Composing

There are surely many people in the world composing their asses off these days...I have a number of friends here in Denver who I consider world class songwriters/composers. But, the problem is, they are not known on any sort of national level, and are doing their writing in relative obscurity, which is a total drag to me, cause I'd love people to hear their music, and I think they deserve fame and fortune because of their skills. When Wayne Shorter made that statement, I would imagine he meant it in the sense that, of the people in music who are well known, that have CD's out and get press, tour, etc, THESE are the ones not composing their asses off...and I would agree, cause much of what I hear in the media these days is pretty lame, compositionally speaking. But, of course there's still great musicians "out there," and I do my best to find them...it's getting harder and harder, but shit, I am one opinion out of zillions, and I'm always open to being proven wrong.
And, I compose cause I AM that, in a sense, it comes very naturally to me, I love it, and Ithere's nothing I like better than to create a new piece. Then, of course, when you put CD's out, and are looking for some sort of national/international career, it gets tricky, cause then it's important if folks like what you compose, cause they can book you or not book you, people can buy/not buy your CD's, and paying the rsnt with your art becomes an issue, and then it's more complex than just composing cause you love to do it. In the long run, if I like my music I'm happy as a wittle piglet, and that's that...best...HHH

Howdy Neil,

I understand all too well the exigencies of paying the rent with your art (or hocking a fine guitar...hee!)

The thing I wonder about is how it seems like there used to be a place where you (ie "one") could stick your (ie "one's, etc.) guns, and still have some hope that your time would come to actually make a living doing what you believed in. I'm sure there are people who have been (personally, not necessarily "financially") resourceful, dedicated, and lucky enough--in terms of popularity--to do it. But they're not the ones who are keeping places like soundclick [and myspace?] running, as far as I know. Not to mention record companies...

I wonder if people in the "mainstream" of media have any 'guns' left to stick to, if you know what I mean.

I see a lot of kids who seem to have been 'trained' to want celebrity, who have almost no clue as to what skill or artistry might be at work, even there in 'tinseltown'. The knowledge of skill and artistry isn't much of commodity anymore, I'm afraid. But I really don't know.

And a lot of what seems to be "nostalgia", whether it's for things like The Beatles, or Jimi Hendrix, or for things like Ninja Turtles and Pee-Wee Herman, is fueled by the sort of super-cheese-factor Madison Avenue TV thing, so that it's unclear to me whether, for example, Hendrix endures because of his peculiar genius on the guitar, or for his media image on t-shirts and in ad montages. I don't see a lot of kids wearing Live-Evil t-shirts, but plenty of Jimi, eh? Miles apparently never really stirred up the white kids (or had any enduring hits?), and Madison Avenue isn't interested in his estate. (???) Or, is it that Hendrix is so much easier to de-politicize, today? Always was? Until he started threatening to make a record with Miles? Oops...

I guess what I miss is the time when it seemed like there could be a stigma attached to doing some hack commercial shit. That doesn't seem to enter the picture much, anymore, to my observation. Who isn't thrilled to get a jingle, or a slot (or a score!) in a stupid movie, these days? I can remember when you wouldn't tell your friends if you did something like that...Hee! Or, you'd tell 'em to look away, and just remember that you paid for your kids' college with it. (smile)

I get pretty darned cheerful (!) myself, making my little noises out here, but sometimes I get mighty angry that it seems so much harder to FIND the good stuff. And then there ARE things you'd never, ever hope to find, that are right up on the internet, now, but how much longer is THAT going to last? Not long, if Cops-R-Us has its way, I'm afraid.

It's in the movie (Sun Ra--A Joyful Noise, IIRC), "I wasn't making no music, officer. The Bible says you got to make a joyful noise for the lord..." Oh, man, that was FUNNY!

I really can't seem to help it that I find making microtuned music a powerful political statement. But it started because I just loved how it sounded. It was like recess or the end bell at school! Yippie! (pun intended)

And, I actually have very little doubt that someone's going to come along and make a huge splash with a radically tuned piece. I just hope I live to hear it!

Happy Sunday, (and Happy February [...])

Pete

Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:

[with much (!) omitted, here]
But, the problem is, they are not known on any sort
of national level,

...it's getting harder and harder,

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae
<petesfriedclams@...> wrote:
>
> Howdy Neil,
>
> I understand all too well the exigencies of paying the rent with
your art (or hocking a fine guitar...hee!)
>
> The thing I wonder about is how it seems like there used to be a
place where you (ie "one") could stick your (ie "one's, etc.) guns,
and still have some hope that your time would come to actually make a
living doing what you believed in. I'm sure there are people who have
been (personally, not necessarily "financially") resourceful,
dedicated, and lucky enough--in terms of popularity--to do it. But
they're not the ones who are keeping places like soundclick [and
myspace?] running, as far as I know. Not to mention record
companies...
>

***You know... I've been thinking a bit lately about Charles Ives.
He's thought by some to have been the smartest composer the US of A
has ever produced. And my impression is that he also considered the
idea of going into music as a career for less than a nanosecond.

Sure... not the only way... but I find it interesting...

J. Pehrson

Interesting to see how folks look at tunings/composing, there's a lot of approaches. Myself...I generally get an idea for a certain idea/emotional state that I want to express, then I find it on one of my axes. I don't think too much about ratios, consonances, dissonances, which notes to avoid, stuff like that...all that can change within the context of the music I am trying to create. Sure, I'm aware of the possibilities of my various instruments (of course, I'm always discovering things there, too), but the MUSIC is most important. I want a piece to express...something, and that something can be a zillion different things. In the long run, I want to create music with depth, music that means something to me, and hopefully to others as well...how I achieve that can be accomplished in an infinity of ways...Hstick www.microstick.net

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

Neil>"Myself...I generally get an idea for a certain idea/emotional state that I
want to express"

As do I IE I agree the tuning/scale should be chosen to fit the mood and not
the other way around. The problem comes when there's a mood in my head and the
chord which closest matches that mood is not available in a tuning. I've found
often happens in tunings without many strong chords: that's where things like
consonance and dissonance come into play for me. IE I can make a well-balanced
mood song in 13TET and it's specifically good (IE a good deal better than 12)
for certain moods...but I've found the range of moods available in such tuning
is lower due to not many chords under it working for me.

I don't see it as a game of "which notes to avoid" either...but rather how many
different moods can be produced by the notes there. Having a "good" tuning, to
me, simply increases the chances of finding a chord or notes that suit the mood
I intend to capture well: and this can even mean things like hitting 11 and
13-limit chords on purpose...and is certainly not limited to 7-or-less limit
chords..

