Re: from other list...

>
> Paul stated, in answer to Joe Pehrsons (sp, sorry) repost
>
> Subject: Re: repost from crazy list: compositional methods
>
> Interesting . . . now for the Blackjack scale, which you've been
> working with lately . . . let's say you've worked with the scale for
> a while, and it remains in your mind. Then, when you're hearing
> melodies in your head based on this pattern in your mind, do you ever
> hear a pitch that is _not_ present on the keyboard?
>
> Answer that before you read the rest of this message.
>
> I would expect this to happen sometimes with an improper scale like
> Blackjack, while in 12-tET, it might _never_ happen because all the
> intervals in the scale (and thus in your mental "template" or
> whatever), when transposed to other starting pitches, lead to ending
> pitches which are always in the same scale. But this is far from true
> for a scale like Blackjack . . . of course, if you kept adding more

This seems to be exactly whats been happenning with my MOS experiments,
I improvise in some interesting scale, and suddenly need a missing note.
It turns out that the missing note is one of the scale tones affected
by the legitmate alteration (i.e., what I need is from a parent system).

So the LsLsLss might want a note from the parent L'ssL'ssL'sss (or
whatever). Yes, if you take this out forever, it eventually leads
to... umm, lots of little tiny notes.

> and more new pitches accordingly, you'd end up with all of 72-tET,
> which is of course "closed" like 12-tET . . . perhaps a reason to
> think about getting a 72-tET generalized keyboard eventually . . .
>

For MOSniks, its a good motivation to start in something manageable,
like L=5, s=3 etc, rather than L=47 s=19.

The other implication of this for me is that MOS structures, in my
limited experience, have not been fulfilling in and of themselves.
However, they seem to set up a logic to where additional notes
should come from. I have mentioned this before in the context of
good non-MOS scales which are MOS-scales with the alteration placed
on the "wrong note".

maybe,

Bob Valentine

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> This seems to be exactly whats been happenning with my MOS
experiments,
> I improvise in some interesting scale, and suddenly need a missing
note.
> It turns out that the missing note is one of the scale tones
affected
> by the legitmate alteration (i.e., what I need is from a parent
system).
>
> So the LsLsLss might want a note from the parent L'ssL'ssL'sss (or
> whatever). Yes, if you take this out forever, it eventually leads
> to... umm, lots of little tiny notes.
>
> > and more new pitches accordingly, you'd end up with all of 72-
tET,
> > which is of course "closed" like 12-tET . . . perhaps a reason to
> > think about getting a 72-tET generalized keyboard eventually . . .
> >
>
> For MOSniks, its a good motivation to start in something manageable,
> like L=5, s=3 etc, rather than L=47 s=19.
>
> The other implication of this for me is that MOS structures, in my
> limited experience, have not been fulfilling in and of themselves.
> However, they seem to set up a logic to where additional notes
> should come from. I have mentioned this before in the context of
> good non-MOS scales which are MOS-scales with the alteration placed
> on the "wrong note".

Of course, my Pentachordal Decatonic is an example of that -- MOS is
pretty in theory but in reality other forces, such as the desire to
hear similarity at the 4:3 and 3:2, may be stronger.

In any case you seem to be agreeing that a composer tends to feel a
desire for an instrument where the pitch resources are "closed" as in
the example I brought up. This is a major attraction of ETs to me --
and on guitar, non-ETs pose certain difficulties. On the other hand,
as Gary Morrison likes to point out, often the best compositions come
from "limits" that one imposes on oneself . . . so rather than follow
every desire to add alterations, you may want to try, once in a
while, thinking to yourself, "what twist can I throw into this
composition now to make things interesting, without going outside the
basic pitch set and leading down the slippery slope toward ET?"