major already, because D is
> the center of the C major scale (F-C-G-D-A-E-B).
[...]

Your approach is quite simple, it gives exactly the same result I want, and it's useful for whatever meantone temperament.

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Yahoo! doce lar. Fa�a do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

> [...]
> >>In my opinion (for _my own_ use), the only multiple of 12 to go
is 24,
> >>and perhaps, in some circunstances, 48!
> >
> >
> > What's wrong with 72? Or 36, which has good 8/7s and 7/6s at
least.
>
++++++++From Stephen below:::

On my keyboard, which is all I'm familiar with, I can
say that the absolute number of notes I can play at a time
is about the same as playing in 12 with one hand (maybe
6 or 7 fingers). I'm sure 72 is fine for a group or
composing using a computer though.

Also, one has to wonder how long it would take to
get a gut feel for 72.

I would think that 24, in what might be called its three
standard forms (for lack of better phrasing) would be
plenty. That is, together simulataneouly with a group,
or using a computer. (If you love 31,19,xx, that's fine,
that's not my point.)

1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 25 cents
2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 75 cents

Finally, I thought a number of weeks ago that there were
about 20-something genres of music out there. Apparently
there are many many more. (Some are very similar to others
I would assume.) Anyway, I can't see how going to such and
such a non-12 scale, would allow one to create a new (or some-
what new) genre. I'm mean rock in 12 is rock in 24 is in 72 etc.
One perhaps has to do something different in 12 EDO first and
*then* convert that to non-12, it seems.

Stephen Szpak

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

stephenszpak escreveu:
[...]
> 1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 25 cents
> 2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
> 3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 75 cents

If the signals are not merged before output the sound, this could sound like a mistuned group; some old microtonal pieces (e.g. 2 pianos a 1/4-tone apart) have this problem. A ``crossed'' scale can be interesting to minimize/avoid the problem.

For 2 guitars, my approach (in 24et) was this:

1st: E B+ G D+ A E+
2nd: E- B G- D A- E

> Anyway, I can't see how going to such and
> such a non-12 scale, would allow one to create a new (or some-
> what new) genre. I'm mean rock in 12 is rock in 24 is in 72 etc.
> One perhaps has to do something different in 12 EDO first and
> *then* convert that to non-12, it seems.
[...]

A pitch-oriented piece will hardly sound ``different'': the scale is not decisive, because make music using scales (or to use different scales) is not a new idea.

I think ``microtonal music'' cannot exist as a genre, just like ``7/8 music'' (!) is not a genre. One cannot overestimate the importance of merely partial aspects of music, like scale or meter alone.

Hudson

--
'-------------------------------------------------------------------.
Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
*Nï¿½o deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
*Apï¿½ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda
<hfmlacerda@...> wrote:

++++Thanks Hudson. -Stephen

__________________________

>
> stephenszpak escreveu:
> [...]
> > 1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 25 cents
> > 2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
> > 3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 75 cents
>
> If the signals are not merged before output the sound, this could
sound
> like a mistuned group; some old microtonal pieces (e.g. 2 pianos a
> 1/4-tone apart) have this problem. A ``crossed'' scale can be
> interesting to minimize/avoid the problem.
>
> For 2 guitars, my approach (in 24et) was this:
>
> 1st: E B+ G D+ A E+
> 2nd: E- B G- D A- E
>
> > Anyway, I can't see how going to such and
> > such a non-12 scale, would allow one to create a new (or
some-
> > what new) genre. I'm mean rock in 12 is rock in 24 is in 72
etc.
> > One perhaps has to do something different in 12 EDO first and
> > *then* convert that to non-12, it seems.
> [...]
>
> A pitch-oriented piece will hardly sound ``different'': the scale
is not
> decisive, because make music using scales (or to use different
scales)
> is not a new idea.
>
> I think ``microtonal music'' cannot exist as a genre, just like
``7/8
> music'' (!) is not a genre. One cannot overestimate the importance
of
> merely partial aspects of music, like scale or meter alone.
>
> Hudson
>
> --
> '---------------------------------------------------------------
----.
> Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
> *Não deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
> *Apóie o Manifesto:
http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/
>
> == THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
> http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?
option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
> .---------------------------------------------------------------
----'
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o
discador agora!
> http://br.acesso.yahoo.com
>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

c.m.bryan escreveu:
>>>> 1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 25 cents
>>>> 2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
>>>> 3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 75 cents
>>>
>>>#1 and #3 are aurally equivalent.
> > >>I don't see that at the moment.
> > > > Look at them intervallically, in cents:
> > 1) 25 75 25 75 etc...
> > 3) 75 25 75 25 etc...
> > So #3 is the same as #1, only 25 cents lower.

The keyboards are in 12tET (steps of 100 cents), so:

0) 0 100 200 ...
1) 25 125 225 ...
2) 50 150 250 ...
3) 75 175 275 ...

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Guys,

{you wrote...}
>The keyboards are in 12tET (steps of 100 cents), so:
>
>0) 0 100 200 ...
>1) 25 125 225 ...
>2) 50 150 250 ...
>3) 75 175 275 ...

C'mon, that is still the same things as 12tet, just shifting up by 1/4 step intervals! This isn't yielding any new territories for harmonic or melodic usage. Now if what Stephen is *really* saying is picking 12 notes out of the 24 possible pitches per octave and using them so chords have wider or narrower intervals than in 12tet, that is something different entirely.

Then again, thinking only in sets of 12 notes, and locking yourself in (both figuratively and physically) to a 12note keyboard is a real straight-jacket. And *if* you want to use a 12note keyboard, why not be adventurous and pick some really interesting intervals, not something as simplistic as 1/4 tones?

I say for anyone wanting to stick with a 7-5 kbd setup, sit there with Scala and load up any of the 12note scales and find something interesting. Then start making music with it.

Cheers,
Jon

>--
> '-------------------------------------------------------------------.
>Hudson Lacerda <http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/>
>*N�o deixe seu voto sumir! http://www.votoseguro.org/
>*Ap�ie o Manifesto: http://www.votoseguro.com/alertaprofessores/
>
> == THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
> .-------------------------------------------------------------------'
>--
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>Yahoo! Acesso Gr�tis - Internet r�pida e gr�tis. Instale o discador agora!
>http://br.acesso.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:
>
> > I say for anyone wanting to stick with a 7-5 kbd setup, sit
there with Scala and load up any of the 12note scales and find
something interesting. Then start making music with it.
>
> Actually, I think Stephen was talking about the complete 24-note
set.