Another, almost opposite way to look at it, I figure, is to take the chords
you like in a scale within a tuning and see what mood they have. This is quite
similar to the process of figuring out what "key" a song should be in for your
desired mood even in 12TET.
Once you have the scale that suits your mood all figured out...especially in
scales WITHOUT a variety of moods available, the mood becomes easily achievable
as the tuning itself "point you at it".

Personally though...I like to stick to scales with many available moods
(often those with many chords available to function as points of resolve and yet
also many differently "colored" dissonant chords)...as I enjoy switching moods
and "tonal color" several times within a single song.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Neil>"Myself...I generally get an idea for a certain idea/emotional state that I
> want to express"
>
> As do I IE I agree the tuning/scale should be chosen to fit the mood and not
> the other way around.

Why? Starting with a tuning and then finding an idea which fits it seems like a fine approach to me.

In fact that approach works for the billions of songs written in 12et.

Now since Michael you sometimes use a sample why not take a page from the 4-channel music module days and simply load up a slew of chords you like and then sequence them?

For those not understanding my statement. At one time sample driven computer music, specifically on the Amiga series of machines which were the best then, were limited to 4 audio streams. So many tricks were used to get a bigger sound such as using samples of chords instead of single notes.
*

-----Original Message-----
From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 18:36:36
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Composing

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Neil>"Myself...I generally get an idea for a certain idea/emotional state that I
> want to express"
>
> As do I IE I agree the tuning/scale should be chosen to fit the mood and not
> the other way around.

Why? Starting with a tuning and then finding an idea which fits it seems like a fine approach to me.

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

Gene>"Why? Starting with a tuning and then finding an idea which fits it seems
like a fine approach to me."

If it works for you or others, great: I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be
done that way. Actually I used said method you mentioned a lot with my own
scale...but, then again, I design my scales to form the types of intervals and
chords that best represent my favorite emotions.

However...usually when I find I build a song around someone else's tuning or
scale, though...the result turns out sounding very forced and "academic"
The exception is tunings that can cater to a huge variety of emotions IE
Blackwood, Ptolemic scales, Mohajira, etc. Personally I find such flexible
tunings to be those with a huge variety of resolved-feeling chords...which make
it easier to jump between dissonances played in between such chords without
having the song sound unbalanced or chaotic.

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

Chris>"Now since Michael you sometimes use a sample why not take a page from the
4-channel music module days and simply load up a slew of chords you like and
then sequence them?"

I've done such experiments ages ago and perhaps should try again. The real
issue I recall is the sense of tonal drift and it going beyond my mind's ability
to "harmonize" over such shifting chords well with melodies. Come to think of
it...I will try again and see what happens....

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

To me, this is really a chicken/egg question--tunings are like languages to me, they define the emotions/moods/ideas that I'm capable of conceiving. How do you conceive an idea unless you have words to express it? You might *try* to conceive something, but without the right words you will struggle against the limitations of your language, cobbling together words that don't quite fit but resigning yourself to that being the best you can do...until you learn a new language and discover that your impossible concept is concisely expressed in a single word.

I can't really conceive of ideas as abstracted from different tunings, but also feel like every tuning speaks to me of the ideas and possibilities whenever I just listen to and examine the intervals within it. This is probably why I don't "create scales" the way some members do. I need to have the tuning as a given before I can conceive anything to express in it. I've just never grasped how to go about it any other way.

Generally-speaking, though, as someone who has extensively explored a pretty large amount of tunings, I have to say I'm somewhat shocked as to how diverse the expressive possibilities even within a somewhat-limited-looking tuning can be.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@...m, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > Neil>"Myself...I generally get an idea for a certain idea/emotional state that I
> > want to express"
> >
> > As do I IE I agree the tuning/scale should be chosen to fit the mood and not
> > the other way around.
>
> Why? Starting with a tuning and then finding an idea which fits it seems like a fine approach to me.
>

there's no wrong way to do it. hopefully there as many approaches as there
are musicians.

I have noticed, if I might mention, both historically as well as in
contemporary practice, that often there are preconceptions about what a
tuning "should" be able to do. There's nothing wrong with deciding first
what you want a tuning to do and then constructing one, but I can't help
feeling that, especially when you look at the historical attempts at
breaking out of 12 notes, a lot of possibilities were missed due to this
demand that tunings have certain kinds of fifths or thirds or whatever. They
were always trying to get the music that already existed into some sort of
pre-conceived 'truer" tuning, instead of seeing what new directions, perhaps
never conceived before, an alternate tuning might lead to.

What feels fun to me is to arrive at a tuning by whatever means (up to and
including throwing darts at Ellis' interval list in Helmholtz), then setting
up an instrument and just jamming on it until starting to hear possibilities
that the tuning is telling about itself. Every tuning has its own stories it
wants to tell, but if you insist on it telling you only slightly different
versions of stories you already know, you may be missing some really good
ones that no one has ever heard before.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> To me, this is really a chicken/egg question--tunings are like languages to
> me, they define the emotions/moods/ideas that I'm capable of conceiving. How
> do you conceive an idea unless you have words to express it? You might *try*
> to conceive something, but without the right words you will struggle against
> the limitations of your language, cobbling together ords that don't quite
> fit but resigning yourself to that being the best you can do...until you
> learn a new language and discover that your impossible concept is concisely
> expressed in a single word.
>
> I can't really conceive of ideas as abstracted from different tunings, but
> also feel like every tuning speaks to me of the ideas and possibilities
> whenever I just listen to and examine the intervals within it. This is
> probably why I don't "create scales" the way some members do. I need to have
> the tuning as a given before I can conceive anything to express in it. I've
> just never grasped how to go about it any other way.
>
> Generally-speaking, though, as someone who has extensively explored a
> pretty large amount of tunings, I have to say I'm somewhat shocked as to how
> diverse the expressive possibilities even within a somewhat-limited-looking
> tuning can be.
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Neil>"Myself...I generally get an idea for a certain idea/emotional
> state that I
> > > want to express"
> > >
> > > As do I IE I agree the tuning/scale should be chosen to fit the mood
> and not
> > > the other way around.
> >
> > Why? Starting with a tuning and then finding an idea which fits it seems
> like a fine approach to me.
> >
>
>
>

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

I quite agree with this .
Often a tuning will appear to do certain things and it sometimes takes one to be cornered to push it in new directions.

Yet there is is sometime over long periods of working with a tuning that certain aspects it has, one just can't escape.
which can be seen by most in 12 ET
i am not sure how we can balance these contradictions in a way.

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 30/12/10 12:49 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
>
>
> Generally-speaking, though, as someone who has extensively > explored a pretty large amount of tunings, I have to say I'm > somewhat shocked as to how diverse the expressive > possibilities even within a somewhat-limited-looking tuning > can be.
>
> -Igs
>
> -
>

First off:

@Dante and Kraig - bang on! You guys put what was in my head in very elegant terms. One thing specifically that Kraig posited:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> i am not sure how we can balance these contradictions in a way.

