A little experience

Hi,

I just wanted to share a little experience I had just now. For some time I've been working on a choir piece, and I have been using stretched meantone for it's midi realization. Now it seems that the director of my choir is going to let us sing it once or twice so that I can hear what it sounds like when a real choir sings it, which I'm really happy about.

My song includes otonal tetrads. For example CEGA# in the key of F. That A# was a bit too out there for my choir director so he requested I change it to Bb. I'm going to do that since I'm happy enough already that I will hear the choir sing it, and I think/hope the singers will be clever enough to adjust the intonation.

For fun when changing the enharmonic spelling I listened to the resulting midi file. It of course sounded worse. The 7th was way too sharp. Still it was acceptable. Then I got the idea that maybe 12edo would be a better compromise since the 7th would be a little flatter and closer to a 7/4. So I retuned the midi file to 12edo. Now the interesting and disturbing experience I had: Hearing it in 12edo made me feel sick. The notes and chords all sounded sour and out of tune. It sounded as if they were mocking my song.

I wonder if people felt the same when the shift was made from mean/well temperament to equal temperament.

I also wonder: Had I written this song in 12edo from start to end, would I have been happy with the result? Would I even have written the same song? Is this especially a problem with computer/midi realizations of music?

/ Magnus

>My song includes otonal tetrads. For example CEGA# in the key of F. That
>A# was a bit too out there for my choir director so he requested I
>change it to Bb.

D'oh! Did you explain to him why it's an important difference?

-Carl

Hi Carl,

> D'oh! Did you explain to him why it's an important difference?

Yes, I have explained to him a little before, but he is not really that interested in microtonal stuff. Maybe I didn't present it really well. I think the main reason he wants the enharmonic notes "fixed" is that he doesn't want the singers to be confused. It will be interesting to see if the sopranos will sing a subminor 7th or not... They tend to be sharp on the major thirds so I certainly can't count on it. The biggest problem I can see is if they remember the Bb they sang two measures ago and sing that instead of the A# that fits harmonically. Different spellings would make them aware of the necessary intonation changes.

-Magnus

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Carl Lumma wrote:

>> My song includes otonal tetrads. For example CEGA# in the key of F. That
>> A# was a bit too out there for my choir director so he requested I
>> change it to Bb.
>
> D'oh! Did you explain to him why it's an important difference?
>
> -Carl
>
>

At 11:31 AM 9/20/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>
>> D'oh! Did you explain to him why it's an important difference?
>
>Yes, I have explained to him a little before, but he is not really that
>interested in microtonal stuff. Maybe I didn't present it really well. I
>think the main reason he wants the enharmonic notes "fixed" is that he
>doesn't want the singers to be confused. It will be interesting to see if
>the sopranos will sing a subminor 7th or not... They tend to be sharp on
>the major thirds so I certainly can't count on it. The biggest problem I
>can see is if they remember the Bb they sang two measures ago and sing
>that instead of the A# that fits harmonically. Different spellings would
>make them aware of the necessary intonation changes.
>
>-Magnus

Let us know what happens! -C.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to share a little experience I had just now. For some
time
> I've been working on a choir piece, and I have been using stretched
> meantone for it's midi realization. Now it seems that the director
of my
> choir is going to let us sing it once or twice so that I can hear
what it
> sounds like when a real choir sings it, which I'm really happy
about.
>
> My song includes otonal tetrads. For example CEGA# in the key of F.
That
> A# was a bit too out there for my choir director so he requested I
> change it to Bb. I'm going to do that since I'm happy enough
already
> that I will hear the choir sing it, and I think/hope the singers
will be
> clever enough to adjust the intonation.
> ...
> For fun when changing the enharmonic spelling I listened to the
resulting
> midi file. It of course sounded worse. The 7th was way too sharp.
Still it
> was acceptable. Then I got the idea that maybe 12edo would be a
better
> compromise since the 7th would be a little flatter and closer to a
7/4. So
> I retuned the midi file to 12edo. Now the interesting and
disturbing
> experience I had: Hearing it in 12edo made me feel sick. The notes
and
> chords all sounded sour and out of tune. It sounded as if they were
> mocking my song.
>
> I wonder if people felt the same when the shift was made from
mean/well
> temperament to equal temperament.

Your experience is quite typical. See:
/tuning/topicId_39089.html#39142

The shift from meantone/well temperament to 12-equal was very
gradual, taking place over the span of many years, and it would not
be complete until those who resisted this change finally died off.