++++ Yes I was thinking along the lines of 3 different versions
of 24. The premise is that one already knows how to play in
24 ( in some form, let's say 24 EDO to keep things simple)
and one wants to extend the melodic resourses here. Why?
Why not just learn to play in 19 EDO or 31 EDO etc. Because
of the time it takes to learn a new EDO *with* virtuosity.
This includes the ability to improvise on the spot of course.
Because of the time it takes to get a real feel deep down
of the scale. Then there is the subject of notation. At least
all three 24's could be notated the same way. A asterisk
at the bottom of the page of music would indicate which version
of 24 is in use for the piece.

I'm not saying 3 versions of 24 is the best. I'm not saying
this is some fantastic idea. Just an idea.

Stephen Szpak

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

Keenan (or Hudson?) {{anyone can comment of course}}

I've read that 72 EDO has everything that is worth anything
in it. But even if this is true...

I was wondering what is the human limit as far as EDOs go.

1) What is the highest EDO that someone playing/composing a hour
a day for 5 years can get a intimate understanding of? A real
feel for.

2) What is the highest EDO that a average
listener can differentiate? I don't mean the scale but a
piece of music.

My guess on all this would be 48 EDO.

Stephen Szpak

_________________________________________________

OLD POSTS BELOW. READ ONLY IF NEEDED.........

*****************************************************
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
What's wrong with 72? Or 36, which has good 8/7s and 7/6s at least.

Yes, but for instrumental music, a high number of divisions is
problematic, and the notation itself imposes other questions: the
near
pure intervals vs. the usual tempered ones can causes confusion
(because
the needed tuning adjusts in complex chords).

I misses 36ET which can be interesting really, but I am not sure that
some intervals can be understood as such, given the tuning errors
from
JI (I need try it).

72ET is too divided to me for general use (harmonic mainly) -- its
pitch
classes are not clearly discrete for the perception -- one perceives
mainly different ``flavors'' of an interval, instead of really
independent intervals classes.

_______________________________________________________________
> > If you're still stuck on using a multiple of 12, 72 is the only
way to go.
>
> That ``familiarity'' depends on several factors. There is a lot of
> contemporany compositions using 24ET, just because it is, from a
> point-of-view, a logic extension of 12ET. 24ET is very good for
music
> related to the post-tonal/atonal/serial thread. Its familiarity is
> mainly related to maintaining the known 12 chromatic pitches and
their
> notation. For performers, this is an important reference for
tuning.
> Just think of a clarinet player, who needs to learn new
quartertone
> fingerings, but still uses the common chromatic ones, so that the
global
> tuning is assured by the performer's familiarity with 50% the
pitches.
>
> By the other hand, ``meantone'' tunings like 19ET (or 31ET) can
> integrate all pitches and intervals as corresponding to the known
> diatonic/altered intervals/functions (rather than separate fields,
like
> 24ET == 12ET + displaced 12 ET). From a listener perspective, they
seem
> easier to understand. But for performer, there are some difficults
to
> domain (the small deviations from the ``standard'' pitches,
demanding
> possibly new fingerings even for the already known pitches).
>
> In my opinion (for _my own_ use), the only multiple of 12 to go is
24,
> and perhaps, in some circunstances, 48!
>
>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

On 2/22/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Keenan (or Hudson?) {{anyone can comment of course}}
>
> I've read that 72 EDO has everything that is worth anything
> in it. But even if this is true...

72 is very good, but this is an exaggeration.

> I was wondering what is the human limit as far as EDOs go.
>
> 1) What is the highest EDO that someone playing/composing a hour
> a day for 5 years can get a intimate understanding of? A real
> feel for.

I lean towards the small side of this question, but even I admit that
53 and 72 can be useful. Others have praised 171 and 311 as
"universal" tuning systems.

When dealing with these high EDOs, the important question is why not
to use JI or a non-equal temperament instead. Gene points out that an
EDO is simply what results from tempering out a certain set of commas,
and I admit he has a point.

> 2) What is the highest EDO that a average
> listener can differentiate? I don't mean the scale but a
> piece of music.

Differentiate what? The nearest pitches from each other? The EDO as a
whole from other EDOs?

> My guess on all this would be 48 EDO.

48 is not a good temperament; I don't know why you're so obsessed with
it. 46, for example, is much better, and 50 is good for meantone.

> Stephen Szpak

Keenan

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

> 72ET is too divided to me for general use (harmonic mainly) -- its
pitch
> classes are not clearly discrete for the perception -- one
perceives
> mainly different ``flavors'' of an interval, instead of really
> independent intervals classes.
>

***This is an interesting point, and is even quite evident in the
Blackjack scale, a 21 note extract from the full 72-tET.

HOWEVER, it all depends on how one wants to look at things. Are
various "inflections" in Blackjack "mistakes" when one hits upon
them, and should they be "corrected" to their Just equivalents?

I used to actually do that...

However, I'm beginning to think this was an error, and 72 (well,
Blackjack 21) should be treated like any other audible scale. As was
said, "If it *sounds* good, it *is* good!" :)

Therefore, what is this "correcting" all about? There is nothing to
correct. The "error" is probably what sounded right at the time in
the improv. and unless there is a *really* compelling reason to
change the interval, to change the inflection, it's best to stay with
the gut (of the string or the innards!)

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Hi Stephen,

stephenszpak escreveu:
> Keenan (or Hudson?) {{anyone can comment of course}}
> > I've read that 72 EDO has everything that is worth anything
> in it. But even if this is true...
> > I was wondering what is the human limit as far as EDOs go.
> > 1) What is the highest EDO that someone playing/composing a hour
> a day for 5 years can get a intimate understanding of? A real
> feel for.

If we can take Alï¿½is Hï¿½ba as reference, he used say that he could play violin and sing in up to 12 divisions of a whole tone. 16 divisions of a tone are also refered in the early 20th century `microtonalists'. I think this may be a starting reference for reflection.

