17-tet concert Decisions

I think 17 is a good choice, upon further reflection, and I think Dan is right that it's good to stick with it for a while. the fact that there are 7 common tones between the pianos is very compositionally useful, I found.

Since you said you had 2 other pianos. . . . why not do one pair in straight 17-tet, as before, and the other pair in a 17 Just scale? Not sure what would be a good candidate. . .but I'm sure Gene will have an idea :)

Regarding the instruments: how is the string trio tuning to 17? Just by ear (with headphones)? or do they make chalk-marks on the fingerboard?
Curious how that will work.

C Bailey

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@...>
wrote:

> Since you said you had 2 other pianos. . . . why not do one pair in
> straight 17-tet, as before, and the other pair in a 17 Just scale?
Not
> sure what would be a good candidate. . .but I'm sure Gene will have an
> idea :)

I gave three scales pretty close to just. In particular, the convex
breed closure of the 7-limit tonality diamond can be tuned justly and
it would work just fine:

! diaconv2401.scl
Breed convex closure of 7-limit diamond
17
!
50/49
8/7
7/6
6/5
60/49
5/4
4/3
7/5
10/7
3/2
8/5
80/49
5/3
12/7
7/4
49/25
2

This has five otonal and five utonal tetrads, but one of the utonal
tetrads is off of just by 2401/2400, which is less than a cent. It
would be interesting to see what someone could make of this for
compositional purposes, but I don't think you could do much with it
using actual pianos.

Here's the 5-limit 17-note dwarf, which is wilson_17, an Erv Wilson scsle:

! dwarf17_5.scl
Dwarf(<17 27 39|) = wilson_17
17
!
135/128
10/9
9/8
32/27
5/4
81/64
4/3
45/32
40/27
3/2
128/81
5/3
27/16
16/9
15/8
160/81
2

This has eight major and eight minor triads, though one of the minor
triads is off by a schisma (less than two cents.) It also has two
otonal and two utonal tetrads if we make use of 225/224-tetrads, which
are quite usable. This scale can be viewed as a modified version of
the schismatic/garibaldi 17 note scale--it is a chain of fifths, with
one of the fifths flat by a schisma. You therefore get a very closely
related scale by taking Pythagorean[17], the 17-note Pythagorean scale.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@...>
wrote:
>
> Regarding the instruments: how is the string trio tuning to 17? Just
> by ear (with headphones)? or do they make chalk-marks on the
> fingerboard?
> Curious how that will work.
>

I would like to know that, too!

And another important point: how to notate 17edo music for strings?
Like the score for "Sub arbore", with quartertone marks? Or with
sharps and flats - and leaving to the players to keep in mind that
sharps are to be played higher than flats?
--
Hans Straub

Since the strings would most likely be performing a number of works,
something a bit more durable than chalk-marks -- which tend to erase
during the course of performance --might be necessary. I would strongly
suggest the string players resort to tied frets a la the viol family, to
maintain accurate intonation -- at least, if 17-edo is going to be the
primary tuning. Thin mono-filament nylon works well (or perhaps even
silk string) if gut fretting isn't available. I used this method on my
violin and 'cello when experimenting with tunings in the past; but nylon
mono-filament has to be secured in place on the back of the neck with
simple adhesive tape.

An alternative to fretting would be very narrow strips of light-colored
peel-and-stick adhesive paper, to indicate accurate fingerings. These
last much longer than erasable marks.

My vote goes for keeping the sharp/flat convention overall, as it has
been somewhat established in the minds of both composers and performers.
Quarter-flat and quarter-sharp accidentals (indicating one scale step
down or up) would help with notating a chord like 0 - 352.9 - 705.8 -
1058.7 as "C - E quarter flat - G - B qtr. flat", instead of "C - D# - G
- A#"; and with melodic passages like "B qtr. flat - C qtr. sharp - D
qtr. sharp - E" instead of "A# - Db - Eb - E natural". Just my input.

Best,

jls

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey chris@
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the instruments: how is the string trio tuning to 17? Just
> > by ear (with headphones)? or do they make chalk-marks on the
> > fingerboard?
> > Curious how that will work.
> >
>
> I would like to know that, too!
>
> And another important point: how to notate 17edo music for strings?
> Like the score for "Sub arbore", with quartertone marks? Or with
> sharps and flats - and leaving to the players to keep in mind that
> sharps are to be played higher than flats?
> --
> Hans Straub
>

> how to notate 17edo music for strings?
> ... with ...
> sharps and flats - and leaving to the players to keep in mind that
> sharps are to be played higher than flats?

That's what I'd do, I think. Any 17 tone tuning (EDO or not) falls very
naturally into the idea of "flats aren't the same as sharps but otherwise
it's the same notation"... but...

Adjusted fingerings would be required, e.g., on fretless strings such as
violin or cello, in any case because the intervals are all different.

Oh, and you would have to tune the strings to the wide fifths of the 17
edo scale to start with. It actually shouldn't be too difficult for
experienced players to learn the appropriate fingerings, if they know what
they're listening for.

Rick