I say we just accept them *as* contradictions, live with them, and watch what happens.

you said it~!

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 30/12/10 4:33 PM, jonszanto wrote:
>
> First off:
>
> @Dante and Kraig - bang on! You guys put what was in my head > in very elegant terms. One thing specifically that Kraig posited:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, Kraig Grady > <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> > i am not sure how we can balance these contradictions in a way.
>
> I say we just accept them *as* contradictions, live with them, > and watch what happens.
>
>

Dante>"I can't help feeling that, especially when you look at the historical
attempts at breaking out of 12 notes, a lot of possibilities were missed due to
this demand that tunings have certain kinds of fifths or thirds or
whatever."...."Every tuning has its own stories it wants to tell, but if you
insist on it telling you only slightly different versions of stories you already
know, you may be missing some really good ones that no one has ever heard
before."

Precisely! When I look at tunings, I think exactly the opposite way of much
of history.

Just about the first thing I ask myself is
>>>Does said new tuning have any ALTERNATIVE thirds or fifths?...and if it doesn't,
>>>what can be so different about it?!<<<

Specifically...I look for things like neutral/alternative thirds like 11/9 or
9/7 and alternative fifths like 22/15 or 11/7. Otherwise, to me, the tuning
becomes "no more than a slightly decorated version of 12TET". Sure you can tell
differences in purity or what not...but when it comes to composing I find myself
simply expressing the same emotions I would under 12TET. To me, such
limitations almost completely ruin the fun and mystery of composing
microtonally. When I use any alternative tunings for composing, my main point
is to, as you stated, "tell stories that no one has ever heard before"...and
avoid "telling only slightly different versions of stories I already know".

Side note....thank the Lord the Untwelve competition forbids 12TET-like
tunings and scales. Such a rule, to me, seems an excellent attempt to make
sure all people involved must aim for a goal of "telling stories that no one has
ever heard before"

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Specifically...I look for things like neutral/alternative thirds like 11/9 or
> 9/7 and alternative fifths like 22/15 or 11/7. Otherwise, to me, the tuning
> becomes "no more than a slightly decorated version of 12TET".

Given that 12et does 5 badly, 7 very very badly and 11 and 13 not at all, this strikes be as a strange claim. What I look for in a tuning is first what it can do a good job representing, secondly how complex various intervals are, thirdly, what chords it favors, and fourthly, whether it has a general sharp or flat tendency. For instance, if I'm doing rodan I note immediately that 5 is much more complex than 3 or 7, that 11, 13 and 17 are about as complex as 5, but in the opposite direction, so that they work together but don't so much with 5.

Hi Mike~
To follow your train of thought here, different tunings allow new structural possibilities as well as new emotion interval spectrums.
These too have an emotion content i would say.
In example there is a great stability in the diamond, in it opposite an ungroundedness in the eikosany.
Equal and unequal sets too i think maybe.

I think the word that fits here is symbiotic. All these elements influence and hence likewise influence back timbre and the other parameters too.

Possibly tunings are like friends, you can know them quite well and then all of a sudden they can do something unexpected or grow in a new and unexpected direction.

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 31/12/10 2:20 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> Dante>"I can't help feeling that, especially when you look at > the historical
> attempts at breaking out of 12 notes, a lot of possibilities > were missed due to
> this demand that tunings have certain kinds of fifths or > thirds or
> whatever."...."Every tuning has its own stories it wants to > tell, but if you
> insist on it telling you only slightly different versions of > stories you already
> know, you may be missing some really good ones that no one has > ever heard
> before."
>
> Precisely! When I look at tunings, I think exactly the > opposite way of much
> of history.
>
> Just about the first thing I ask myself is
> >>>Does said new tuning have any ALTERNATIVE thirds or > fifths?...and if it doesn't,
> >>>what can be so different about it?!<<<
>
> Specifically...I look for things like neutral/alternative > thirds like 11/9 or
> 9/7 and alternative fifths like 22/15 or 11/7. Otherwise, to > me, the tuning
> becomes "no more than a slightly decorated version of 12TET". > Sure you can tell
> differences in purity or what not...but when it comes to > composing I find myself
> simply expressing the same emotions I would under 12TET. To > me, such
> limitations almost completely ruin the fun and mystery of > composing
> microtonally. When I use any alternative tunings for > composing, my main point
> is to, as you stated, "tell stories that no one has ever heard > before"...and
> avoid "telling only slightly different versions of stories I > already know".
>
> Side note....thank the Lord the Untwelve competition forbids > 12TET-like
> tunings and scales. Such a rule, to me, seems an excellent > attempt to make
> sure all people involved must aim for a goal of "telling > stories that no one has
> ever heard before"
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Hi Gene~
It seems essential as you say to know what a tuning does and does not do well. It more often than not is our point of departure to discovering anything else.

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 31/12/10 2:47 PM, genewardsmith wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael > <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > Specifically...I look for things like neutral/alternative > thirds like 11/9 or
> > 9/7 and alternative fifths like 22/15 or 11/7. Otherwise, to > me, the tuning
> > becomes "no more than a slightly decorated version of 12TET".
>
> Given that 12et does 5 badly, 7 very very badly and 11 and 13 > not at all, this strikes be as a strange claim. What I look > for in a tuning is first what it can do a good job > representing, secondly how complex various intervals are, > thirdly, what chords it favors, and fourthly, whether it has a > general sharp or flat tendency. For instance, if I'm doing > rodan I note immediately that 5 is much more complex than 3 or > 7, that 11, 13 and 17 are about as complex as 5, but in the > opposite direction, so that they work together but don't so > much with 5.
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Just about the first thing I ask myself is
> >>>Does said new tuning have any ALTERNATIVE thirds or fifths?...and if it doesn't,
> >>>what can be so different about it?!<<<

Frankly, I think alternative scales make a bigger difference than alternative intervals. The diatonic scale has such a wide range of tunings, you can get a major 3rd anywhere from neutral 16/13-territory all the way up to above 13/10 without losing the diatonic structure. The difference in mood between extreme tunings of the diatonic scale seems (to me, anyway) to be much less than the difference between the diatonic scale and, say, Porcupine, which has 5-limit triads of similar accuracy to some of the better tunings of the diatonic scale.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> What I look for in a tuning is first what it can do a good job representing, secondly how
> complex various intervals are, thirdly, what chords it favors, and fourthly, whether it has a
> general sharp or flat tendency.

For me, the most important information about a tuning is what it *can't* do. The less a tuning is compatible with familiar scales and harmonies, the more likely it is to force my playing in a new direction.