--George

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, George D. Secor wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>
> wrote:
...
>> experience I had: Hearing it in 12edo made me feel sick. The notes
> and
>> chords all sounded sour and out of tune. It sounded as if they were
>> mocking my song.
>>
>> I wonder if people felt the same when the shift was made from
> mean/well
>> temperament to equal temperament.
>
> Your experience is quite typical. See:
> /tuning/topicId_39089.html#39142
>
> The shift from meantone/well temperament to 12-equal was very
> gradual, taking place over the span of many years, and it would not
> be complete until those who resisted this change finally died off.
>
> --George

Thanks George, that's a very interesting thread!

-Magnus

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:

> I also wonder: Had I written this song in 12edo from start to end,
would I
> have been happy with the result? Would I even have written the same
song?
> / Magnus
>

'cause enquiring minds want to know:

is the piece accompanied or acapella?

And on the midi-file you were working with: what was the orchestration?

Since the majority of choirs and composers have the most obvious of
12ET instruments at our disposal, the spelling difference wuold make
no difference to the choir while they are practicing with the piano.

Once the piano stops playing, unless they choir has been extensively
trained into a particulary tuning/temperament, they will drift toward
Just intonation, and then get yelled at for not matching the 12ET of
their neighborhood instrument.

And as for writing with 12ET from the start - you would have made
different chord choices. You drifted toward the chords you did because
something about the tuning/orchestration of what you were using to
make aural decisions got your attention, and caused you to accentuate
the "good" of what you were hearing in the studio. And avoid the "bad".

Once the piece gets out into the wild, there are a great many things
that the composer loses control of, especially how it is tuned. I may
say I want the ritard to be stepped at specific points in specific
measures, but the group that is doing it still has the freedom to
slaughter my perfectly planned effect with what they feel.

-bjc

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, brentcarson wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
>
>> I also wonder: Had I written this song in 12edo from start to end,
> would I
>> have been happy with the result? Would I even have written the same
> song?
>> / Magnus
>>
>
> 'cause enquiring minds want to know:
>
> is the piece accompanied or acapella?

A capella - precisely because I don't want the piano to muck around with the intonation :)

> And on the midi-file you were working with: what was the orchestration?

I used a generic strings patch as played by timidity. Since you are inquiring I will put up the midi file on the web. I'm just beginning in this type of composition so everyone should feel free to give constructive criticism.

http://magnus.smartelectronix.com/ave/

I put up a few different versions:

One with an octave of 1200 cents, fifth of 696 cents.
One with an octave of 1200 cents, fifth of 697 cents.
One with an octave of 1200.5 cents, fifth of 698 cents. (the one I used)
One with an octave of 1200 cents, fifth of 700 cents. (12tet)
One with an octave of 1200 cents, fifth of 702 cents.
One with an octave of 1200 cents, fifth of 710 cents. (fur fun!)

If anyone would like to hear some other sizes of octave/fifth let me know.

> Since the majority of choirs and composers have the most obvious of
> 12ET instruments at our disposal, the spelling difference wuold make
> no difference to the choir while they are practicing with the piano.

Agreed, and I'll ask the director to avoid the piano for my song.

> Once the piano stops playing, unless they choir has been extensively
> trained into a particulary tuning/temperament, they will drift toward
> Just intonation, and then get yelled at for not matching the 12ET of
> their neighborhood instrument.

Not so much yelling in my choir. We are mostly amateurs. In this piece I used meantone, but I tried to ensure that there's a reasonable JI interpretation of the whole song, and I avoid comma shifts.

> And as for writing with 12ET from the start - you would have made
> different chord choices. You drifted toward the chords you did because
> something about the tuning/orchestration of what you were using to
> make aural decisions got your attention, and caused you to accentuate
> the "good" of what you were hearing in the studio. And avoid the "bad".

The part I like best in this song was composed on a piano I had tuned to meantone. Some other parts were made on a widely out of tune 12tet piano. In a way I like when the piano is widely out of tune instead of perfect 12tet, because there are three strings for each key and at least one of them will have to concord with the other tones! Also I thought to myself sometimes "this will sound good in meantone, so I won't reject this even though it sounds bad on this piano". Some other parts were written in meantone on the computer directly.

> Once the piece gets out into the wild, there are a great many things > that the composer loses control of, especially how it is tuned.