> > 2) What is the highest EDO that a average > listener can differentiate? I don't mean the scale but a
> piece of music.
> > My guess on all this would be 48 EDO.
> > Stephen Szpak

At about 48EDO was exactly what I suggested when I cited Ferneyhough. Ferneyhough's music is known for its extreme difficulties to execute (and to listen to). Pierre Boulez once said that he and the Ensemble Intercontemporain could play Ferneyhough's pieces attaining approximately 30% of accuracy (relative to the written score indications)! And I have no notice so far that Ferneyhough would have requested to performers more than an imprecise 48EDO (quartertones plus a small deviation).

What do you expect from that `average listener'? I could not catch the importance of the second question.

Anyway: just think about the task to sing or to write atonal music (12EDO) by ear...

Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Keenan Pepper escreveu:
> On 2/22/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
[...]
>>1) What is the highest EDO that someone playing/composing a hour
>> a day for 5 years can get a intimate understanding of? A real
>> feel for.
> > > I lean towards the small side of this question, but even I admit that
> 53 and 72 can be useful. Others have praised 171 and 311 as
> "universal" tuning systems.
> > When dealing with these high EDOs, the important question is why not
> to use JI or a non-equal temperament instead. Gene points out that an
> EDO is simply what results from tempering out a certain set of commas,
> and I admit he has a point.

I think the question is another. It refers to a comment I made on the difference between an autonome interval class and a collection of `flavors' of an interval class. I think some of the more problematic intervals are those near the thirds and sixths:

From 99 EDO:
24: 290.909091
25: 303.030303
26: 315.151515
27: 327.272727
28: 339.393939
29: 351.515152
30: 363.636364
31: 375.757576
32: 387.878788
33: 400.000000
34: 412.121212

Intervals 24 to 27 can be recognized as different flavors of `minor thirds', but according to the context (in a counterpoint, or if the pitches are not in the same octave, or when different timbres, short duration, etc.) the difference between them can be cancelled.

More divisions amplify the problem:

From 311 EDO:
76: 293.247588
77: 297.106109
78: 300.964630
79: 304.823151
80: 308.681672
81: 312.540193
82: 316.398714
83: 320.257235
84: 324.115756

> > >>2) What is the highest EDO that a average
>> listener can differentiate? I don't mean the scale but a
>> piece of music.
> > > Differentiate what? The nearest pitches from each other? The EDO as a
> whole from other EDOs?

I understood as to differentiate the nearest pitches from each other, or, from another view: can identify *exactly* any (melodic and harmonic) interval from all other ones of an EDO. For example, if someone can listen to a melodic interval from a music and says: ``that was a major third class 80 from 311 EDO, not class 81 or 79, for sure''.

> > >> My guess on all this would be 48 EDO.
> > > 48 is not a good temperament; I don't know why you're so obsessed with
> it. 46, for example, is much better, and 50 is good for meantone.

I suppose Stephen mean: *at about* 48 EDO.

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Gr�tis - Internet r�pida e gr�tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>
> wrote:
> > >> From 99 EDO:
>> 24: 290.909091
>> 25: 303.030303
>> 26: 315.151515
>> 27: 327.272727
>> 28: 339.393939
>> 29: 351.515152
>> 30: 363.636364
>> 31: 375.757576
>> 32: 387.878788
>> 33: 400.000000
>> 34: 412.121212
>>
>>Intervals 24 to 27 can be recognized as different flavors of `minor >>thirds', but according to the context (in a counterpoint, or if the >>pitches are not in the same octave, or when different timbres, short >>duration, etc.) the difference between them can be cancelled.
> > > Stick the interval inside of a fifth, and ask specifically for
> interval 26 or 32, and I think it should be easier to hit.

Gene,

You are just asking to recognize a couple of very common (non-microtonal!) chords, a rather specific `context' -- perfect triads are islands inside any microtonal EDO. These are really easy to identify. Now: what about the prompt recognition of the intervals 27 to 31, even in non-triadic contexts? *These* are the real `microtonal' (intermediate) intervals.

I think just playing with the order of events is sufficient to cause some confusion: a `neutral' triad after a major/minor triad, for example. All that is a matter of context.

Even a melodic interval of 1 step (for 99EDO) can be successful masked if you use a sound with slow attack (e.g. strings like), and/or `effects' like vibrato or chorus. Also, if you play simultaneously two neighbour pitches (e.g. [0,1]), the listener will perceive a (beating) pitch that is not in the scale (the mean frequency).

BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like [0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.

Best wishes,

Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Gene,

I think just playing with the order of events is sufficient to cause some confusion: a `neutral' triad after a major/minor triad, for example. All that is a matter of context.

BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like [0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.

Best wishes,

Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:

> The more you use intervals with an unclear harmonic meaning,
> the harder it will be to perform.

That is why it is useful to think about a reasonable number (and quality) of intervals for a scale -- if one is interested in using some ambiguity.

About the harmonic meaning, I think that ambiguity is a very interesting and attractive feature of some intervals and chords. This allows to explore a rich harmony, full of musical possibilities and expressive power. I think this also reveals an important compositional advantage of temperaments over just intonation. The latter one presumes that a chord should have one and only one unmistakeable fundamental, therefore reducing its possibilities.

> That doesn't mean avoiding them is
> non-microtonal; I think my 99-et piece is microtonal.

This is very clear, especially because you use those `unclear' intervals melodically with reasonable frequency, even if you avoid using them to build chords.

Cheers,
Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Keenan Pepper escreveu:
> On 2/24/06, c. m. bryan <chrismbryan@...> wrote:
> >>>I think this also reveals an important compositional advantage of
>>>temperaments over just intonation. The latter one presumes that a chord
>>>should have one and only one unmistakeable fundamental, therefore
>>>reducing its possibilities.
>>
>>I'm going to have to stick up for Just here: I'm pretty sure that
>>statement is objectively false. What is the fundamental in 9/7, for
>>example?

For 9/7 I assume naturally that 1/1 is its fundamental. (Same for other harmonic intervals.)

> Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "fundamental."
>>What do you mean?

My wording was not very proper really, it leads to an excessive generalization.

My point is this: what is the importance to make a clear difference between 9/8 and 10/9, or even between 9/7 and 5/4? If one wants the intervals be clearly identifiable, obviously the just intonation can help a lot (and its combination tones). But if one wants to use a same pair of pitches as having potentially several meanings (e.g. 11/10 and 9/8), then some tuning imprecision (`tempering') can help a lot. In the later case, just intonation can reduce the ambiguity of the interval, and therefore its harmonic possibilities.