-Igs

Kraig>"To follow your train of thought here, different tunings allow new
structural possibilities as well as new emotion interval spectrums. These too
have an emotion content"

Precisely! In fact looking even at just the dyads possible in a scale...I
can often get a good idea what the overall range of emotion of the tuning is.
Sure, the same can be done mathematically with finding chords (IE what Gene
seemed to be suggesting)...but with the thousands of possible chords (at least
once you go beyond 7-limit or so and assuming tetrad/4-note or smaller chord
size)...I find it quicker to analyze the dyads and then "mess around" by ear to
find chords myself.

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

Kraig>"Hi Gene~ It seems essential as you say to know what a tuning does and
does not do well"

Agreed...however from experience I'd caution that saying "x scale does 5
and 7 but not 11 and 13 limit well" or "y scale does 11 and 3 limit well but not
5 limit" often says little about the emotional content of the scale.

IE I've found, some 11-limit dyads, for example, actually sound more like
resting points than some 7-limit ones...and some 9-limit dyads sound happier or
brighter than 5-limit ones and so on. Though there are limits IE it's rare find
a 13-limit dyad which can sound more relaxed in mood than a 5-limit one, even in
the context of a composition under "priming" from tones played before it.

I don't think you can ever just make a mathematical theory that looks at the
numbers in a ratio and assigns an accurate emotion. IMVHO, you just have to
look at/hear as many ratios as you can and go from there...and different people,
of course, may derive different emotional content from the same ratios (even if,
in general, they may show common patterns in how they, on the average, perceive
higher vs. lower limit dyads).

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

Igs>"The difference in mood between extreme tunings of the diatonic scale seems
(to me, anyway) to be much

less than the difference between the diatonic scale and, say, Porcupine, which
has 5-limit triads of similar accuracy to some of the better tunings of the
diatonic scale."

Right, I mean (for example in 15TET Porcupine) the major, augmented, and
minor triads are quite accurate. However...assuming you aren't using all the
notes in 15TET at once...you get loads of neutral intervals thrown in and things
like the 13/9 dyad, which sound to me like a "super-diminished" 5th. And,
starting from certain roots, the ability to form such accurate triads also
diminishes...it seems to say just because a tuning is accurate at estimating
something...doesn't mean the scales under it are.

However, feel free to give a counter example....

>"he diatonic scale has such a wide range of tunings, you can get a major 3rd
>anywhere from neutral 16/13-territory all the way up to above 13/10 without
>losing the diatonic structure."

I remember you made a point a long time ago that, in chords with common (IE
lower limit, common practice style) and uncommon ratios, the common dyads often
outweigh the uncommon ones when it comes to the feel of the chord. My guess is
that the "extreme diatonic" scales most often have this characteristic but,
again, feel free to provide a counter example.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Right, I mean (for example in 15TET Porcupine) the major, augmented, and
> minor triads are quite accurate.

This is a use of the word "accurate" new to me: the major third in 15et is (still) 13 cents sharp, just like 12et, but the fifth is 18 cents sharp. You are far better off using Porcupine[15] in 22et. As for the augmented triad, it is butt-ugly, just like it is in 12et. In 22, one of the intervals is a 9/7 of excellent quality, making for what I think is a much nicer as well as clearly more interesting chord. Probably harmonic entropy doesn't agree, but I remain unconvinced about the utility of HE.

Gene>"This is a use of the word "accurate" new to me: the major third in 15et is
(still) 13 cents sharp, just like 12et, but the fifth is 18 cents sharp."

Maybe in ratios...but, overall, the feel of the chord, to me, remains much
alike. I'm talking accurate much more in terms of emotion than numbers.

>"Probably harmonic entropy doesn't agree, but I remain unconvinced about the
>utility of HE."
But I still believe...HE shows its power a lot in how it skews 15TET dyads
toward 5/4 and 3/2 relatively well despite their being numerically far away. To
be honest some weird stuff happens in 12TET as well that seems well explained by
HE, such as the horribly off (mathematically) approximation of 5/3's working so
well to fill the same functional/emotional role without half so much trouble as
you'd expect.

Two intervals HE seems to affect far more than most...are 3/2 and 5/4.
However the nearest "centers of tonal gravitation" I hear as being 9/7 (as you
mentioned) and 11/9. I realize these intervals are NOT included in HE theory
(IE 6/5 and 4/3 are the nearest "centers of tonal gravitation"...but even with
the closer 11/9 and 9/7 intervals the major third errors in 15TET seems
obviously closer to 5/4 than to those intervals.
In other words...as I've said many times, I think HE has the right idea but
is missing a few rather important ratios, such as the 9/7 you mentioned. And
when I choose a scale to compose with, I often think "how do this scale's dyadic
errors compare to HE-style dyadic slack IE not so much what the intervals are,
but what intervals (and their corresponding emotions) they are attracted to".

And, for about the millionth time...I simply don't agree with your opinion
that 50/33 is a horrendous fifth. It's not that I don't hear you, it's that I
don't agree.

Rather I think said type of fifth it's on the edge of what constitutes a
good "pure" fifth (with about 73/49 being the other, lower "edge").

. This all plays into my prospective realization...that "cent errors" matter a
lot more for some intervals than others and even, at times, are not symmetrical
(IE the error above a dyad can be more sensitive than below).

And, no...I can't explain why mathematically but, when in doubt between
elegant looking mathematical equations and my ears (especially when I start
actually using the tunings in compositions)...I always follow my ears...just
like when I compose.

>"You are far better off using Porcupine[15] in 22et."
Just for grins...what is said tuning listed as in Scala? I believe you it's
likely better, but I don't think it's as dramatically different as you imply.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> >"You are far better off using Porcupine[15] in 22et."
> Just for grins...what is said tuning listed as in Scala? I believe you it's
> likely better, but I don't think it's as dramatically different as you imply.

You don't need anything but Scala itself to get these. The main thing to know is that the generator is 3/22 octave which works out to be 163.63636... cents. You put that in as "formal octaves", using as many "6s" repeats as you feel like. Scala even has a calculator to help, but I don't recommend trying to use it, as it's been designed to work for musical purposes, and hence fights you to the death if you try to compute something it doesn't think you need to compute, such as how many cents are in 3/22 octave. I wish Scala in general would deal with such things better; I think it was Andrew Heathwaite who suggested using "3\22" for such things in these contexts, but whoever did so it's a good idea.