Yes. But I trust that good singers will make it sound good.

> I may say I want the ritard to be stepped at specific points in specific > measures, but the group that is doing it still has the freedom to > slaughter my perfectly planned effect with what they feel.

I think it's a good thing that there is room for performers to interpret a piece in a way that makes sense to them. That way different performers sound different too. But then again I'm new to this and maybe I will have a horrible chock when I learn how the choir interprets the notes :)

- Magnus

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
>
>
> The part I like best in this song was composed on a piano I had
tuned to
> meantone. Some other parts were made on a widely out of tune 12tet
piano.
> In a way I like when the piano is widely out of tune instead of perfect
> 12tet, because there are three strings for each key and at least one of
> them will have to concord with the other tones! Also I thought to
myself
> sometimes "this will sound good in meantone, so I won't reject this
even
> though it sounds bad on this piano". Some other parts were written in
> meantone on the computer directly.
>

> I think it's a good thing that there is room for performers to
interpret a
> piece in a way that makes sense to them. That way different performers
> sound different too. But then again I'm new to this and maybe I will
have
> a horrible chock when I learn how the choir interprets the notes :)
>
> - Magnus
>

Well, now you've done it. You've given me an opportunity to hawk MY
methodologies for this nonesense:

Metasite:
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/

Main site:
http://www.freewebtown.com/brewt/

Relevant Tutorial Pages:
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/How_to_Sing.html
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/15noteequaltempermenttutorial.html

Example Choral Tune Pages:
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/Verses.html
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ToMorning.html
http://www.freewebtown.com/brewt/words/monastictendencies.html

I'll have to re-build my timidity to hear your tune - do you have a score?

-bjc

:) I am aware of your site, but I don't want to go through the same trouble just to hear the lyrics of my music. It's cool to know it can be done though. I'll upload a score of my music soon when I consider it finished. By the way, you don't have to listen to the midi files in timidity. Any midi player will give you the gist of it.

/ Magnus

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, brentcarson wrote:

> Well, now you've done it. You've given me an opportunity to hawk MY
> methodologies for this nonesense:
>
> Metasite:
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/
>
> Main site:
> http://www.freewebtown.com/brewt/
>
> Relevant Tutorial Pages:
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/How_to_Sing.html
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/15noteequaltempermenttutorial.html
>
> Example Choral Tune Pages:
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/Verses.html
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ToMorning.html
> http://www.freewebtown.com/brewt/words/monastictendencies.html
>
> I'll have to re-build my timidity to hear your tune - do you have a score?
>
> -bjc
>
>
>
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
>
> :) I am aware of your site, but I don't want to go through the same
> trouble just to hear the lyrics of my music. It's cool to know it
can be
> done though. I'll upload a score of my music soon when I consider it
> finished. By the way, you don't have to listen to the midi files in
> timidity. Any midi player will give you the gist of it.
>
> / Magnus
>

Trouble? Bah - no trouble:
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ave-1200-697.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ave-1200-700.mp3

Except, of course, for the trouble I'M in for taking such liberties
with someone else's music.

I had a glorious message filled with keen insight and wisdom, and then
cleverly hit the back button when the boss walked by and lost it all
before I posted. Oops.

-bjc

Hi Brian, that's cool... thank you for taking time on this.

I'm honored, but also I am a bit disappointed with the result. If this is what it sounds like in reality, I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

This is going to be rough, but I think I should be honest: To me this sounds worse than the midi file as played by both Timidity and Windows Media Player.

Here are some things that could be improved:

1) You have a huge DC offset in your signal which causes clipping and even complete silencing of the sound. It completely ruins the mp3. Putting in a DC blocker somewhere will probably fix this problem. All the mp3s on your site have this problem to some extent, at least on my system.

2) The voice timbres are too dull imo, especially the bass and the tenor. All I hear of them is bass rumble that is tenfolded by the clipping.

3) I think the reverb is too prominent. It sounds boxy. I would reduce the reverb level and the reverb time.

I'm still interested in that keen insight and wisdom...

