new Blackjack work posted

Hello Microtonal Friends!

You know, I really hate it when people come onto forums who haven't
been there for a while and simply post their own music. However,
you'll have to believe me when I say that I have *really good
excuses* mostly family-related, that have prohibited me from
involving myself in the tuning lists as in the "good ol' days..."

In any case, I have a new piece up in Blackjack that was done with
the z3ta+ softsynth with Sonar as sequencer host.

It's the second piece down on the page:

http://www.soundclick.com/josephpehrson/

It's called "microproj." In this work, I was trying to, obviously,
maximalize the near-just harmonic relationships in the scale, while
keeping xenharmonic "oddities" to the fore. I noticed that I have a
different way of working with the scale and with harmonies these
days. I do very little "pre-compositional" planning, or very little
harmonic-lattice planning, which I used to do when I started with the
scale.

Instead, I now do everything *entirely* by ear. It seems to come out
better that way, reasonably enough.... Basically, I will find the
sonorities I want and then, frequently writing them down,
will "adjust" them slightly, voice-by-voice up and down until I reach
an obvious "near just" chord. Sometimes I use that chord instead of
the original one I had happened upon in my "improvising/hearing" and
sometimes I don't. But, at least I want to *know* if a near-just
chord would be an improvement in any case. On my sketches, I now
*circle* the "near just" chords. Usually, this being Blackjack,
there are quite a few of them.

These working methods are a new departure. As I have mentioned, my
way of working with the scale has been constantly evolving and
changing, I believe for the better, leading me to believe that, at
least for *me* there could be a lifetime of work just within mastery
of this scale alone. (After all, it *did* take me a while to learn
12-tET... :)

While you're on the page, you may be interested in another new, fun,
piece... a very "straightforward" non-microtonal string quartet that
was written for "fun" to be played in a club atmosphere. It's called
_Slacker Cracker_ and was just recently premiered by the "Sweet
Plantain" string quartet at New York's "Cutting Room."

Please do not refrain from any criticisms positive or, espeically,
negative. This is how I learn...

Thanks so much!

Joseph Pehrson

Joseph,

Man I'm glad I caught this post....good to hear from you after all
this time.

Listening now, and *loving* it! Spacious stereo imaging, which I love
(sorry Carl!), great humorous timbres and 'melting gestures', classic
moog-lover filter sweeps--what's not to love? Your use of the
wonderful sonorities of Blackjack never sounded better.

It might be my favorite piece of yours to date, in fact....BRAVO!
Ooooh---nice wierd timbre at 3'48''...and creepy unison theme just
after that...I'm digging this!

Cheers,
Aaron.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello Microtonal Friends!
>
> You know, I really hate it when people come onto forums who haven't
> been there for a while and simply post their own music. However,
> you'll have to believe me when I say that I have *really good
> excuses* mostly family-related, that have prohibited me from
> involving myself in the tuning lists as in the "good ol' days..."
>
> In any case, I have a new piece up in Blackjack that was done with
> the z3ta+ softsynth with Sonar as sequencer host.
>
> It's the second piece down on the page:
>
> http://www.soundclick.com/josephpehrson/
>
> It's called "microproj." In this work, I was trying to, obviously,
> maximalize the near-just harmonic relationships in the scale, while
> keeping xenharmonic "oddities" to the fore. I noticed that I have a
> different way of working with the scale and with harmonies these
> days. I do very little "pre-compositional" planning, or very little
> harmonic-lattice planning, which I used to do when I started with the
> scale.
>
> Instead, I now do everything *entirely* by ear. It seems to come out
> better that way, reasonably enough.... Basically, I will find the
> sonorities I want and then, frequently writing them down,
> will "adjust" them slightly, voice-by-voice up and down until I reach
> an obvious "near just" chord. Sometimes I use that chord instead of
> the original one I had happened upon in my "improvising/hearing" and
> sometimes I don't. But, at least I want to *know* if a near-just
> chord would be an improvement in any case. On my sketches, I now
> *circle* the "near just" chords. Usually, this being Blackjack,
> there are quite a few of them.
>
> These working methods are a new departure. As I have mentioned, my
> way of working with the scale has been constantly evolving and
> changing, I believe for the better, leading me to believe that, at
> least for *me* there could be a lifetime of work just within mastery
> of this scale alone. (After all, it *did* take me a while to learn
> 12-tET... :)
>
> While you're on the page, you may be interested in another new, fun,
> piece... a very "straightforward" non-microtonal string quartet that
> was written for "fun" to be played in a club atmosphere. It's called
> _Slacker Cracker_ and was just recently premiered by the "Sweet
> Plantain" string quartet at New York's "Cutting Room."
>
> Please do not refrain from any criticisms positive or, espeically,
> negative. This is how I learn...
>
> Thanks so much!
>
> Joseph Pehrson
>