Here's what Scala did for me:

! porcupine15.scl
!
Porcupine[15] in 22et tuning
15
!
54.54545
163.63636
218.18182
327.27273
381.81818
490.90909
545.45455
654.54545
709.09091
818.18182
872.72727
981.81818
1036.36364
1145.45455
2/1

The point that got lost in this, since Michael thought I was talking about 15-EDO's Porcupine instead of the radically "closer to JI" 22-EDO version, is that in optimal Porcupine, the 5-limit error is close to being as low as a good Meantone; even Carl has said that it's probably the best 5-limit temperament beyond Meantone. You could easily compare a single major triad from optimal Porcupine to a single major triad from a not-so-optimal Meantone and be hard-pressed to tell the difference. Yet the two temperaments could not be more different in terms of how they function musically. Even if you completely ignore the differences in "auxiliary" intervals between the two (i.e. that Porcupine has no real semitone and is full of 11-limit implications) and just string together simple chord progressions consisting solely of 5-limit triads, the difference in sound is practically night and day. They are different languages entirely, built on completely different structures. Resolution works so different in Porcupine than it does in Meantone it's just unbelievable. Pajara, Mavila and even Father have more in common with Meantone, resolution-wise, than does Porcupine.

On the other hand, if you look at the difference between, say, the 31-EDO diatonic, the 27-EDO diatonic, and the 26-EDO diatonic, the difference in "emotional content" is practically negligible. The sonic quality is quite different, yes indeedy, but using 9/7's and 7/6's or 17/14's and 21/17's, instead of 5/4's and 6/5's, does strikingly little to alter the emotional content of a piece of diatonic music. If you don't believe me, try it out. Or just go over to Herman Miller's "Warped Canon" page (a google search of "Warped Canon" reveals it as the first hit). Compare the three EDOs I just mentioned, since together they cover pretty much the range of what I consider "recognizable major 3rds". Actually, I don't know for sure if Herman tuned the 27-EDO using the 444.44-cent major 3rds or the 400-cents ones...maybe the 22-EDO version is better to compare (though that kind of says something if I can't tell whether the 3rds are closer to 7-limit or 5-limit by ear).

I think you'll find based on what you hear that the ratios and level of relative consonance has very little impact on the emotional quality of the piece. Unless, of course, you are the sort of person who is irritated by beating, in which case you'll probably find anything that uses something too far from 5/4 as a major 3rd will anger you.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Gene>"This is a use of the word "accurate" new to me: the major third in 15et is
> (still) 13 cents sharp, just like 12et, but the fifth is 18 cents sharp."
>
> Maybe in ratios...but, overall, the feel of the chord, to me, remains much
> alike. I'm talking accurate much more in terms of emotion than numbers.
>
>
> >"Probably harmonic entropy doesn't agree, but I remain unconvinced about the
> >utility of HE."
> But I still believe...HE shows its power a lot in how it skews 15TET dyads
> toward 5/4 and 3/2 relatively well despite their being numerically far away. To
> be honest some weird stuff happens in 12TET as well that seems well explained by
> HE, such as the horribly off (mathematically) approximation of 5/3's working so
> well to fill the same functional/emotional role without half so much trouble as
> you'd expect.
>
>
> Two intervals HE seems to affect far more than most...are 3/2 and 5/4.
> However the nearest "centers of tonal gravitation" I hear as being 9/7 (as you
> mentioned) and 11/9. I realize these intervals are NOT included in HE theory
> (IE 6/5 and 4/3 are the nearest "centers of tonal gravitation"...but even with
> the closer 11/9 and 9/7 intervals the major third errors in 15TET seems
> obviously closer to 5/4 than to those intervals.
> In other words...as I've said many times, I think HE has the right idea but
> is missing a few rather important ratios, such as the 9/7 you mentioned. And
> when I choose a scale to compose with, I often think "how do this scale's dyadic
> errors compare to HE-style dyadic slack IE not so much what the intervals are,
> but what intervals (and their corresponding emotions) they are attracted to".
>
>
> And, for about the millionth time...I simply don't agree with your opinion
> that 50/33 is a horrendous fifth. It's not that I don't hear you, it's that I
> don't agree.
>
> Rather I think said type of fifth it's on the edge of what constitutes a
> good "pure" fifth (with about 73/49 being the other, lower "edge").
>
> . This all plays into my prospective realization...that "cent errors" matter a
> lot more for some intervals than others and even, at times, are not symmetrical
> (IE the error above a dyad can be more sensitive than below).
>
> And, no...I can't explain why mathematically but, when in doubt between
> elegant looking mathematical equations and my ears (especially when I start
> actually using the tunings in compositions)...I always follow my ears...just
> like when I compose.
>
> >"You are far better off using Porcupine[15] in 22et."
> Just for grins...what is said tuning listed as in Scala? I believe you it's
> likely better, but I don't think it's as dramatically different as you imply.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:04 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Resolution works so different in Porcupine than it does in Meantone it's just unbelievable. Pajara, Mavila and even Father have more in common with Meantone, resolution-wise, than does Porcupine.

Do you have any examples of how resolution works in Porcupine? Do you
have any sound examples of this? When you use porcupine, do you
generally work within porcupine[8] or porcupine[7]?

What do you think of 15-tet's porcupine, despite it being so far from optimal?

-Mike

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:47 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...t> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > Specifically...I look for things like neutral/alternative thirds like 11/9 or
> > 9/7 and alternative fifths like 22/15 or 11/7. Otherwise, to me, the tuning
> > becomes "no more than a slightly decorated version of 12TET".
>
> Given that 12et does 5 badly, 7 very very badly and 11 and 13 not at all, this strikes be as a strange claim. What I look for in a tuning is first what it can do a good job representing, secondly how complex various intervals are, thirdly, what chords it favors, and fourthly, whether it has a general sharp or flat tendency. For instance, if I'm doing rodan I note immediately that 5 is much more complex than 3 or 7, that 11, 13 and 17 are about as complex as 5, but in the opposite direction, so that they work together but don't so much with 5.

Am I the only one who gets a kick out of utilizing strange puns?
Blackwood[10] has become one of my favorite tunings ever just because
of all of the ridiculous puns that you get by motion of fifth (same
with this new Whitewood[14] temperament).

There also seems to be some mysterious trick to utilizing a pun in a
way that "combines" the flavor of the two intervals that it's
equating, vs just making the resultant interval sound "ambiguous." The
former sounds amazing; the latter, irritating. Knowsur is the first
person I've heard manage to get 5/4 and 6/5 to actually "mix" together
with what he did in 14-tet. I'm not really sure how it works.

Sometimes in 12-tet I wonder if the difference between a natural
sounding diatonic chord progression and an awkward one is related to
this.

-Mike

Gene wrote:

>As for the augmented triad, it is butt-ugly, just like it is in 12et.
>In 22, one of the intervals is a 9/7 of excellent quality, making for
>what I think is a much nicer as well as clearly more interesting
>chord. Probably harmonic entropy doesn't agree, but I remain
>unconvinced about the utility of HE.

Which chord is that? -Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Do you have any examples of how resolution works in Porcupine? Do you
> have any sound examples of this? When you use porcupine, do you
> generally work within porcupine[8] or porcupine[7]?

