Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic New 7-limit JI techno piece

Hi all,

Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much resembles 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature tuningwise is that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's just intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-limit Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1 such as 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go unused in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they feel closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic scale.

It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that the just intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?

http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/examples/Magnus%20Jonsson%20and%20Jim%20Redfern%20-%20Anticperience.mp3

or shorter:

http://tinyurl.com/8drgr

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@...>

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Magnus Jonsson wrote:
> Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much resembles
> 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature tuningwise is
> that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's just
> intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-limit
> Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1 such as
> 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go unused
> in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they feel
> closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic scale.
>
> It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that the just
> intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?
>
>
http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/examples/Magnus%20Jonsson%20and%20Jim%20Re
dfern%20-%20Anticperience.mp3
>
> or shorter:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8drgr

Wow! MUSIC! After all those OT semantic quibbles over OSs, too! :-)

Thanks, Magnus, always a pleasure to hear your work.

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

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

Magnus Jonsson wrote:
> Hi all,
> > Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much resembles > 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature tuningwise is > that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's just > intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-limit > Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1 such as > 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go unused > in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they feel > closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic scale.
> > It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that the just > intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?

That does sound like a good style for using JI. It seems to benefit from the smoothness of the beatless consonances; the small intervals in the melody and inner parts might be a little disorienting to new listeners, but the repetition allows you to develop a familiarity with them.

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

Thanks for all the feedback, it's extremely encouraging! I'll answer
individually below.

Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> Wow! MUSIC! After all those OT semantic quibbles over OSs, too! :-)
> Thanks, Magnus, always a pleasure to hear your work.

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Great! It's been a while since I've listened to something posted
> here more than once in a row.

> Is it called "Anticperience", and if so, why?

Yes. I called it so because my main inspiration to start on this piece was
hearing Hardfloor's Acperience. It's a response to Acperience.
I used "anti" like in the word "antiphony". And some word play.
After my initial version, I showed my song to Jim Redfern. He liked it and
offered himself to work on the drums, which were not so strong in my
original version.

Herman Miller wrote:
> That does sound like a good style for using JI. It seems to benefit from
> the smoothness of the beatless consonances; the small intervals in the
> melody and inner parts might be a little disorienting to new listeners,
> but the repetition allows you to develop a familiarity with them.

Yes, and something I noticed in this piece was that there can be a huge
emotional difference between notes as closely spaced as 15/16 and 14/15.
That's ~7.7 cents or 225/224.

Thanks for all your responses!
-Magnus Jonsson

🔗paolovalladolid <phv40@...>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

> I finally listened to your piece - had to download the whole file to
> hear the whole thing. Enjoyed it!

I also just listened for the first time. I like it. I think JI works
in this style because of 1) the pure-wave timbres, which exaggerate
the pureness (or lack of it) of the intervals, and 2) the
repetitiveness, which lets the listener digest *specific* intervallic
movement; I liked hearing the 1/1 - 8/7 a whole bunch of times because
the novelty of the 7-limit can sustain that kind of interest in a way
that the over-familiarity of 12et's tempered 5-limit can't. At the
beginning, my 3-limit listening dominance tries to perceptually force
the 8/7 into some kind of whole-tone; but by the end, the precise
repetitions force me to adopt a unique perceptual label to apply to
what is an obviously intentional phenomenon. I'm no psychologist, but
that might be a reasonable description of the process by which humans
assign meaning to music in the first place.

This piece sounds to me like an explorative work - the best parts of
it suggest that there's a *lot* more that could be done, lots more
places to go. I would be really glad if you continued down the path
of JI-techno and brought back further specimens! :)

-chris

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

Magnus-

Very much enjoyed this....thanks! I'd love to hear more JI-techno from
you! (or maybe you can try 171-equal techno?)

Best,
Aaron.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much
resembles
> 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature
tuningwise is
> that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's just
> intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-limit
> Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1 such as
> 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go
unused
> in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they feel
> closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic scale.
>
> It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that
the just
> intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?
>
>
http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/examples/Magnus%20Jonsson%20and%20Jim%20Redfern%20-%20Anticperience.mp3
>
> or shorter:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8drgr
>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

I enjoyed this overall, but I'm not crazy about your choice to
resolve a "sus2" chord on the 8/7 root to a neutral triad on 8/7 in
the main motif. (Given what you say below, the triad must be 8/7-7/5-
12/7, which can be expressed as 40:49:60). Unlike the rest of the
music, this triad doesn't seem to project any of the novel 7-limit
(or other) consonance one can find in the diamond; perhaps that's one
reason it sounds odd as a resting point, and rhe repetition doesn't
seem to help . . . I'd probably just change the 7/5 to 10/7, which is
still in the diamond, but that's just me . . .