***Thanks so much, Aaron, for this great commentary! Glad you
enjoyed the piece, and happy to hear that you think I've been making
some progress with Blackjack and with my use of the synth...

I'm hoping to participate more again on this forum, if I possibly can
get the time. (I have a 93-year-old mother who is now suddenly in
New York, among all kinds of other favorite excuses... :)

best,

Joseph

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson"
<aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Joseph,
>
> Man I'm glad I caught this post....good to hear from you after all
> this time.
>
> Listening now, and *loving* it! Spacious stereo imaging, which I
love
> (sorry Carl!), great humorous timbres and 'melting gestures',
classic
> moog-lover filter sweeps--what's not to love? Your use of the
> wonderful sonorities of Blackjack never sounded better.
>
> It might be my favorite piece of yours to date, in fact....BRAVO!
> Ooooh---nice wierd timbre at 3'48''...and creepy unison theme just
> after that...I'm digging this!
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron.
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...>
wrote:
>
> ***Thanks so much, Aaron, for this great commentary! Glad you
> enjoyed the piece, and happy to hear that you think I've been making
> some progress with Blackjack and with my use of the synth...

I think your Blackjack music started out fine and has remained fine. It
has a characteristic sound to it which this piece shares (I like it,
BTW.)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@>
> wrote:
> >
> > ***Thanks so much, Aaron, for this great commentary! Glad you
> > enjoyed the piece, and happy to hear that you think I've been
making
> > some progress with Blackjack and with my use of the synth...
>
> I think your Blackjack music started out fine and has remained fine.
It
> has a characteristic sound to it which this piece shares (I like it,
> BTW.)

When I said his 'blackjack music never sounded better' I didn't mean
his other older works were not fine...just that this piece excited me
the most.

>It's the second piece down on the page:
>
>http://www.soundclick.com/josephpehrson/

Hi JP!

The word that comes to mind when I listen to this
is "effective". If that's of any use.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@>
> wrote:
> >
> > ***Thanks so much, Aaron, for this great commentary! Glad you
> > enjoyed the piece, and happy to hear that you think I've been
making
> > some progress with Blackjack and with my use of the synth...
>
> I think your Blackjack music started out fine and has remained
fine. It
> has a characteristic sound to it which this piece shares (I like
it,
> BTW.)
>

***Thanks so much, Gene! It's nice to know there's a
certain "foolish consistency" about it all... :)

BTW, was any progress made on the "bittorrent" stuff? I'm a little
out of the loop, sorry. How does one access it, if so? Thanks!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson"
<aaron@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
> <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ***Thanks so much, Aaron, for this great commentary! Glad you
> > > enjoyed the piece, and happy to hear that you think I've been
> making
> > > some progress with Blackjack and with my use of the synth...
> >
> > I think your Blackjack music started out fine and has remained
fine.
> It
> > has a characteristic sound to it which this piece shares (I like
it,
> > BTW.)
>
> When I said his 'blackjack music never sounded better' I didn't
mean
> his other older works were not fine...just that this piece excited
me
> the most.
>

***This always makes me happy when somebody says my most recent work
is, to them, the most effective. It makes me less happy, logically
enough, when somebody says the earlier work did a better job...