>>
>>-chris
> > > And there are just chords, in which every pair of pitches forms a
> consonant interval, which are not otonalities or utonalities. What is
> the fundamental of 3:5:9:15?

Maybe I should have said `root' instead of `fundamental' in the quoted message, but there is an important relation between these concepts in harmonic practice.

For sure there are ambiguous chords in JI, for example chains of a given interval (e.g. (6:5) -- (6:5)^2 -- (6:5)^3 -- (6:5)^4... ), or `inverted' fragments of harmonic series (e.g minor triad). But such chords tends yet to a certain meaning.

I think for 3:5:9:15, the root could be 3 (``add6'') or, in certain contexts, 5 (m7 -- 6/5 chord).

Then, I would say that just intonation *tends* to reduce the ambiguity of intervals towards to more precise harmonic meanings.

Better wording?

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Yahoo! doce lar. Fa�a do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

Hi Hudson,

on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 Hudson Lacerda wrote:

[snip]

> ... Also, if you play simultaneously two
> neighbour pitches (e.g. [0,1]), the listener will perceive a (beating)
> pitch that is not in the scale (the mean frequency).

There's a fallacy that "if you want to play the note
between Bb and B, just play both together". Many
jazz players allegedly do so to get a more "natural"
seventh harmonic. But there are some factors that
make this approach unlikely to achieve the desired
result:

1. Only advanced players can vary the dynamics
adequately in music played at speed so as the "mixed"
note is not overly prominent in the mix.

2. The perceived average frequency note is not
really the seventh harmonic.

3. The difference tone leads to the sensation of a
very low virtual pitch which may be at odds with the
current harmony, depending on the tuning.

In my experience, a better seventh harmonic effect
can be created when playing a C7 tetrad on a 12-EDO
piano or keyboard, by playing the Bb as an acciaccatura
- a "crushing note" - a short grace note starting simul-
taneously with the B. Even then, it only (sort of) works
if the whole chord is played staccato anyway. And the
fingering requires even more dexterity and dynamic
control to get the mix just right. I figure I'm at best
successful only two-thirds of the time ... :-)

> BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like
> [0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.

This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual
pitches - almost providing its own bass line! Do you
have a composition we could hear using these chords?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/2/06

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Hi Yahya.

[...]
> In my experience, a better seventh harmonic effect
> can be created when playing a C7 tetrad on a 12-EDO > piano or keyboard, by playing the Bb as an acciaccatura
> - a "crushing note" - a short grace note starting simul-
> taneously with the B.

The original word for it was `acciaccatura', term today rarely used in that meaning.

I think some other baroque keyboard decorations are due to similar problems with (mis)tunings.

> > > >>BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like >>[0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
> > > This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual > pitches - almost providing its own bass line! Do you > have a composition we could hear using these chords?

No virtual pitches, the frequencies are too close. All chords I refered to are subsets of *99EDO*. [0,1] is really perceived as one pitch (or as a mistuned unisson), and [0,1,2] or [0,1,2,3] as a tone with a chorus effect or like. The texture resembles Ligeti's or Penderecki's music, and clouds of granular synthesis.

Regards,
Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda > <hfmlacerda@...> wrote:
> > >> My point is this: what is the importance to make a clear difference
>> between 9/8 and 10/9, or even between 9/7 and 5/4?
> > > If one doesn't distinguish these, the obvious thing to do is to use > 12-et temperament. However, if you do that, you might ask why you are
> distinguishing between the two neutral thirds of 60/49 and 49/40? > What's the point of that? If you don't distinguish those also, you > are forced to use one version of 17 equal, which has some pretty > ragged thirds. But your woes are not over. Why, someone may ask, are > you distinguishing between 7/5 and 10/7? Or what makes you think > distinguishing between 16/15 and 15/14 is a good idea? The questions
> cannot ever be decided by equating any two notes which seem close.

In all your examples, you are doing exactly the thing I suggested: picking an n-EDO according to the intervals one want `equate'. It is a matter of choice to distinguish or not between certain intervals.

An example of what I mean:

In 19EDO, I can use the interval 16 as 9/8, 10/9 and 11/10, sustaining
two notes in a chord sequence like this:

[0,2,6,10,13,16]
| | |
[0,3,5, 9,13,16]
| | |
[0,3,6, 8,12,16]

All there chords have a very clear fundamental (they are based on the
harmonics 7,8,9,10 and 11. Thanks to the *constant imprecision* in tuning of 19EDO (7th harmonic (interval 15) is represented with 20 cents error in 19EDO!!!), I can tie the pitches [0,16] as a invariant subset in the sequence.

If I stick to just intervals relative to the fundamental of the chords instead, that sequence would be not possible (no common intervals), or if I use a JI derivation of 19EDO, some chords could be too detuned -- the same old problem to use one pitch for enharmonics. The latter tends to *individualize* each pitch/interval.

That's why I said before:

If one wants the intervals be clearly identifiable, obviously the just
intonation can help a lot (and its combination tones). But if one wants
to use a same pair of pitches as having potentially several meanings
(e.g. 11/10 and 9/8), then some tuning imprecision (`tempering') can
help a lot. In the later case, just intonation can reduce the ambiguity of the interval, and therefore its harmonic possibilities.

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Yahya Abdal-Aziz escreveu:
>>BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like >>[0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
> > > This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual > pitches - almost providing its own bass line! Do you > have a composition we could hear using these chords?

Hi Yahya.

I did a simple improvisation exercise with steps of 12.121212 cents (same as 99EDO) on a (cheap) 60 keys keyboard:

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/12c.zip

It sounds somewhat static (`monotonous'), mainly due to the absence of timbre elaboration (beside the narrow pitch range -- a 5th!), elaboration which is essential for such kind of texture. Anyway, it can give you an idea of those sonorities.

I used the pitch 2 (24.242424 cents above 440.0Hz) as reference for pitch sets (`chords') like:

[0,1,3]
[-2,0,3,4]
[-3,-2,0,3,4,5]

Such `chords' sound like a single tone with different mass, volume, density, allure or thickness.

Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Hi Gene.