/ Magnus

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, brentcarson wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
>
> Trouble? Bah - no trouble:
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ave-1200-697.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ave-1200-700.mp3
>
> Except, of course, for the trouble I'M in for taking such liberties
> with someone else's music.
>
> I had a glorious message filled with keen insight and wisdom, and then
> cleverly hit the back button when the boss walked by and lost it all
> before I posted. Oops.
>
>
> -bjc
>
>
>
>

Gah, what a jerk I feel like. The clipping turns out to be a problem
with my system... My apologies Brian.
/ Magnus

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Magnus Jonsson wrote:

> Hi Brian, that's cool... thank you for taking time on this.
>
> I'm honored, but also I am a bit disappointed with the result. If this is > what it sounds like in reality, I'll have to go back to the drawing board.
>
> This is going to be rough, but I think I should be honest: To me this sounds > worse than the midi file as played by both Timidity and Windows Media Player.
>
> Here are some things that could be improved:
>
> 1) You have a huge DC offset in your signal which causes clipping and even > complete silencing of the sound. It completely ruins the mp3. Putting in a DC > blocker somewhere will probably fix this problem. All the mp3s on your site > have this problem to some extent, at least on my system.
>
> 2) The voice timbres are too dull imo, especially the bass and the tenor. All > I hear of them is bass rumble that is tenfolded by the clipping.
>
> 3) I think the reverb is too prominent. It sounds boxy. I would reduce the > reverb level and the reverb time.
>
> I'm still interested in that keen insight and wisdom...
>
> / Magnus
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, brentcarson wrote:
>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
>> >> Trouble? Bah - no trouble:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ave-1200-697.mp3
>> http://home.comcast.net/~brentishere/ave-1200-700.mp3
>> >> Except, of course, for the trouble I'M in for taking such liberties
>> with someone else's music.
>> >> I had a glorious message filled with keen insight and wisdom, and then
>> cleverly hit the back button when the boss walked by and lost it all
>> before I posted. Oops.
>> >> >> -bjc
>> >> >> >> >

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
> > Hi Brian, that's cool... thank you for taking time on this.
> > I'm honored, but also I am a bit disappointed with the result. If
this is what it sounds like in reality, I'll have to go back to the
drawing board.
> > This is going to be rough, but I think I should be honest:
>To me this sounds worse than the midi file as played by both Timidity
and Windows Media Player.
> > Here are some things that could be improved:
> > 1) You have a huge DC offset in your signal which causes clipping
and even complete silencing of the sound. It completely ruins the mp3.
Putting in a DC blocker somewhere will probably fix this problem. All
the mp3s on your site have this problem to some extent, at least on my
system.
> > 2) The voice timbres are too dull imo, especially the bass and the
tenor. All I hear of them is bass rumble that is tenfolded by the
clipping.
> > 3) I think the reverb is too prominent. It sounds boxy. I would
reduce the reverb level and the reverb time.
> > I'm still interested in that keen insight and wisdom...
> > / Magnus >

I know I have streaming issues at my site - comcast's servers can't
seem to keep up on the el-cheapo variety sites. I've thought about
converting it all to flash and letting flash manage the streaming, but
haven't convinced myself to come up with the time to throw at it.

I've heard all about the DC offset theories: I'm rendering with an
old-fashioned P3, so yeah, I knew it was you.

Certainly my mixing skills leave a lot to be desired. The render
process I use is unquestionably artificial in nature, and any
expectation that human beings really sound like this in a real concert
setting is misguided optimism at best. This is nothing more than a
casual represetation. So don't take my lousy attempts at half-truths
as any indication of what you should write or how you should write it.

I did do my ever-lovin' best to render the 2 files consistently, the
only real difference being the base midi file. Same timrbal base in
the voices, same effects stream, same text (only lah-lah-lah for me -
didn't know which Ave Maria variant to impose, and concluded that any
choice I made on those lines would just be out-and-out wrong).
Arguably, the individual part renderings could be at different levels:
ever-so-slightly different fundamental pitches would cause shifts the
overtone structures that could be butting up against limitations in
the software rendering formulae, resulting in differences in the
overall output level, as well as any difference tone calculations that
might be induced into the formant synthesis.

My choices in the effects stream do little more than remove maybe 1 or
2 layers of artificiality in the renders, and certainly are not going
to convince anyone this is anything other than a computer. East-West's
Symphonic choirs may have a better sound, but is waaaaay out of the
budget. And it has it's own limitations, like being much harder to
use. And I often get carried away with reverb. It's just so pretty....

We could argue yeah-brent-but-you-just-did-it-wrong-you-moron until
the cows come home. I guess what I thought I was trying to build were
lab-worthy differences in the tonality systems, not definitive
performance grade outputs. The limitations of my system preclude the
latter in all cases. The pieces at my site(s) are really nothing
better than advertisements to entice someone to actually try to
perform them. That hasn't worked out yet.