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> >It's the second piece down on the page:
> >
> >http://www.soundclick.com/josephpehrson/
>
> Hi JP!
>
> The word that comes to mind when I listen to this
> is "effective". If that's of any use.
>
> -Carl
>

***Hi Carl!

Well... actually I can't think of any better accolade
than "effective" at the moment, myself.... Thanks for listening!

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@...> wrote:

> BTW, was any progress made on the "bittorrent" stuff? I'm a little
> out of the loop, sorry. How does one access it, if so? Thanks!

Yes, Microtonal Madness was posted and has been a big success, as has
the album Microtonal Music of Prent Rodgers which followed it up.
By "big" I mean hundreds, not millions, in case you got your hopes up
too high.

See

/makemicromusic/topicId_16026.html#16026

and

/makemicromusic/topicId_16174.html#16190

_
| |
Dea| \ Joe and all,

_
| |
Please let me explain that in this message '*' will have to equal the | \
cha*acte*, because that key on my keyboa*d is b*oken, and I'm leaving
tomo**ow to visit my Mom. (Fo*tunately, I can copy the MMM add*ess f*om an
add*ess book, although I haven't figu*ed out how to impo*t text with this
mail *eade*, since the needed code is Cont*ol-* -- in Emacs, I can use an
octal code. When I get back, a new keyboa*d should solve this situation.)

Howeve*, I didn't want to leave without cong*atulating you on you*
Blackwood piece and you* fascinating discussion of how you go about
composing in this tuning.

Fi*st, some feedback on the piece, josephpeh*son_mic*op*oject.mp3.
The*e a*e t*uly exquisite moments that b*ing out something you a*e much
mo*e familia* with: the special beauty of Blackjack. Those moments,
whateve* the explanation one wants to t*y, we*e indeed *eached by you*
method of playing, expe*imenting, and *efining th*ough t*ial and e**o*.
This is how I often app*oach any tuning, and am cu**ently explo*ing
Zest-24, a 24-note ci*culating system based on two ci*cles modified f*om
Za*lino's 2/7-comma meantone.

Anyway, the pitched sono*ities we*e beautiful, and evidence that you*
method yields many f*uits.

Because of my p*oblems with sound sensitivity, some of the non-pitched
effects o* the like which seemed conside*ably loude* than a lot of the
pitched sono*ities did complicate things, putting me in a mood to focus on
acoustical safety and "How loud will this get" *athe* than setting the
volume so that I could easily hea* the quiete* details of those beautiful
ha*monies.

Please let me st*ess that this is _not_ a p*oblem unique to Blackjack, o*
to pieces with less conventional sounds: it is a dynamic tole*ance and
comfo*t p*oblem that could apply to any music with app*eciable dynamic
va*iations. I've lea*ned to be defensive, and listen to a piece fi*st with
some caution until I can fo*m a mental "map" of the dynamic levels and
adjust the volume acco*dingly.

If the less conventional sounds had been at about the same level as the
pitched ones -- o* so it had seemed to me, since I know that loudness
pe*ceptiion is subjective -- then I would have much enjoyed that pa*t too.
Again, it is a matte* of my own idiosync*acies, and wouldn't necessa*ily
affect othe*s that way -- much like a "cont*asty" piano piece (whe*e this
cont*ast is, of cou*se, the ve*y sou*ce of the inst*ument's name).

What I'd also emphasize, as someone who often focuses on *atios of 3, 7,
11, 13, etc., is that 5-limit thi*ds and sixths _do_ have a special
beauty, which you* Blackjack music ve*y much b*ings out. It isn't
necessa*y to impose a unive*sal standa*d of 5-limit intonation to
*ecognize its special qualities.

F*om my point of view, to quote Keenan Peppe*, "It's so 16th-centu*y,"
which maybe makes it a bit mode*n, but then mode*n compose*s like Josquin,
Lasso, and Monteve*di (the ea*ly mad*igals) got me sta*ted in all this,
and I love and use meantone.