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much
resembles
> 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature
tuningwise is
> that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's
just
> intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-
limit
> Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1
such as
> 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go
unused
> in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they
feel
> closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic
scale.
>
> It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that
the just
> intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?
>
> http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/examples/Magnus%20Jonsson%20and%
20Jim%20Redfern%20-%20Anticperience.mp3
>
> or shorter:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8drgr
>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

Hi Paul,

You are right, I used the wrong note! Good ears :) I intended 10/7 when composing but accidentally chose 7/5 in practice. I guess I already found 8/7 so strange that I didn't react to the mistuning of the third.

Just now I did some quick testing, and with the correct 10/7 it sounds much more open. I'm going to fix that and post new recording when I get some time over. Thanks!

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Paul Erlich wrote:

> I enjoyed this overall, but I'm not crazy about your choice to
> resolve a "sus2" chord on the 8/7 root to a neutral triad on 8/7 in
> the main motif. (Given what you say below, the triad must be 8/7-7/5-
> 12/7, which can be expressed as 40:49:60). Unlike the rest of the
> music, this triad doesn't seem to project any of the novel 7-limit
> (or other) consonance one can find in the diamond; perhaps that's one
> reason it sounds odd as a resting point, and rhe repetition doesn't
> seem to help . . . I'd probably just change the 7/5 to 10/7, which is
> still in the diamond, but that's just me . . .
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much
> resembles
>> 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature
> tuningwise is
>> that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's
> just
>> intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-
> limit
>> Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1
> such as
>> 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go
> unused
>> in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they
> feel
>> closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic
> scale.
>>
>> It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that
> the just
>> intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?
>>
>> http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/examples/Magnus%20Jonsson%20and%
> 20Jim%20Redfern%20-%20Anticperience.mp3
>>
>> or shorter:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/8drgr
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

> > 1) the pure-wave timbres, which exaggerate
> > the pureness (or lack of it) of the intervals,
>
> Can I ask you what this means? Maybe I'm misreading this, but in my
> experience, the closer the (harmonic) timbre is to a pure tone (sine
> wave), the less distinction there is between simple-ratio intervals and
> arbitrary, "dissonant" ones.

I think this is still on-topic, since the selection of timbre is very
much a compositional decision...

You're right about sine waves; I think I was referring to
additive-like synthesis vs. sampled sound or whatever. The "perfect"
harmonics of an additive synth should illuminate the perfections and
imperfections of the intervals, whereas the imperfect harmonics and
added noise of "real" instruments can only obscure that.

The more harmonic partials there are in
> the timbre, the more I can hear a difference in quality between
> the "pure" intervals and arbitrary irrational ones, and the more
> accurately I can hear the melodic intervals too. You can answer on a
> different list if you think that's best . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
"... free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacophony has risen
to the point that no one can hear you." -Naomi Klein

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here's a piece I and a friend (Jim Redfern) made. It very much
resembles
> 80-ies early techno I was told. It's most prominent feature
tuningwise is
> that the root moves between 1/1 and 8/7 throughout the piece. It's
just
> intonation through-out. We used a 24-note scale consisting of a 7-
limit
> Partch diamond plus a few extra 7-limit superparticulars to 1/1
such as
> 9/8, 10/9, 15/14, 16/15, 25/24 and their inversions. Most notes go
unused
> in this piece though. I like superparticulars of 1/1 because they
feel
> closely connected to the 1/1 and they give you the whole diatonic
scale.
>
> It may not be everyone's favorite style of music, but I feel that
the just
> intonation works very well in this style... do you all agree?
>
> http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/examples/Magnus%20Jonsson%20and%
20Jim%20Redfern%20-%20Anticperience.mp3
>
> or shorter:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/8drgr
>

***I agree the Just works well here. However, personally I think it
would be even more effective if the chords were *longer* and we could
revel in them. (Or Ravel). And there would be no lack of interest,
with all the background going on. Just my own opinion...

J. Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "c.m.bryan" <chrismbryan@...>
wrote:
>
> > > 1) the pure-wave timbres, which exaggerate
> > > the pureness (or lack of it) of the intervals,
> >
> > Can I ask you what this means? Maybe I'm misreading this, but in
my
> > experience, the closer the (harmonic) timbre is to a pure tone
(sine
> > wave), the less distinction there is between simple-ratio
intervals and
> > arbitrary, "dissonant" ones.
>
> I think this is still on-topic, since the selection of timbre is
very
> much a compositional decision...
>
> You're right about sine waves; I think I was referring to
> additive-like synthesis vs. sampled sound or whatever.
The "perfect"
> harmonics of an additive synth should illuminate the perfections and
> imperfections of the intervals, whereas the imperfect harmonics and
> added noise of "real" instruments can only obscure that.