I ran out of time this last weekend to do more than the 697 and 12TET
variants on the files, being your favorite, and the one the choirs who
try to do this are going to use as a starting point (having a piano at
their disposal as they do, assuming it's in tune).

When I listen to the differences between the 2 files, after I get over
the initial horror of failed sonic expectations, I find that the
difference between them is: slight. Little more than a color change.
Again, my own hearing skills and system limitations might be getting
in the way, but as you don't stray far from chord combinations that
12TET can tolerably pull off (to keep from doing something bad in
meantone), the meantone difference does not appear to be other-worldly
better. And I believe that using meantone (or pythagorean or just or
whatever) to write with does little more than limit the choices of
chord progressions you could otherwise make with 12TET. The 12TET
compromise, although detracting somewhat from some individualized
chords, opens up more possibilities for musical expression of ideas
that you just can't do in some of the other tuning systems because
those chords are intolerably out of tune in those other systems.

"Oh, just use more than 12 notes per octave - extend the tuning" is
the usual retort to my argument. I don't know about anyone else, but I
have a hard time keeping track of where I'm at when I extend the
tuning, and it still all goes flat. Maybe I wasn't edumacated right.

Compositionally speaking:

I try not to comment on other people's methods, 'cause I certainly
would be obstinate about my own. But if I may suggest that you at
least consider using some kind of vocal patch instead of the string
patch in your decision-helping instrument when writing vocal music.
Again, as the overtones interact differently with different
intrumentation/tuning system combinations, that might cut down on the
surprise factor when differing instrumentation gets kicked in by the
great unwashed.

I don't know if you are using a notation editor or not for sure (it
does not appear so). If not, you also might want to consider using one
of them to get this into the hands of your singers. If you can't
justify the costs of my favorite (Harmony Assistant from
Myriad-online, about $100), you could try Finale Notepad, which I
think is still free. The reason is that it will help show what your
performers are going to be working with, which does influence your
compositional decisions. It also helps a lot with re-writes and
editing, much easier than white-out and erasers.

The Bass and Tenor lines seem to cross each other a lot. And while
this is good for a special effect (I myself use it), using it as
matter-of-course would weaken the bass line where the tenors take over
that low-notes. It would get you questioned in comp class. Basses and
Tenors and not unilaterally interchangable - one's tonal qualities are
more the deciding factors on the parts you sing than the notes you can
hit. Vocal range can be extended with practice. Tenor sound qualities
are stronger on upper notes and weaker on lower notes. Vice versa for
basses. The fact that your tenor part is so low also contributes to
the muddy render you mentioned. Parallel 3rds and 4ths and the like in
the lower vocal bass/tenor registers, even though intending to induce
really low fundamental difference tones, tend to not work out as a
matter of course in the "real" world. Saving that kind of chord
spelling for special effects would help clarify the mix, live or
artificial.

The general rule from comp class is: No more than 1 octave between
alto and tenor, no more than 1 octave between alto and soprano. More
than 1 octave between tenor and bass is ok. Yeah right - as if I
follow the rules.

Certainly the text one employs alters the mix and overall sound and
mood and emotion and lots of things - as I haven't see how that fits
in yet, I can't comment without appearing even more foolish than I
already have.

Is this part of a larger work? Seems like it should be.......

Whatever you do, don't let my or anybody else's cantankerousness get
in your way - the piece is fine, and I don't think you should scrap
it. What's the worst that could happen, you may not be deleriously
happy all the damn time with it? Composing is difficult enough without
letting some petty devil-in-the-detail get in your way. Or maybe it's
God in the details. I can't remember.

[clever-witty-wise-insight-mode=ON]
Oh wait, I should have had that on earlier. Oops.
[clever-witty-wise-insight-mode=OFF]

8^)

-bjc

Hi Brent,

Wow, this is a long post. I guess I deserve it :)
I'll answer inline.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, brentcarson wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:
> I know I have streaming issues at my site - comcast's servers can't
> seem to keep up on the el-cheapo variety sites. I've thought about
> converting it all to flash and letting flash manage the streaming, but
> haven't convinced myself to come up with the time to throw at it.

I don't think it was a streaming issue, it was just that my laptop's volume control lets me go way too high so that it starts clipping. Somehow your mp3 is more prone to cause this clipping than other mp3s I usually play. Maybe because of DC offset... or maybe for some other reason.