You* piece is, to sum up, a most wo*thy use of the unique *esou*ces of
Blackjack, a compose*ly achievement to inspi*e us all.

Peace and love, and best while I'm visiting my Mom,
_
| |
Ma| \go

Ma*go,

U * p*iceless...

Chee*s,
Jon

This is classic comedy!!!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...>
wrote:
>
> _
> | |
> Dea| \ Joe and all,
>
> _
>
| |
> Please let me explain that in this message '*' will have to equal
the | \
> cha*acte*, because that key on my keyboa*d is b*oken, and I'm leaving
> tomo**ow to visit my Mom. (Fo*tunately, I can copy the MMM add*ess
f*om an
> add*ess book, although I haven't figu*ed out how to impo*t text with
this
> mail *eade*, since the needed code is Cont*ol-* -- in Emacs, I can
use an
> octal code. When I get back, a new keyboa*d should solve this
situation.)
>
> Howeve*, I didn't want to leave without cong*atulating you on you*
> Blackwood piece and you* fascinating discussion of how you go about
> composing in this tuning.
>
> Fi*st, some feedback on the piece, josephpeh*son_mic*op*oject.mp3.
> The*e a*e t*uly exquisite moments that b*ing out something you a*e much
> mo*e familia* with: the special beauty of Blackjack. Those moments,
> whateve* the explanation one wants to t*y, we*e indeed *eached by you*
> method of playing, expe*imenting, and *efining th*ough t*ial and e**o*.
> This is how I often app*oach any tuning, and am cu**ently explo*ing
> Zest-24, a 24-note ci*culating system based on two ci*cles modified f*om
> Za*lino's 2/7-comma meantone.
>
> Anyway, the pitched sono*ities we*e beautiful, and evidence that you*
> method yields many f*uits.
>
> Because of my p*oblems with sound sensitivity, some of the non-pitched
> effects o* the like which seemed conside*ably loude* than a lot of the
> pitched sono*ities did complicate things, putting me in a mood to
focus on
> acoustical safety and "How loud will this get" *athe* than setting the
> volume so that I could easily hea* the quiete* details of those
beautiful
> ha*monies.
>
> Please let me st*ess that this is _not_ a p*oblem unique to
Blackjack, o*
> to pieces with less conventional sounds: it is a dynamic tole*ance and
> comfo*t p*oblem that could apply to any music with app*eciable dynamic
> va*iations. I've lea*ned to be defensive, and listen to a piece
fi*st with
> some caution until I can fo*m a mental "map" of the dynamic levels and
> adjust the volume acco*dingly.
>
> If the less conventional sounds had been at about the same level as the
> pitched ones -- o* so it had seemed to me, since I know that loudness
> pe*ceptiion is subjective -- then I would have much enjoyed that
pa*t too.
> Again, it is a matte* of my own idiosync*acies, and wouldn't necessa*ily
> affect othe*s that way -- much like a "cont*asty" piano piece (whe*e
this
> cont*ast is, of cou*se, the ve*y sou*ce of the inst*ument's name).
>
> What I'd also emphasize, as someone who often focuses on *atios of 3, 7,
> 11, 13, etc., is that 5-limit thi*ds and sixths _do_ have a special
> beauty, which you* Blackjack music ve*y much b*ings out. It isn't
> necessa*y to impose a unive*sal standa*d of 5-limit intonation to
> *ecognize its special qualities.
>
> F*om my point of view, to quote Keenan Peppe*, "It's so 16th-centu*y,"
> which maybe makes it a bit mode*n, but then mode*n compose*s like
Josquin,
> Lasso, and Monteve*di (the ea*ly mad*igals) got me sta*ted in all this,
> and I love and use meantone.
>
> You* piece is, to sum up, a most wo*thy use of the unique *esou*ces of
> Blackjack, a compose*ly achievement to inspi*e us all.
>
> Peace and love, and best while I'm visiting my Mom,
> _
> | |
> Ma| \go
>