Gene Ward Smith escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>
> wrote:
> > >>I did a simple improvisation exercise with steps of 12.121212 cents >>(same as 99EDO) on a (cheap) 60 keys keyboard:
>>
>>http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/12c.zip
> > > So far as I know, only two people in the history of the world have
> written anything in 99edo--you and me. So say what you will, I'm all
> for it.

What do you mean? Is it about composing a piece based on that improvisation?

> > Have you thought about putting up a web page with links to
> compositions? We could always use another 46edo piece.

Not yet. I am thinking about music licensing terms before to do such publishing: Creative Commons licenses vs. Free Art License vs. GPL vs. yet another license... then asking permission to performers etc.

Easier to do with new (electronic) compositions. In this case, I need before to convert some (100+) synthesis programs of mine from Matlab to Octave (or learn to use puredata for live electronics), but I didn't find time to do this yet.

Anyway, that is a good idea to carrying out in short.

Cheers,
Hudson Lacerda

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Yahoo! doce lar. Faï¿½a do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda
<hfmlacerda@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> stephenszpak escreveu:
> > Keenan (or Hudson?) {{anyone can comment of course}}
> >
> > I've read that 72 EDO has everything that is worth anything
> > in it. But even if this is true...
> >
> > I was wondering what is the human limit as far as EDOs go.
> >
> > 1) What is the highest EDO that someone playing/composing a hour
> > a day for 5 years can get a intimate understanding of? A real
> > feel for.
>
> If we can take Alóis Hába as reference, he used say that he could
play
> violin and sing in up to 12 divisions of a whole tone. 16
divisions of a
> tone are also refered in the early 20th century `microtonalists'.
I
> think this may be a starting reference for reflection.

++++++++++++++++++++This is interesting. Perhaps people that
are in this group are a very small minority.
>
> >
> > 2) What is the highest EDO that a average
> > listener can differentiate? I don't mean the scale but a
> > piece of music.
> >
> > My guess on all this would be 48 EDO.
> >
> > Stephen Szpak
>
> At about 48EDO was exactly what I suggested when I cited
Ferneyhough.
> Ferneyhough's music is known for its extreme difficulties to
execute
> (and to listen to). >
> What do you expect from that `average listener'? I could not catch
the
> importance of the second question.

++++++++++++I read a long time ago that, above something like,
I don't know, 53 EDO? or so, microtonal musical
pieces start to sound the same. Maybe I read this
all wrong.

Let's say we have a melody line written in 53 EDO
for the heck of it. If we took this melody line and
converted it to 48 EDO, approximating as best as
possible, I assume that we would hear about the same
melody. They would be recognizably different, yet
essentially the same, if I can say it that way.

The idea of the human limit post, was to find out
the maximum of what we should REASONABLY do as
composers (the highest EDO {if one uses EDO's}
that we should bother with. What we can understand
(as well as we understand 12 EDO, deep within us)
as well as what the listener can hear.

The post sparked spirited debate, at least that.

Thanks for the respones,

Stephen Szpak

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Stephen,

{you wrote...}
>The idea of the human limit post, was to find out the maximum of what we should REASONABLY do as composers ... The post sparked spirited debate, at least that.

I think it is always a good thing to question boundaries, as you have. The one thing I would *highly* suggest is to do a thorough research of what composers *have* done already. I know you've done some cursory excursions, but a lot of microtonal music has been made in the last 1/2 century, and continues to be made. If one can look at successful compositions and successful performances, you get a very realistic idea of what is really possible.

I didn't think I'd be able to accurately distinguish pitches a cent or two apart, not to mention be able to sing them. I found out it didn't take all that long to get there, and that was 30 years ago. Check out Johnny Reinhard and the AFMM, the Boston Microtonal Society, recordings of Johnston, Partch, etc, etc. At some point you don't even have to wonder what people can do, you can actually experience what they can do. And if they can do that, then why not hope to go further?

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@...> wrote:
>
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> >>Well, I reckon Neil said a mouthful, and I agree
> >>with everything he said except for one thing, and
> >>that's where he quotes Shorter as saying that
> >>"nobody is composing their asses off anymore".
> >>
> >>It's just not true. And who are we to pass
> >>judgement on anyone else's commitment to their
> >>craft?!?!?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >***Well... in New York, anyway, there are plenty of people who
> >are "composing their asses off..." and even some "assholes" who
> >are "overexposing" themselves...(Moonshining...)
> >
> >J. Pehrson
> >
>
> Like who?
>
> --
> * David Beardsley
> * microtonal guitar
> * http://biink.com/db
>

***All three Bang on a Canners. People I know: Gene Pritsker, Rob
Paterson, Steve Mackey, Paul Lansky, Dean Drummond... just go through
the Calendar for New Music and Time Out. There are many extremely
active composers around NYC... (not all microtonal, though, I agree,
but certainly some... two from the list above...)

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@...> wrote:
> >
>>Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>> >>
>>>>Well, I reckon Neil said a mouthful, and I agree
>>>>with everything he said except for one thing, and
>>>>that's where he quotes Shorter as saying that
>>>>"nobody is composing their asses off anymore".
>>>>
>>>>It's just not true. And who are we to pass
>>>>judgement on anyone else's commitment to their
>>>>craft?!?!?
>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>***Well... in New York, anyway, there are plenty of people who >>>are "composing their asses off..." and even some "assholes" who >>>are "overexposing" themselves...(Moonshining...)
>>>
>>>J. Pehrson
>>>
>>> >>>
>>Like who?
>>
>>
>> >>
>
>***All three Bang on a Canners. People I know: Gene Pritsker, Rob >Paterson, Steve Mackey, Paul Lansky, Dean Drummond... just go through >the Calendar for New Music and Time Out. There are many extremely >active composers around NYC... (not all microtonal, though, I agree, >but certainly some... two from the list above...)
>
>JP
>
Yes, they're all productive. I don't know any of them well enough to call them assholes.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@...> wrote:
>
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> >--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Well, I reckon Neil said a mouthful, and I agree
> >>>>with everything he said except for one thing, and
> >>>>that's where he quotes Shorter as saying that
> >>>>"nobody is composing their asses off anymore".
> >>>>
> >>>>It's just not true. And who are we to pass
> >>>>judgement on anyone else's commitment to their
> >>>>craft?!?!?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>***Well... in New York, anyway, there are plenty of people who
> >>>are "composing their asses off..." and even some "assholes" who
> >>>are "overexposing" themselves...(Moonshining...)
> >>>
> >>>J. Pehrson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Like who?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >***All three Bang on a Canners. People I know: Gene Pritsker, Rob
> >Paterson, Steve Mackey, Paul Lansky, Dean Drummond... just go
through
> >the Calendar for New Music and Time Out. There are many extremely
> >active composers around NYC... (not all microtonal, though, I
agree,
> >but certainly some... two from the list above...)
> >
> >JP
> >
> Yes, they're all productive. I don't know any of them well enough
to
> call them assholes.
>
>