Generally I avoid Porcupine, as I'm not really a fan of the ~11/10 as a melodic interval. When I do work with it, I work in Porcupine[8], because I hate not having something like a semitone in my scales. As for resolution--so far I've had my best experiences doing something a little hard to describe: what I do is use the Porcupine generator chain to determine the tonic-dominant-subdominant-etc. structure, rather than the chains of perfect 5ths. So the roots of the tonic and dominant chords are an approximate 11/10 apart, if you get my meaning. So I just go ahead and follow the general rules of tonal chord progressions, and it works surprisingly well even the chords are a little jumbled. In Porcupine[8] you still get 3 major and 3 minor chords (although technically there are only 5 roots, as one of the chords is both major and minor), and the 3 majors are separated by consecutive generators (as are the 3 minors, IIRC).

> What do you think of 15-tet's porcupine, despite it being so far from optimal?

I prefer it to 22's. There is just something about 22-EDO's version of Porcupine that rubs me the wrong way--probably the normal-sounding chords that move in the "wrong" way. At least in 15-EDO, the chords have a slight xenharmonic twinge to them that deprimes my ears from expecting regular tonal progressions.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> >As for the augmented triad, it is butt-ugly, just like it is in 12et.
> >In 22, one of the intervals is a 9/7 of excellent quality, making for
> >what I think is a much nicer as well as clearly more interesting
> >chord. Probably harmonic entropy doesn't agree, but I remain
> >unconvinced about the utility of HE.
>
> Which chord is that? -Carl

1-9/7-8/5 in 22et.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> The point that got lost in this, since Michael thought I was talking about 15-EDO's Porcupine instead of the radically "closer to JI" 22-EDO version, is that in optimal Porcupine, the 5-limit error is close to being as low as a good Meantone; even Carl has said that it's probably the best 5-limit temperament beyond Meantone.

A highly dubious claim. Porcupine is Cangwu-dominated by meantone, meaning that using Graham's Cangwu badness, there is no value of the parameter for which porcupine is better than meantone. If you look at 5-limit temperaments, and don't dive any deeper into the bottom of the barrel than 16/15, and don't go above the schisma in complexity to the hemithirds comma or ennealimma and beyond, then the "Gold Medal" 5-limit temperaments, the ones not dominated by anything, are defined by the commas 16/15, 25/24, 81/80, 2048/2025, 15625/15552 and 32805/32768. This strikes me as a very reasonable list.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> A highly dubious claim. Porcupine is Cangwu-dominated by meantone, meaning that using > Graham's Cangwu badness, there is no value of the parameter for which porcupine is better > than meantone. If you look at 5-limit temperaments, and don't dive any deeper into the
> bottom of the barrel than 16/15, and don't go above the schisma in complexity to the
> hemithirds comma or ennealimma and beyond, then the "Gold Medal" 5-limit
> temperaments, the ones not dominated by anything, are defined by the commas 16/15,
> 25/24, 81/80, 2048/2025, 15625/15552 and 32805/32768. This strikes me as a very
> reasonable list.

No one ever claimed Porcupine was better than Meantone, or even equal to it. I said an optimal Porcupine might be "close to" a good (i.e. not optimal, but not bad either) Meantone for 5-limit harmony. Is there another temperament where primes 2, 3, and 5 have lower badness than Porcupine, other than Meantone?

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:

> No one ever claimed Porcupine was better than Meantone, or even equal to it. I said an optimal Porcupine might be "close to" a good (i.e. not optimal, but not bad either) Meantone for 5-limit harmony. Is there another temperament where primes 2, 3, and 5 have lower badness than Porcupine, other than Meantone?

I don't understand your question. If I pick a parameter such that 81/80 and 25/24 are equally bad, then 128/125 and 16/15 beat out 250/243, and 135/128 isn't much worse. But that's a little arbitrary.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand your question. If I pick a parameter such that 81/80 and 25/24 are
> equally bad, then 128/125 and 16/15 beat out 250/243, and 135/128 isn't much worse.
> But that's a little arbitrary.

Sorry, I must not be up on the lingo. I thought "badness" was something like error multiplied by complexity (for some averaged value of both parameters) What am I thinking of?

Perhaps this should move to the main List.

-Igs

Igs wrote:
>No one ever claimed Porcupine was better than Meantone, or even equal
>to it. I said an optimal Porcupine might be "close to" a good (i.e.
>not optimal, but not bad either) Meantone for 5-limit harmony.

As a practical matter, most musicians use a meantone every
day (12-ET) whose triads are inferior to those of an average
porcupine (22-ET). -Carl

Igs>"is that in optimal Porcupine, the 5-limit error is close to being as low as
a good Meantone"

Ah ok, now I hear you. Will have to try 22TET Porcupine and see what
happens....

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

Igs>"I said an optimal Porcupine might be "close to" a good (i.e. not optimal,
but not bad either) Meantone for 5-limit harmony."

Sometimes it really makes me wonder how many people on this list think even
3+ cents error makes a dyad "much worse" beside Gene...any takers?
When I compose, honestly, I can't tell the difference below 7 cent error if
there are chords (IE non-monophonic music). With priming (via composition IE
via notes/chord played before a dyad is sounded)...it sometimes even 12 cent
error can sound fine to me at times (IE with 12TET's major third) and the
communicated emotion remains just as strong to me.

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

Hi Mike~
When i got a Peterson tuner, i was able to go from about a cent to a tenth of a cent accuracy in tuning , and the difference in sound was quite noticeable.
When Midi was being instituted the 768(?) per octave resolution was promoted as more than any one would ever need.
This was a disaster.
do you think all ETs above 171 are the same?

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 1/01/11 1:31 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> Igs>"I said an optimal Porcupine might be "close to" a good > (i.e. not optimal,
> but not bad either) Meantone for 5-limit harmony."
>
> Sometimes it really makes me wonder how many people on this > list think even
> 3+ cents error makes a dyad "much worse" beside Gene...any takers?
> When I compose, honestly, I can't tell the difference below 7 > cent error if
> there are chords (IE non-monophonic music). With priming (via > composition IE
> via notes/chord played before a dyad is sounded)...it > sometimes even 12 cent
> error can sound fine to me at times (IE with 12TET's major > third) and the
> communicated emotion remains just as strong to me.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Gene wrote:

>> >As for the augmented triad, it is butt-ugly, just like it is in 12et.
>> >In 22, one of the intervals is a 9/7 of excellent quality, making for
>> >what I think is a much nicer as well as clearly more interesting
>> >chord. Probably harmonic entropy doesn't agree, but I remain
>> >unconvinced about the utility of HE.
>>
>> Which chord is that? -Carl
>
>1-9/7-8/5 in 22et.

