Micro terms

I teach a great deal, and also work with many musicians, from various styles of music. At some point, I often mention that I play microtonal music...and what I've found, more often then not, is that most musicians, even really good classical or jazz players, have very little to no knowledge of even the most basic terms regarding tuning issues. I'm still surprised when a musician doesn't know the term cents, or doesn't know what the harmonic series is...but, it's a very common thing.
Of course, the fault is with the education systems that teach music...students are rarely, if ever, exposed to anything other than the 12 tone eq tempered system (and nobody even bothers to explain how IT came to be, either), so they can't be expected to know about anything else. One of my goals is to help people understand the basics of tuning, so for me, simple concepts are best at first...and what I've found is, it can be tricky trying to explain just what the overtone series is, much less the intricacies of Pythagorean tuning, or just why any of it matters in the first place. And, among the folks who study tuning, there can, of course, be many different approaches...the lists are pretty much geared towards really advanced theoretical discussions, so only a few people can understand what's being talked about. No problem, but it takes years to reach that point. My own personal desire is that the subject of tunings can be made available to as many people as possible, so I gear my language and explanations towards that end...Hstick

myspace.com/microstick nycfretlessguitarfestival.com

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>My own personal desire is that the subject of tunings can be made available to as many
people as possible, so I gear my language and explanations towards that end...Hstick
>
>
Hi Neil
I really agree with you. this is my first post here. I have been a lurker for a long time though
and if you, or others, want to check out my microtonal studies click here:
http://www.seraph.it/Detwelvulation.html

Hi Neil,

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

> <snip> ...the lists are pretty much geared towards really
> advanced theoretical discussions, so only a few people can
> understand what's being talked about. No problem, but it
> takes years to reach that point. My own personal desire is
> that the subject of tunings can be made available to as many
> people as possible, so I gear my language and explanations
> towards that end...Hstick

That's *exactly* why i created the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia
(which was originally called "Dictionary of Tuning Terms"
... in fact, that might have been its second name: i think
the first one was "Glossary of Tuning Terms").

I had spent so much time and effort hunting down massive
volumes on dusty university library shelves in order to
learn the meaning of "proslambanomenos", "hypaton", etc.,
that i wanted to make it a lot easier for others who had
the same curiosity. I figured the internet was the way
to go.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

BTW, thanks for that. I'm finding it very useful.

I know a lot about alternative tuning, but it's all from my own thought
and instrument building experiments, so I have very little vocabulary.

> That's *exactly* why i created the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia
> (which was originally called "Dictionary of Tuning Terms"
> ... in fact, that might have been its second name: i think
> the first one was "Glossary of Tuning Terms").
>

--
http://DoctorOakroot.com - Rough-edged songs on homemade GIT-tars.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "iranief" <carlo@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@> wrote:
> >My own personal desire is that the subject of tunings can be made
available to as many
> people as possible, so I gear my language and explanations towards
that end...Hstick
> >
> >
> Hi Neil
> I really agree with you. this is my first post here. I have been a
lurker for a long time though
> and if you, or others, want to check out my microtonal studies click
here:
> http://www.seraph.it/Detwelvulation.html

Good to see you here!

Paolo

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

> I really agree with you. this is my first post here. I have been a
lurker for a long time though
> and if you, or others, want to check out my microtonal studies click
here:
> http://www.seraph.it/Detwelvulation.html

Speaking of micro terms, around here dividing the fifth into six equal
parts is commonly done, though usually with a slightly flat fifth such
as 700 cents. This we call a "secor" and it is often used *not* as a no-
octaves temperament, but along with octaves.

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

> Speaking of micro terms, around here dividing the fifth into six
equal
> parts is commonly done, though usually with a slightly flat fifth
such
> as 700 cents.

In case you are wondering why flat, consider this:

cents(3/2)/6 = 116.9925

cents(8/5)/7 = 116.2409

cents(8/7)/2 = 115.5870

cents(11/4)/15 = 116.7545

In order to ger the other values in closer tune, it's best to flatten
the fifth. This is true whether or not you are using secors for a no-
octaves tuning.

thanks Gene
you are saying to divide 700 cents by 6 = 116.667 cents, right? If I understand correctly,
I'm sure that to my ear those very small differences would not be perceivable (we are, by
far, below Just Noticeable Difference, we are talking about 1/3 of a cent difference!), plus,
it depends on the context where you use a tuning: that piece using it (Metashakti at
http://www.seraph.it/Detwelvulation.html )is vaguely tonal. I entered that tuning (I did
with LMSO), into the tuning table of Metasynth Pro and started "painting" with it.
Best,
Carlo

> <genewardsmith@> wrote:
>
> > Speaking of micro terms, around here dividing the fifth into six
> equal
> > parts is commonly done, though usually with a slightly flat fifth
> such
> > as 700 cents.
>
> In case you are wondering why flat, consider this:
>
> cents(3/2)/6 = 116.9925
>
> cents(8/5)/7 = 116.2409
>
> cents(8/7)/2 = 115.5870
>
> cents(11/4)/15 = 116.7545
>
> In order to ger the other values in closer tune, it's best to flatten
> the fifth. This is true whether or not you are using secors for a no-
> octaves tuning.
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "iranief" <carlo@...> wrote:
>
> thanks Gene
> you are saying to divide 700 cents by 6 = 116.667 cents, right?

Right.

> If I understand correctly,
> I'm sure that to my ear those very small differences would not be
perceivable

Ah, but they add up! And "just noticable" means different things;
it's certainly possible to notice that 700 cents isn't 702 cents,
even though that is below the so-called Just Noticable Difference.

Suppose we use the exact 1/6 of a pure fifth. Then fifths are pure,
and we now can notice that the 700 cents we get from the other method
isn't quite the same. If we go up seven of these, we get an
approximate 8/5, with an octave complement of 381 cents. If we use
the other value for the secor, we get 383 1/3 cents. The pure third
is 386 1/3 cent. The difference is audible if you play the intervals
as chords.

Now go up 15 of your secors; you get 1754.9 cents. The other way, you
get exactly 1750 cents. The pure 11/4 is 1751.3 cents.

thanks again Gene! I guess you are right, they add up!
Best,
Carlo

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "iranief" <carlo@> wrote:
> >
> > thanks Gene
> > you are saying to divide 700 cents by 6 = 116.667 cents, right?
>
> Right.
>
> > If I understand correctly,
> > I'm sure that to my ear those very small differences would not be
> perceivable
>
> Ah, but they add up!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "iranief" <carlo@...> wrote:
>
> thanks Gene
> you are saying to divide 700 cents by 6 = 116.667 cents, right?

Right.

> If I understand correctly,
> I'm sure that to my ear those very small differences would not be
perceivable

Ah, but they add up! And "just noticable" means different things;
it's certainly possible to notice that 700 cents isn't 702 cents,
even though that is below the so-called Just Noticable Difference.

Suppose we use the exact 1/6 of a pure fifth. Then fifths are pure,
and we now can notice that the 700 cents we get from the other method
isn't quite the same. If we go up seven of these, we get an
approximate 8/5, with an octave complement of 381 cents. If we use
the other value for the secor, we get 383 1/3 cents. The pure third
is 386 1/3 cent. The difference is audible if you play the intervals
as chords.

Now go up 15 of your secors; you get 1754.9 cents. The other way, you
get exactly 1750 cents. The pure 11/4 is 1751.3 cents.