***Oh... that was your concern. Well, I retract that comment, then.
It was only a joke.

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

Hi Hudson,

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, you wrote:
[...]
> > In my experience, a better seventh harmonic effect
> > can be created when playing a C7 tetrad on a 12-EDO
> > piano or keyboard, by playing the Bb as an acciaccatura
> > - a "crushing note" - a short grace note starting simul-
> > taneously with the B.
>
> The original word for it was `acciaccatura', ...

?? That's what I said! :-)

> ... term today rarely used in that meaning.

Oh? What would you call a "crushing note" now?
And what does "acciaccatura" mean now?

> > Even then, it only (sort of) works
> > if the whole chord is played staccato anyway. And the
> > fingering requires even more dexterity and dynamic
> > control to get the mix just right. I figure I'm at best
> > successful only two-thirds of the time ... :-)
>
> I think some other baroque keyboard decorations are due to similar
> problems with (mis)tunings.

Interesting thought! Please elaborate? I doubt
you would include mordents and trills in this
category - or would you?

> >>BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like
> >>[0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
> >
> >
> > This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual
> > pitches - almost providing its own bass line! Do you
> > have a composition we could hear using these chords?
>
> No virtual pitches, the frequencies are too close. ...

Between steps 0 and 3 of 99-EDO, we have just one
step of 33-EDO, or 2^(1/33). If step 0 were at A6
=1760 Hz, step 3 would be at 1760 * 2^(1/33), which
is 37.3588271150... Hz higher than A6. Few of us
could not hear a difference tone of over 37 Hz!

> ... All chords I refered
> to are subsets of *99EDO*. [0,1] is really perceived as one pitch (or as
> a mistuned unisson), and [0,1,2] or [0,1,2,3] as a tone with a chorus
> effect or like. The texture resembles Ligeti's or Penderecki's music,
> and clouds of granular synthesis.

I am unfamiliar with Ligeti and Penderecki.
Also, the phrase "clouds of granular synthesis"
is very poetic, but what does it mean?

_________________________________________

Later, you wrote:

> Yahya Abdal-Aziz escreveu:
> >>BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like
> >>[0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
> >
> >
> > This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual
> > pitches - almost providing its own bass line! Do you
> > have a composition we could hear using these chords?
>
> Hi Yahya.
>
> I did a simple improvisation exercise with steps of 12.121212 cents
> (same as 99EDO) on a (cheap) 60 keys keyboard:
>
> http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/12c.zip
>
> It sounds somewhat static (`monotonous'), mainly due to the absence of
> timbre elaboration (beside the narrow pitch range -- a 5th!),
> elaboration which is essential for such kind of texture. Anyway, it can
> give you an idea of those sonorities.
>
> I used the pitch 2 (24.242424 cents above 440.0Hz) as reference for
> pitch sets (`chords') like:
>
> [0,1,3]
> [-2,0,3,4]
> [-3,-2,0,3,4,5]
>
> Such `chords' sound like a single tone with different mass, volume,
> density, allure or thickness.

Hudson, I enjoyed this improvisation greatly! Your work
clearly demonstrates that 99-EDO music can be both
melodic and harmonic.

Thank you!

Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/270 - Release Date: 27/2/06

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Yahya Abdal-Aziz escreveu:
> Hi Hudson,

Hi Yahya.

[...]
>>The original word for it was `acciaccatura', ...
> > > ?? That's what I said! :-)

Yes, really, I only realised it after replying, I've read your message too fast... :-P

[...]
> Oh? What would you call a "crushing note" now?
> And what does "acciaccatura" mean now?

As far as I know, this term is often used as meaning a very short note played *before* the main note, generally noted as a small (grace) note with a stroke.

To make the things yet worse, this is sometimes also called ``apoggiatura''... :-(

[...]
>>I think some other baroque keyboard decorations are due to similar
>>problems with (mis)tunings.
> > > Interesting thought! Please elaborate? I doubt
> you would include mordents and trills in this
> category - or would you?

This is just a guess, but trills could be used to soften `wolf'-like intervals. I just sent a message to a colleague to ask about this. Let's wait for a response...

> > > >>>>BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of `chords' like
>>>>[0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual
>>>pitches - almost providing its own bass line! Do you
>>>have a composition we could hear using these chords?
>>
>>No virtual pitches, the frequencies are too close. ...
> > > Between steps 0 and 3 of 99-EDO, we have just one
> step of 33-EDO, or 2^(1/33). If step 0 were at A6
> =1760 Hz, step 3 would be at 1760 * 2^(1/33), which
> is 37.3588271150... Hz higher than A6. Few of us
> could not hear a difference tone of over 37 Hz!

OK, but they cannot be distinguished in sonorities like [0,1,3,4,6].
Also, very simple tones (almost steady-state harmonic timbres) are required...

> > > >>... All chords I refered
>>to are subsets of *99EDO*. [0,1] is really perceived as one pitch (or as
>>a mistuned unisson), and [0,1,2] or [0,1,2,3] as a tone with a chorus
>>effect or like. The texture resembles Ligeti's or Penderecki's music,
>>and clouds of granular synthesis.
> > > I am unfamiliar with Ligeti and Penderecki.
> Also, the phrase "clouds of granular synthesis"
> is very poetic, but what does it mean?

:-D

Granular synthesis is a sound synthesis technique in which a complex sound (`cloud') is built of many (typically thousands per second) very short sonic elements (`grains').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granular_synthesis

[...]
> _________________________________________
> > Later, you wrote:
[...]
>>Hi Yahya.
>>
>>I did a simple improvisation exercise with steps of 12.121212 cents
>>(same as 99EDO) on a (cheap) 60 keys keyboard:
>>
>>http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/hfmlacerda/12c.zip
[...]
> Hudson, I enjoyed this improvisation greatly! Your work
> clearly demonstrates that 99-EDO music can be both
> melodic and harmonic.
[...]