Great chord. I also listened to the related 1/1-32/25-8/5,
1/1-9/7-8/5, and 1/1-9/7-45/28. They're all quite similar and
I'm not sure I prefer any one above the others. Triadic entropy
agrees, and adds that they are relatively discordant triads,
though not among the most discordant. That also seems right.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:

> >1-9/7-8/5 in 22et.
>
> Great chord. I also listened to the related 1/1-32/25-8/5,
> 1/1-9/7-8/5, and 1/1-9/7-45/28. They're all quite similar and
> I'm not sure I prefer any one above the others. Triadic entropy
> agrees, and adds that they are relatively discordant triads,
> though not among the most discordant. That also seems right.

They are all the same chord in 22et. How does it compare to the chord in 15et (or equivalently, 12et?)

Kraig>"do you think all ETs above 171 are the same?"

Of course not, I was talking about accuracy in terms of dyadic relationships,
not entire equal temperament tunings.
.
Things, of course, become different when dealing with tunings where changing
the step size changes multiple dyadic relationships. IE changing one ratio may
make the third within 7 cents of perfect, but knock the seventh from another
root tone to 9 cents off and make it some IMVHO hideous ratio like 20/11 instead
of 11/6 or 9/5. Same goes making a diminished fifth a tritone-ish feeling 16/11
instead of a much smoother (but very close) 22/15). Again, I'm bringing up the
point some dyadic ratios are much more sensitive than others.

Also, for the record, I'm NOT a big fan of TET tunings far as their ability
to achieve accuracy.

As you seem to imply (and I agree with), you often need very high TETs to get
accuracy in all possible dyadic relationships. I mean, it does not seem bad if
you want something like good 5-limit and 7-limit (IE use 53TET or even "just"
31TET, for example)...but soon as you throw in 11-limit or 15-limit...and want
all possible dyadic relationships to be within 7 cents of perfect you're indeed
talking very very high TETs.

I recall some of you guys were trying to take my 9-tone "Dimension" scale
(which has virtually all common practice dyads plus 22/15, 18/11, 11/9, 15/11,
11/6, and a handful of others) and map it to a TET and you came up with
something like 221TET!

>>>Now here's the rub on how I think this all effects composition....<<<<

It just makes me think "hey, it's just 9-tones at once you need...is it really
that important to aim for transposition that it's necessary to play on a virtual
keyboard with 221 notes to do it?...why make an easy thing so hard for anyone
who dares to try and play with it (the scale)? It seems to beg to scare
composers away from anything with much more than 31 notes unless they are
serious die hards about it...

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

Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...

1/1 7/6 14/9

The fifth it uses looks mathematically ridiculous...but somehow, at least to
me, it sounds mysteriously resolved and relaxed as an entire chord...almost like
a brighter add2-ish type chord.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
>
> 1/1 7/6 14/9
>
> The fifth it uses looks mathematically ridiculous...but somehow, at least to
> me, it sounds mysteriously resolved and relaxed as an entire chord...almost like
> a brighter add2-ish type chord.

The fifth it uses is a regular old fifth, up to octave equivalence. It's a supermajor triad.

Gene wrote:

>>>>> 1-9/7-8/5 in 22et.
>>>>
>>>> Great chord. I also listened to the related 1/1-32/25-8/5,
>>>> 1/1-9/7-8/5, and 1/1-9/7-45/28. They're all quite similar and
>>>> I'm not sure I prefer any one above the others. Triadic entropy
>>>> agrees, and adds that they are relatively discordant triads,
>>>> though not among the most discordant. That also seems right.
>>>
>>> They are all the same chord in 22et.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I compared that chord in 22et with the three
>> JI chords above.
>
>How does it compare to the chord in 15et (or equivalently, 12et?)

It's much less concordant, especially when the octave is doubled
on top. It's also more colorful. The usual chord (0-400-800) is
capable of the 'endlessly rising inversions' effect since it
divides the octave equally.

-Carl

I should have done this a long time ago. Now I can take a breather.

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Gene wrote:
>
>>>>>> 1-9/7-8/5 in 22et.
>>>>> Great chord. I also listened to the related 1/1-32/25-8/5,
>>>>> 1/1-9/7-8/5, and 1/1-9/7-45/28. They're all quite similar and
>>>>> I'm not sure I prefer any one above the others. Triadic entropy
>>>>> agrees, and adds that they are relatively discordant triads,
>>>>> though not among the most discordant. That also seems right.
>>>> They are all the same chord in 22et.
>>> Just to be clear, I compared that chord in 22et with the three
>>> JI chords above.
>> How does it compare to the chord in 15et (or equivalently, 12et?)
>
> It's much less concordant, especially when the octave is doubled
> on top. It's also more colorful. The usual chord (0-400-800) is
> capable of the 'endlessly rising inversions' effect since it
> divides the octave equally.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

Me> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
>
> 1/1 7/6 14/9
>
> The fifth it uses looks mathematically ridiculous...but somehow, at least
>to
>
> me, it sounds mysteriously resolved and relaxed as an entire chord...almost
>like
>
> a brighter add2-ish type chord.

Gene>"The fifth it uses is a regular old fifth, up to octave equivalence."

How is 14/9, the septimal minor sixth, also "a regular old fifth"? This
seems amusing coming from you, as it seems in the past you've implied nothing
can be a good alternative for the 3/2 fifth for use in harmony...

Gene>"It's a supermajor triad."
So "severely stretched" 5ths are legal in supermajor triads?

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

IN JI this is an inversion of a bright major

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 1/01/11 5:38 PM, Michael wrote:
>
> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
>
> 1/1 7/6 14/9
>
> The fifth it uses looks mathematically ridiculous...but > somehow, at least to
> me, it sounds mysteriously resolved and relaxed as an entire > chord...almost like
> a brighter add2-ish type chord.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
> >
> > 1/1 7/6 14/9

> Gene>"The fifth it uses is a regular old fifth, up to octave equivalence."
>
> How is 14/9, the septimal minor sixth, also "a regular old fifth"?

Bringing 1/1 and 7/6 up an octave, we get 14/9 2/1 7/3. Dividing by 14/9 leads to 1/1 9/7 3/2.

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

> >How does it compare to the chord in 15et (or equivalently, 12et?)
>
> It's much less concordant, especially when the octave is doubled
> on top. It's also more colorful. The usual chord (0-400-800) is
> capable of the 'endlessly rising inversions' effect since it
> divides the octave equally.

According to your ears, or HE?

>> >How does it compare to the chord in 15et (or equivalently, 12et?)
>>
>> It's much less concordant, especially when the octave is doubled
>> on top. It's also more colorful. The usual chord (0-400-800) is
>> capable of the 'endlessly rising inversions' effect since it
>> divides the octave equally.
>
>According to your ears, or HE?