> I've heard all about the DC offset theories: I'm rendering with an
> old-fashioned P3, so yeah, I knew it was you.

DC offset has little to do with processor speed.

> Certainly my mixing skills leave a lot to be desired. The render
> process I use is unquestionably artificial in nature, and any
> expectation that human beings really sound like this in a real concert
> setting is misguided optimism at best. This is nothing more than a
> casual represetation. So don't take my lousy attempts at half-truths
> as any indication of what you should write or how you should write it.

Yeah, I shouldn't have been so critical. It sounds better now that
the clipping is gone.

> I did do my ever-lovin' best to render the 2 files consistently, the
> only real difference being the base midi file. Same timrbal base in
> the voices, same effects stream, same text (only lah-lah-lah for me -
> didn't know which Ave Maria variant to impose, and concluded that any
> choice I made on those lines would just be out-and-out wrong).
>
<snip>
>
> My choices in the effects stream do little more than remove maybe 1 or
> 2 layers of artificiality in the renders, and certainly are not going
> to convince anyone this is anything other than a computer. East-West's
> Symphonic choirs may have a better sound, but is waaaaay out of the
> budget. And it has it's own limitations, like being much harder to
> use. And I often get carried away with reverb. It's just so pretty....
>

I often get carried away with reverb too :)

>
> We could argue yeah-brent-but-you-just-did-it-wrong-you-moron until
> the cows come home. I guess what I thought I was trying to build were
> lab-worthy differences in the tonality systems, not definitive
> performance grade outputs. The limitations of my system preclude the
> latter in all cases. The pieces at my site(s) are really nothing
> better than advertisements to entice someone to actually try to
> perform them. That hasn't worked out yet.
>

I think the mp3s on your site do a good job advertising your songs.

>
> I ran out of time this last weekend to do more than the 697 and 12TET
> variants on the files, being your favorite, and the one the choirs who
> try to do this are going to use as a starting point (having a piano at
> their disposal as they do, assuming it's in tune).
>
>
>
> When I listen to the differences between the 2 files, after I get over
> the initial horror of failed sonic expectations, I find that the
> difference between them is: slight. Little more than a color change.

I can hear that the voices waver a lot in pitch to make them sound more human perhaps?). That would make it hard to hear intonational differences. For a real choir, they will probably ignore any intonational advice and just try to sound what sounds best.

> Again, my own hearing skills and system limitations might be getting
> in the way, but as you don't stray far from chord combinations that
> 12TET can tolerably pull off (to keep from doing something bad in
> meantone), the meantone difference does not appear to be other-worldly
> better. And I believe that using meantone (or pythagorean or just or
> whatever) to write with does little more than limit the choices of
> chord progressions you could otherwise make with 12TET. The 12TET
> compromise, although detracting somewhat from some individualized
> chords, opens up more possibilities for musical expression of ideas
> that you just can't do in some of the other tuning systems because
> those chords are intolerably out of tune in those other systems.

You are right that 12tet opens up different possibilities... but my ears tend to not like those possibilities very much. I think that using meantone in the composition process did have a significant effect on my process and my result. So while the choir doesn't care about tuning systems, I think the tuning system has a clear effect on the composed music.

> "Oh, just use more than 12 notes per octave - extend the tuning" is
> the usual retort to my argument. I don't know about anyone else, but I
> have a hard time keeping track of where I'm at when I extend the
> tuning, and it still all goes flat. Maybe I wasn't edumacated right.

I agree that 12tet is a sweet spot and you don't really gain a lot by
adding more notes to 12tet. But if you weren't in 12tet from the start
it may make sense to have some notes closer spaced than ~100 cents.

>
> Compositionally speaking:
>
>
> I try not to comment on other people's methods, 'cause I certainly
> would be obstinate about my own. But if I may suggest that you at
> least consider using some kind of vocal patch instead of the string
> patch in your decision-helping instrument when writing vocal music.

Your words are indeed wise here. I probably wouldn't have been as shocked. The reason I thought a strings patch would work was because I've read that choir and strings are very similar in that they both have very homogenic timbres. I will use some 'ooh' or 'aah' midi patch. It just gets too obvious that it's not real people when you try to do that with the computer, so the desire to switch to another patch is large.