Well, there's nothing imperfect about the harmonics of bowed strings,
wind/brass instruments, and the human voice -- all, normally played,
produce perfectly harmonic *timbres* (not to be confused with the
inharmonicity of the set of *resonant modes* for strings and air
columns). See this 1996 study:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/brown/pubs/freqRatV99P1210-P1218.djvu

And added noise, such as the breath sounds in flute playing, doesn't
affect the "pureness" of the intervals much, since noise doesn't beat
against either tones or more noise.

But maybe you had a very different kind of "real" instruments in mind?

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

> Well, there's nothing imperfect about the harmonics of bowed strings,
> wind/brass instruments, and the human voice -- all, normally played,
> produce perfectly harmonic *timbres* (not to be confused with the
> inharmonicity of the set of *resonant modes* for strings and air
> columns). See this 1996 study:
> http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/brown/pubs/freqRatV99P1210-P1218.djvu
>
> And added noise, such as the breath sounds in flute playing, doesn't
> affect the "pureness" of the intervals much, since noise doesn't beat
> against either tones or more noise.

Sorry, I'm not timbre or acoustics expert... but the timbre of the
instruments mentioned above have to be more than [perfect partials +
noise], or else they would be easily reproducible with additive
synthesis, right? There has to be something more complex happening
with the timbre, and anything timbral is going to affect the sense of
pitch... I think. Please enlighten me if you can.

-chris

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

At 01:29 AM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>> Well, there's nothing imperfect about the harmonics of bowed strings,
>> wind/brass instruments, and the human voice -- all, normally played,
>> produce perfectly harmonic *timbres* (not to be confused with the
>> inharmonicity of the set of *resonant modes* for strings and air
>> columns). See this 1996 study:
>> http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/brown/pubs/freqRatV99P1210-P1218.djvu
>>
>> And added noise, such as the breath sounds in flute playing, doesn't
>> affect the "pureness" of the intervals much, since noise doesn't beat
>> against either tones or more noise.
>
>Sorry, I'm not timbre or acoustics expert... but the timbre of the
>instruments mentioned above have to be more than [perfect partials +
>noise], or else they would be easily reproducible with additive
>synthesis, right? There has to be something more complex happening
>with the timbre, and anything timbral is going to affect the sense of
>pitch... I think. Please enlighten me if you can.

I'll jump in here.

Whether or not the partials are harmonic has little bearing on the
success of an additive synthesis. It does add a bit more work for
the human as far as programming the patch, but the computer doesn't
care if the frequencies of the partials are rational. Bell sounds
can be synthesized this way. In fact IIRC the outcome of many FM
synthesis setups can be expressed as additive setups with inharmonic
partials. Wendy Carlos has used inharmonic additive synthesis for
more subtle effects in her "LSI symphony orchestra".

What makes additive synthesis (and indeed, most synthesis) sound
artificial is usually insufficient control over envelopes, both
at the patch and performance levels. So like, to do a piano, one
does need inharmonic partials for the transients, which quickly
resolve into much quieter harmonic partials after a note starts.
That applies to the single-note (patch) level. But as samplers
show, even single-note perfection doesn't deliver realistic
performance. The velocity of a MIDI keyboard, for example (that
is, if MIDI keyboards measured the velocity of keystrokes, rather
than the force they bottom out with :(:( ), would have to be
tied not only to the overall amplitude of the resulting notes, but
also to the relative amplitudes of the various partials.

Er, does that make sense?

-Carl

🔗c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@...>

Sorry, I should have just said "simple partials": I know the additive
synthesis is just as easy with detuned partials... what I wasn't sure
of was what the technical difference is between an additive synth and
a "real" instrument. The inharmonic transients in the attack that you
described does explain a lot... and, since the attack of a note plays
so strongly on our overall sense of timbre, those transients may have
an effect on our sense of pitch. Which I think is what I was trying
to get at from the beginning... maybe... ?