My ears. What do you ears say?

-Carl

Me> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
>
> 1/1 7/6 14/9

Kraig>"IN JI this is an inversion of a bright major"
What's a bright major? I tried a few inversions IE 7/6 14/9 6/3...but
nothing I tried simplified to produce a normal fifth So, unless numerically
corrected on the matter...

I'm still thinking the "lesson" may be that even a "bad" fifth can be very
useful in "relaxed" harmony...especially when the intervals leading up to it are
fairly simple intervals like 7/6 and 4/3.

Seems to be a pattern...for example
6/5 * 5/4 = 3/2 (pure fifth, minor chord)
6/5 * 5/4 = 3/2 (pure fifth, major chord)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
7/6 * 4/3 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", super-major chord)
4/3 * 7/6 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", not sure what type of chord...any
takers?)
7/6 * 4/3 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", super-major chord)
4/3 * 7/6 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", not sure what type of chord...any
takers?)
8/7 * 4/3 = 32/21 ("wide fifth",not sure what type of chord...any takers?)
4/3 * 8/7 = 32/21 ("wide fifth",not sure what type of chord...any takers?)
11/10 * 4/3 = 22/15 ("diminished fifth",not sure what type of chord...any
takers?)
4/3 * 11/10 = 22/15 ("diminished fifth",not sure what type of chord...any
takers?)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
9/8 * 4/3 = 3/2 (pure fifth, add2 style chord)
4/3 * 9/8 = 3/2 (pure fifth, suspended style chord)

Note that when the "more complex" 7/6, 8/7, or 9/8 intervals are used, the
"less complex" 4/3 is used to help "counter" it and keep the overall sense of
resolve similar. This seems to follow Igs's old idea that stacking "good"
intervals to form a "bad" interval like 14/9 or 32/21 can trick the mind into
thinking it's a good interval and that the triad is quite resolved.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Composition-wise it seems to beg the question why haven't we (also) been
using "super-major" chords since the beginning of time?) The sense of resolve
is, to me at least, right up there with "real" major chords... The other
question becomes...what's a "super-minor" chord?

It also MAY finally begin to explain my preference for the 22/15 "diminished
fifth" and the 32/21 "wide fifth"...and why a "wide fifth" near 50/33 sounds
good to me but a 40/27 "grave fifth" does not.

The only catch seems to be you (at least in low TETs) get "just" a good
major/minor version of a chord using these "odd fifth"...and not also good
suspended/add2 type variations in such tunings.
<<<<<<<<<<

NOTE I JUST PUT AN AUDIO EXAMPLE IN MY FOLDER SHOWING WHAT AN 8/7 * 4/3 =
32/21 triad sounds like......

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

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

> >According to your ears, or HE?
>
> My ears. What do you ears say?

My ears don't like the effect of dividing the octave into 2, 3, or 4 equal parts for chords, finding this gives them a curious lifeless quality.

On 1/1/2011 1:38 AM, Michael wrote:
> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
>
> 1/1 7/6 14/9
>
> The fifth it uses looks mathematically ridiculous...but somehow, at least to
> me, it sounds mysteriously resolved and relaxed as an entire chord...almost like
> a brighter add2-ish type chord.
>

Sounds like a first inversion of something. So, if the root is 7/9, this is just a 1/(9:7:6) triad.

from 14/9 to 7/6 is a 3/2 as Gene pointed out

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 2/01/11 4:31 AM, Michael wrote:
>
> Me> Here's a quizzling of a chord under 22TET...
> >
> > 1/1 7/6 14/9
>
> Kraig>"IN JI this is an inversion of a bright major"
> What's a bright major? I tried a few inversions IE 7/6 14/9 > 6/3...but
> nothing I tried simplified to produce a normal fifth So, > unless numerically
> corrected on the matter...
>
> I'm still thinking the "lesson" may be that even a "bad" fifth > can be very
> useful in "relaxed" harmony...especially when the intervals > leading up to it are
> fairly simple intervals like 7/6 and 4/3.
>
> Seems to be a pattern...for example
> 6/5 * 5/4 = 3/2 (pure fifth, minor chord)
> 6/5 * 5/4 = 3/2 (pure fifth, major chord)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 7/6 * 4/3 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", super-major chord)
> 4/3 * 7/6 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", not sure what type of > chord...any
> takers?)
> 7/6 * 4/3 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", super-major chord)
> 4/3 * 7/6 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", not sure what type of > chord...any
> takers?)
> 8/7 * 4/3 = 32/21 ("wide fifth",not sure what type of > chord...any takers?)
> 4/3 * 8/7 = 32/21 ("wide fifth",not sure what type of > chord...any takers?)
> 11/10 * 4/3 = 22/15 ("diminished fifth",not sure what type of > chord...any
> takers?)
> 4/3 * 11/10 = 22/15 ("diminished fifth",not sure what type of > chord...any
> takers?)
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 9/8 * 4/3 = 3/2 (pure fifth, add2 style chord)
> 4/3 * 9/8 = 3/2 (pure fifth, suspended style chord)
>
> Note that when the "more complex" 7/6, 8/7, or 9/8 intervals > are used, the
> "less complex" 4/3 is used to help "counter" it and keep the > overall sense of
> resolve similar. This seems to follow Igs's old idea that > stacking "good"
> intervals to form a "bad" interval like 14/9 or 32/21 can > trick the mind into
> thinking it's a good interval and that the triad is quite > resolved.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Composition-wise it seems to beg the question why haven't we > (also) been
> using "super-major" chords since the beginning of time?) The > sense of resolve
> is, to me at least, right up there with "real" major chords... > The other
> question becomes...what's a "super-minor" chord?
>
> It also MAY finally begin to explain my preference for the > 22/15 "diminished
> fifth" and the 32/21 "wide fifth"...and why a "wide fifth" > near 50/33 sounds
> good to me but a 40/27 "grave fifth" does not.
>
> The only catch seems to be you (at least in low TETs) get > "just" a good
> major/minor version of a chord using these "odd fifth"...and > not also good
> suspended/add2 type variations in such tunings.
> <<<<<<<<<<
>
> NOTE I JUST PUT AN AUDIO EXAMPLE IN MY FOLDER SHOWING WHAT AN > 8/7 * 4/3 =
> 32/21 triad sounds like......
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

> 7/6 * 4/3 = 14/9 ("odd extended fifth", super-major chord)
Not a fifth but a sixth. Super-major triad, first inversion (= the third in the bass)
> 4/3 * 7/6 = 14/9 not sure what type of chord
Subminor triad, second inversion (= the fifth in the bass)

jn

Kraig>"from 14/9 to 7/6 is a 3/2"
Ah ok, meaning 7/6 >>on the next and not the current octave<<.

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