Thank you, Yahya.

It seems that this improvisation could be used as basis for a composition...

Cheers,
Hudson Lacerda

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>
wrote:

> -- What could be an optimal reference pitch to use 19ET instruments
> along tradicional instruments?
>
> So far, I have this 19ET pitch (14th degree):
> A = 438.66 Hz
> as a way to reduce the pitch ``errors'' from 12ET on A = 440 Hz.
>
> Should I try minimize the ``errors'' relative to chromatic 12ET (as I
> did), or (for example) relative to C-Major in 12ET instead?

The latter makes sense, the former doesn't.

> What are the experiences the people by here have this respect?

What you say you did actually doesn't make sense to me, because I get
that any choice results in the same sum of absolute pitch "errors",
while more sophisticated criteria like squared error just lead to 12
different equally good choices. This is a discussion for one of the
other lists, like tuning or tuning-math, though. Would you post your
method to one of those lists?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Hudson,
>
> on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 Hudson Lacerda wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > ... Also, if you play simultaneously two
> > neighbour pitches (e.g. [0,1]), the listener will perceive a
(beating)
> > pitch that is not in the scale (the mean frequency).
>
> There's a fallacy that "if you want to play the note
> between Bb and B, just play both together". Many
> jazz players allegedly do so to get a more "natural"
> seventh harmonic. But there are some factors that
> make this approach unlikely to achieve the desired
> result:
>
> 1. Only advanced players can vary the dynamics
> adequately in music played at speed so as the "mixed"
> note is not overly prominent in the mix.
>
> 2. The perceived average frequency note is not
> really the seventh harmonic.
>
> 3. The difference tone leads to the sensation of a
> very low virtual pitch

I think you just mean a "very low pitch".

> which may be at odds with the
> current harmony, depending on the tuning.
>
> In my experience, a better seventh harmonic effect
> can be created when playing a C7 tetrad on a 12-EDO
> piano or keyboard, by playing the Bb as an acciaccatura
> - a "crushing note" - a short grace note starting simul-
> taneously with the B.

I don't know why you keep saying Bb & B. Don't you mean Bb & A? The
7th harmonic is closer to A than to B.

> Even then, it only (sort of) works
> if the whole chord is played staccato anyway. And the
> fingering requires even more dexterity and dynamic
> control to get the mix just right. I figure I'm at best
> successful only two-thirds of the time ... :-)
>
>
> > BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of
`chords' like
> > [0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
>
> This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual
> pitches - almost providing its own bass line!

I don't know why you say this, Yahya. Perhaps you meant "difference
tones" instead of "virtual pitches", and also read this post without
realizing the whole thing referred to 99-equal (surely you don't play
music up in the five-digit Hz range)? And even in 12-equal, only the
first chord would produce anything like an individuated difference
tone that could function in a bass line, since the other chords would
have difference tones doubled at semitone intervals, right?

> Do you
> have a composition we could hear using these chords?

That would surely clarify a lot of things!
:)

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
<stephen_szpak@...> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > >>In my opinion (for _my own_ use), the only multiple of 12 to go
> is 24,
> > >>and perhaps, in some circunstances, 48!
> > >
> > >
> > > What's wrong with 72? Or 36, which has good 8/7s and 7/6s at
> least.
> >
> ++++++++From Stephen below:::
>
>
> On my keyboard, which is all I'm familiar with, I can
> say that the absolute number of notes I can play at a time
> is about the same as playing in 12 with one hand (maybe
> 6 or 7 fingers). I'm sure 72 is fine for a group or
> composing using a computer though.
>
> Also, one has to wonder how long it would take to
> get a gut feel for 72.
>
> I would think that 24, in what might be called its three
> standard forms (for lack of better phrasing) would be
> plenty. That is, together simulataneouly with a group,
> or using a computer. (If you love 31,19,xx, that's fine,
> that's not my point.)
>
>
>
> 1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 25 cents
> 2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
> 3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 75 cents

Overall, you'd be covering the notes of 48-equal. But you could do
the same thing using the notes of 72-equal instead:

1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 16.6667 cents up
2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 33.3333 cents up
3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)

This way you still have three different (truly different, unlike your
#1 and #3 above) 24-note scales, but as the intervals derive from 72-
equal instead of 48-equal, you'll generally have much closer
approximations to simple-integer or "just" ratios.

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Paul Erlich escreveu:
[...]
>>Should I try minimize the ``errors'' relative to chromatic 12ET (as I >>did), or (for example) relative to C-Major in 12ET instead?
> > > The latter makes sense, the former doesn't.

For comparison: what would be the frequency for 1/4-comma meantone pitch A to minimize the errors relative to 12-ET with A=440Hz?

Or, yet: how to minimize the errors from (x Hz)-12ET to (A440 Hz)-12ET? Obviously one cannot accept any value for x.

> > >>What are the experiences the people by here have this respect?
> > > What you say you did actually doesn't make sense to me, because I get > that any choice results in the same sum of absolute pitch "errors", > while more sophisticated criteria like squared error just lead to 12 > different equally good choices. This is a discussion for one of the > other lists, like tuning or tuning-math, though. Would you post your > method to one of those lists?

I thought was a matter to this list, because it is a rather practical question.

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________ Yahoo! doce lar. Faï¿½a do Yahoo! sua homepage. http://br.yahoo.com/homepageset.html

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Paul Erlich escreveu:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...> > wrote:
> > >>if I use a JI derivation of 19EDO, some chords could be too detuned --
> > > Not if you use a chain of pure major sixths (and/or minor thirds). The > result happens to be *very* close to 19-equal.

Probably not for *any* transposition...
Anyway, thanks for the suggestion to use 6/5 chains. I will try it.
Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:

Chris

+++ Thanks Chris. I spent very little time in this and I don't
like ear training either. Progress is *extremely* slow.

>
> > I hope someday I can listen (or sing) a melody I've
> > never heard before (in 12 EDO) and know what notes
> > are being sung. Maybe farther out in time I could
> > recognize what major (or minor) triad was played on
> > a piano and what position the triad was in.
>
> IMO, time spent in that kind of training is rarely wasted...
>
> -chris
>
From Paul:

Agreed.