-chris

On 3/2/06, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
> At 01:29 AM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
> >> Well, there's nothing imperfect about the harmonics of bowed strings,
> >> wind/brass instruments, and the human voice -- all, normally played,
> >> produce perfectly harmonic *timbres* (not to be confused with the
> >> inharmonicity of the set of *resonant modes* for strings and air
> >> columns). See this 1996 study:
> >> http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/brown/pubs/freqRatV99P1210-P1218.djvu
> >>
> >> And added noise, such as the breath sounds in flute playing, doesn't
> >> affect the "pureness" of the intervals much, since noise doesn't beat
> >> against either tones or more noise.
> >
> >Sorry, I'm not timbre or acoustics expert... but the timbre of the
> >instruments mentioned above have to be more than [perfect partials +
> >noise], or else they would be easily reproducible with additive
> >synthesis, right? There has to be something more complex happening
> >with the timbre, and anything timbral is going to affect the sense of
> >pitch... I think. Please enlighten me if you can.
>
> I'll jump in here.
>
> Whether or not the partials are harmonic has little bearing on the
> success of an additive synthesis. It does add a bit more work for
> the human as far as programming the patch, but the computer doesn't
> care if the frequencies of the partials are rational. Bell sounds
> can be synthesized this way. In fact IIRC the outcome of many FM
> synthesis setups can be expressed as additive setups with inharmonic
> partials. Wendy Carlos has used inharmonic additive synthesis for
> more subtle effects in her "LSI symphony orchestra".
>
> What makes additive synthesis (and indeed, most synthesis) sound
> artificial is usually insufficient control over envelopes, both
> at the patch and performance levels. So like, to do a piano, one
> does need inharmonic partials for the transients, which quickly
> resolve into much quieter harmonic partials after a note starts.
> That applies to the single-note (patch) level. But as samplers
> show, even single-note perfection doesn't deliver realistic
> performance. The velocity of a MIDI keyboard, for example (that
> is, if MIDI keyboards measured the velocity of keystrokes, rather
> than the force they bottom out with :(:( ), would have to be
> tied not only to the overall amplitude of the resulting notes, but
> also to the relative amplitudes of the various partials.
>
> Er, does that make sense?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
"... free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacophony has risen
to the point that no one can hear you." -Naomi Klein

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

Not only transients, but even for (say) continuous bowing, the
relative amplitudes of the harmonics change depending on where
the player is bowing, what angle the bow is held at, etc.
Getting that just right in an additive synthesis is hard, and
then you'd still have to control the synth with a controller
capable of using all that expression. And not only timbre-
varying expression, but tuning-varying expression as well.
Orchestral instruments do not play fixed pitches, and there's
a good reason for it.

As for transients effecting the perception of pitch, I'm not
so sure. With a tone like a piano -- quick transient followed
by long harmonic tone -- the former tells the ear the timing
of the note and the latter the pitch.

-Carl

At 02:11 AM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>Sorry, I should have just said "simple partials": I know the additive
>synthesis is just as easy with detuned partials... what I wasn't sure
>of was what the technical difference is between an additive synth and
>a "real" instrument. The inharmonic transients in the attack that you
>described does explain a lot... and, since the attack of a note plays
>so strongly on our overall sense of timbre, those transients may have
>an effect on our sense of pitch. Which I think is what I was trying
>to get at from the beginning... maybe... ?
>
>:)
>
>-chris
>
>On 3/2/06, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>> At 01:29 AM 3/2/2006, you wrote:
>> >> Well, there's nothing imperfect about the harmonics of bowed strings,
>> >> wind/brass instruments, and the human voice -- all, normally played,
>> >> produce perfectly harmonic *timbres* (not to be confused with the
>> >> inharmonicity of the set of *resonant modes* for strings and air
>> >> columns). See this 1996 study:
>> >> http://www.wellesley.edu/Physics/brown/pubs/freqRatV99P1210-P1218.djvu
>> >>
>> >> And added noise, such as the breath sounds in flute playing, doesn't
>> >> affect the "pureness" of the intervals much, since noise doesn't beat
>> >> against either tones or more noise.
>> >
>> >Sorry, I'm not timbre or acoustics expert... but the timbre of the
>> >instruments mentioned above have to be more than [perfect partials +
>> >noise], or else they would be easily reproducible with additive
>> >synthesis, right? There has to be something more complex happening
>> >with the timbre, and anything timbral is going to affect the sense of
>> >pitch... I think. Please enlighten me if you can.
>>
>> I'll jump in here.
>>
>> Whether or not the partials are harmonic has little bearing on the
>> success of an additive synthesis. It does add a bit more work for
>> the human as far as programming the patch, but the computer doesn't
>> care if the frequencies of the partials are rational. Bell sounds
>> can be synthesized this way. In fact IIRC the outcome of many FM
>> synthesis setups can be expressed as additive setups with inharmonic
>> partials. Wendy Carlos has used inharmonic additive synthesis for
>> more subtle effects in her "LSI symphony orchestra".
>>
>> What makes additive synthesis (and indeed, most synthesis) sound
>> artificial is usually insufficient control over envelopes, both
>> at the patch and performance levels. So like, to do a piano, one
>> does need inharmonic partials for the transients, which quickly
>> resolve into much quieter harmonic partials after a note starts.
>> That applies to the single-note (patch) level. But as samplers
>> show, even single-note perfection doesn't deliver realistic
>> performance. The velocity of a MIDI keyboard, for example (that
>> is, if MIDI keyboards measured the velocity of keystrokes, rather
>> than the force they bottom out with :(:( ), would have to be
>> tied not only to the overall amplitude of the resulting notes, but
>> also to the relative amplitudes of the various partials.
>>
>> Er, does that make sense?
>>
>> -Carl