> Again, as the overtones interact differently with different
> intrumentation/tuning system combinations, that might cut down on the
> surprise factor when differing instrumentation gets kicked in by the
> great unwashed.

Indeed. I would be interested to know/understand the main timbral differences are between strings and voice.

>
> I don't know if you are using a notation editor or not for sure (it

I use abc, and I generate a pdf score from that, as well as midi.

> does not appear so). If not, you also might want to consider using one
> of them to get this into the hands of your singers. If you can't
> justify the costs of my favorite (Harmony Assistant from
> Myriad-online, about $100), you could try Finale Notepad, which I
> think is still free. The reason is that it will help show what your

Interesting.

> performers are going to be working with, which does influence your
> compositional decisions. It also helps a lot with re-writes and
> editing, much easier than white-out and erasers.
>
> The Bass and Tenor lines seem to cross each other a lot. And while

Ah, yes. This is unintended. I noticed a problem like that too the other day.

> this is good for a special effect (I myself use it), using it as
> matter-of-course would weaken the bass line where the tenors take over
> that low-notes. It would get you questioned in comp class. Basses and
> Tenors and not unilaterally interchangable - one's tonal qualities are
> more the deciding factors on the parts you sing than the notes you can
> hit. Vocal range can be extended with practice. Tenor sound qualities
> are stronger on upper notes and weaker on lower notes. Vice versa for
> basses. The fact that your tenor part is so low also contributes to

Aha..

> the muddy render you mentioned. Parallel 3rds and 4ths and the like in
> the lower vocal bass/tenor registers, even though intending to induce
> really low fundamental difference tones, tend to not work out as a
> matter of course in the "real" world. Saving that kind of chord
> spelling for special effects would help clarify the mix, live or
> artificial.
>
> The general rule from comp class is: No more than 1 octave between
> alto and tenor, no more than 1 octave between alto and soprano. More
> than 1 octave between tenor and bass is ok. Yeah right - as if I
> follow the rules.

Apart from the occasional bug, I can't find any place where I separated
alto and tenor by that much. For most of the time the distance is somewhere between a third to a sixth.

> Certainly the text one employs alters the mix and overall sound and
> mood and emotion and lots of things - as I haven't see how that fits
> in yet, I can't comment without appearing even more foolish than I
> already have.
>
> Is this part of a larger work? Seems like it should be.......

It is not... so that may be a problem. As I'm new to this I want to get this short piece right before I do any extended work.

>
> Whatever you do, don't let my or anybody else's cantankerousness get
> in your way - the piece is fine, and I don't think you should scrap
> it. What's the worst that could happen, you may not be deleriously
> happy all the damn time with it? Composing is difficult enough without
> letting some petty devil-in-the-detail get in your way. Or maybe it's
> God in the details. I can't remember.

Ah.. this reminds me of course:

I presented my piece to my choir director and he said he would go home and try to fix some problems in it. The next week, he handed me the beginning changes he had made and suggested I make similar changes to the rest of the song. But there was so little left of my original composition that I don't think that's possible. The feeling was completely different, and it
was in a completely different harmonic region... it was more like his song a than mine. I'm not sure how to deal with this.

He also pointed out some other problems in my composition, for example:
- lack of common tones in many chord changes
- phrases of weird length (5-bar phrases intead of 4-bar phrases)
- parallel motion
- parallel fifths

There sure are a lot of guidelines to follow when writing choir music :) When I first started I thought it would be easy, but each time I attempt to write a choir piece I break some kind of rule or best practice and it's really hard to fix after the fact.

>
> [clever-witty-wise-insight-mode=ON]
> Oh wait, I should have had that on earlier. Oops.
> [clever-witty-wise-insight-mode=OFF]
>
> 8^)

Thanks for all your clever-witty-insight! I'll take it to heart as I polish the song.

Cheers,
Magnus

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...> wrote:

>Hi Brent,
>Wow, this is a long post.

I did get a bit carried away, now, didn't I? Murmph. Must be lonely.

>I think the mp3s on your site do a good job advertising your songs.

Ooooh - always fishing for compliments - thanks..........

>I can hear that the voices waver a lot in pitch to make them sound
more human perhaps?). That would make it hard to hear intonational
differences. For a real choir, they will probably ignore any
intonational advice and just try to sound what sounds best.

The simulation parts of my process do include some pitch waverings,
volume waverings, timing and phase waverings, etc. People are not
sine-wave generators. Pitch in a choir is generally an approximation
at best. And maybe I'm just-not-doing-it-right-brent-you-moron, as I
can't hear that much difference, either. Even with sine waves.