I wrote a program to ear-train me in 22- and 31-equal when I was in
high school, and now here I am correcting other people's
compositions :) :) :)

+++++++++I came across something a number of years ago
regarding ear training. It is probably this:

http://www.perfectpitch.com/

There is no need for anyone to post info about
ear training and such unless you REALLY want to.
Just replying here to the replies.

Stephen Szpak

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

> > >
> > ++++++++From Stephen below:::
> >
> >
> > On my keyboard, which is all I'm familiar with, I can
> > say that the absolute number of notes I can play at a time
> > is about the same as playing in 12 with one hand (maybe
> > 6 or 7 fingers). I'm sure 72 is fine for a group or
> > composing using a computer though.
> >
> > Also, one has to wonder how long it would take to
> > get a gut feel for 72.
> >
> > I would think that 24, in what might be called its three
> > standard forms (for lack of better phrasing) would be
> > plenty. That is, together simulataneouly with a group,
> > or using a computer. (If you love 31,19,xx, that's fine,
> > that's not my point.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 25 cents
> > 2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
> > 3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 75 cents
>
> Overall, you'd be covering the notes of 48-equal. But you could do
> the same thing using the notes of 72-equal instead:
>
> 1) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 16.6667 cents up
> 2) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 33.3333 cents up
> 3) 2nd '12 EDO' skewed 50 cents (that is 24 EDO)
>
> This way you still have three different (truly different, unlike
your
> #1 and #3 above) 24-note scales, but as the intervals derive from
72-
> equal instead of 48-equal, you'll generally have much closer
> approximations to simple-integer or "just" ratios.
>
++++++++++++++Paul

I don't understand, but that's okay. To simplify things...
just looking at this from the standpoint of playing in 24, there
are many distinct scales that are possible. I still can't see
how skewing 25 cents in a scale and skewing 75 cents are the
same. The notes are different. The possible melodies that can
exist must be different too as far as I can see.

Stephen Szpak

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
> "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hudson,
> >
> > on Thu, 23 Feb 2006 Hudson Lacerda wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > ... Also, if you play simultaneously two
> > > neighbour pitches (e.g. [0,1]), the listener will perceive a
> (beating)
> > > pitch that is not in the scale (the mean frequency).
> >
> > There's a fallacy that "if you want to play the note
> > between Bb and B, just play both together". Many
> > jazz players allegedly do so to get a more "natural"
> > seventh harmonic. But there are some factors that
> > make this approach unlikely to achieve the desired
> > result:
> >
> > 1. Only advanced players can vary the dynamics
> > adequately in music played at speed so as the "mixed"
> > note is not overly prominent in the mix.
> >
> > 2. The perceived average frequency note is not
> > really the seventh harmonic.
> >
> > 3. The difference tone leads to the sensation of a
> > very low virtual pitch
>
> I think you just mean a "very low pitch".

Do I? Then perhaps I don't really know what "virtual
pitch" is. The name suggests it has no physical reality,
and appears only as a byproduct of the neural
processing we do of the sounds transmitted by the ear.
Is that possible?

> > which may be at odds with the
> > current harmony, depending on the tuning.
> >
> > In my experience, a better seventh harmonic effect
> > can be created when playing a C7 tetrad on a 12-EDO
> > piano or keyboard, by playing the Bb as an acciaccatura
> > - a "crushing note" - a short grace note starting simul-
> > taneously with the B.
>
> I don't know why you keep saying Bb & B. Don't you mean Bb & A? The
> 7th harmonic is closer to A than to B.

Because they're the notes I play. If they're the
wrong notes for the seventh, I'd better change
my ways :-). But what (lowish) harmonic would the
BbB combination approximate?

> > Even then, it only (sort of) works
> > if the whole chord is played staccato anyway. And the
> > fingering requires even more dexterity and dynamic
> > control to get the mix just right. I figure I'm at best
> > successful only two-thirds of the time ... :-)
> >
> >
> > > BTW, a very interesting sonority with 99EDO can be made of
> `chords' like
> > > [0,1], [0,1,2], [0,1,2,3], [0,1,3,4], [0,1,2,4,5], etc.
> >
> > This should lead to an interesting mix of low virtual
> > pitches - almost providing its own bass line!
>
> I don't know why you say this, Yahya. Perhaps you meant "difference
> tones" instead of "virtual pitches", ...

Yes, perhaps I did.

> ... and also read this post without
> realizing the whole thing referred to 99-equal ...

Not at all!!!

> ... (surely you don't play
> music up in the five-digit Hz range)? ...

Relevance? As I've pointed out already in another
reply to Hudson, in 99-EDO it's quite easy to
produce difference tones of ~35Hz, just by playing
notes 3 steps apart in the vicinity of (IIRC) A6.

> ... And even in 12-equal, only the
> first chord would produce anything like an individuated difference
> tone that could function in a bass line, since the other chords would
> have difference tones doubled at semitone intervals, right?

I wasn't talking 12-EDO. Why did you think I was?!

> > Do you
> > have a composition we could hear using these chords?
>
> That would surely clarify a lot of things!
> :)

Hudson has already provided a piece. You'll probably
catch up with it soon, tho whether that Blackberry
thing can play it ...! ;-)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.1/272 - Release Date: 1/3/06

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

Yahya Abdal-Aziz escreveu:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006, Paul Erlich wrote: [...]
>>>3. The difference tone leads to the sensation of a >>>very low virtual pitch
>>
>>I think you just mean a "very low pitch".
> > > Do I? Then perhaps I don't really know what "virtual
> pitch" is. The name suggests it has no physical reality,
> and appears only as a byproduct of the neural > processing we do of the sounds transmitted by the ear.
> Is that possible?
[...]

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html
http://home.austin.rr.com/jmjensen/VirtualPitch.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/150/combination_tones.html

http://www.imedea.uib.es/physdept/eng/lines/bio_content/prl84.pdf

Regards,
Hudson

== THE WAR IN IRAQ COSTS ==
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
.-------------------------------------------------------------------'
--

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grï¿½tis - Internet rï¿½pida e grï¿½tis. Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com

Pitfalls of 19

🔗Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>

🔗daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>

🔗Pete McRae <petesfriedclams@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Rozencrantz the Sane <rozencrantz@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Hudson Lacerda <hfmlacerda@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

🔗stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@...>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>