>Indeed. I would be interested to know/understand the main timbral
differences are between strings and voice.

Any fourier analysis package can show you the difference. Imposing
meaning on those pictures is the hard part. Wendy Carlos wrote some
articles a few years back that made it all make sense to me, though it
took me a while to understand it. let's see........
Carlos, Wendy. "Tuning: at the Crossroads", Computer Music Journal
vol. 11 no. 1, 1987, pp. 29-43

CMJ will sock you up for $30 for a reprint if you can't find it at
your local college library.

>I use abc, and I generate a pdf score from that, as well as midi.

My god, you must be British. :)
(My father used to say "if there is a hard way to do it, the Brits
will find it")

>Ah.. this reminds me of course:
>I presented my piece to my choir director and he said he would go
home and try to fix some problems in it. The next week, he handed me
the beginning changes he had made and suggested I make similar changes
to the rest of the song. But there was so little left of my original
composition that I don't think that's possible. The feeling was
completely different, and it was in a completely different harmonic
region... it was more like his song a than mine. I'm not sure how to
deal with this.

The piece wasn't that long - unless he just did the 1st couple
measures. Be careful taking his advice - he might just be trying to
get you to write what he hears in his head, not yours. Your own muse
is your own cross to bear (is that a badly-mixed enough metaphor?). I
know mine is (Bitch).

>He also pointed out some other problems in my composition, for example:
>- lack of common tones in many chord changes
>- phrases of weird length (5-bar phrases intead of 4-bar phrases)
>- parallel motion
>- parallel fifths

Who cares? You'll do those things when you are lead to. If you want to
write a 15th-cum-19th century hymn, ok fine, then those things matter.
But that's already been done, so surprise him. Hence: larger work,
biggger picture, taking things in directions he isn't expecting, these
are the good things. Ranks right up there with crushing your enemies
and listening to the wail of his women (thanks to Arnie/Conan
References 'R' Us).

>There sure are a lot of guidelines to follow when writing choir music :)
>When I first started I thought it would be easy, but each time I
attempt to write a choir piece I break some kind of rule or best
practice and it's really hard to fix after the fact.
> I think the tuning system has a clear effect on the composed music.
>I agree that 12tet is a sweet spot and you don't really gain a lot by
adding more notes to 12tet. But if you weren't in 12tet from the start
it may make sense to have some notes closer spaced than ~100 cents.

Interestingly, "the rules" came about because of our favorite topic:
tuning. Back in the day when a 2nd was not a 2nd was not a 2nd, and
instruments were rarities, "the rules" were introduced to keep
composers from doing things that could result in bad intonation. The
"don't use parallel 5ths or octaves and you should avoid parallel
4ths" rule was because of the jarring strength of those intervals,
when compared to the "gentleness" of parallel 3rd or 6ths, especially
in sweetly-thirded meantone. It stuck out a lot when you did it (the
theorists started the litany: "don't do this, don't do that, my god").
Much more so than under 12TET, so that "rules" don't make as much
sense as they once did. But, if you are going to back-step to the old
ways, then "the rules" once again become necessary, unless you don't
care that your carefully crafted piece with carefully crafted tunings
sounds woefully out of tune in places. Or having overwhelmingly
jarring consonances cropping up here and there.

Once 12TET came in, and the intervals equaled out, the jarringness
became less apparent, and so we don't notice them these days. It's
really funny in theory/history classes to have the professor say
things like "yes, this interval was considered dissonant" while
playing a 4th on a 12TET piano, which sounds perfectly acceptable,
leading to the ignorance-of-the-ancients belief society meetings at
the local bar. Hard to demonstrate the atrocities of a wolf tone if
you can't really play it.

As 12TET became accepted because of keyboardists who wanted to play
something other than 3-chords-and-loud-in-C-major, the rules that
dictated harmonic/melodic/contrapuntal motion under previous tuning
systems (like just, or mean or pythagorean) became less and less
relevant until 12-tone came along and alienated the ivory tower from
the rest of us even more than it had before the advent of the
recording industry.

Certainly, it helps for us meager anarchists to know the rules we are
breaking, so we can break them even more effectively. But hey, even I
can't know all I'm purported to know.......

So keep at it. And don't let any of the rest of us write your music.

-bjc