Re: [MMM] Gyaling Tuning: The Diamond Path

Hi Jacky,

> From: jacky_ligon <jacky_ligon@...>
> To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:43 AM
> Subject: [MMM] Gyaling Tuning: The Diamond Path
>
>
> These are the cents measurements I took from
> analyzing the Tibetan Buddhist Gyaling from
> "The Diamond Path" CD: Shanachie 66006. 09/12/00
>
> Note Cents Closest Just Ratios
> F# 0 1/1
> G 139 13/12
> A 280 20/17
> A# 450 13/10
> B 493 4/3
> C# 707 3/2
> D# 884 5/3

This is really great! I've always been a fan of Tibetan
music and often wondered what strange tunings I was hearing.

That 20/17 looks a little out of place, so I did a search
thru a database I have of 13-limit intervals and found these
alternative candidates:

2 3 5 7 11 13 ratio ~cents

[ 1 -5 0 0 1 1] 286/243 282.0705998
[ 5 -2 -2 1 -1 1] 2912/2475 281.4981964
[-7 4 0 -1 0 1] 1053/896 279.5217588
[-1 -2 2 0 1 -1] 275/234 279.5077066
[ 0 5 -2 -1 1 -1] 2673/2275 279.1119507
[ 3 1 0 1 -1 -1] 168/143 278.9353032

But 20/17 obviously still has much smaller ratio terms
than any of these.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Monzo-Abondonzo,

why does (to your eyes) the 20/17 look out of place?

GZ

monz wrote:

> Hi Jacky,
>
> > From: jacky_ligon <jacky_ligon@...>
> > To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:43 AM
> > Subject: [MMM] Gyaling Tuning: The Diamond Path
> >
> >
> > These are the cents measurements I took from
> > analyzing the Tibetan Buddhist Gyaling from
> > "The Diamond Path" CD: Shanachie 66006. 09/12/00
> >
> > Note Cents Closest Just Ratios
> > F# 0 1/1
> > G 139 13/12
> > A 280 20/17
> > A# 450 13/10
> > B 493 4/3
> > C# 707 3/2
> > D# 884 5/3
>
> This is really great! I've always been a fan of Tibetan
> music and often wondered what strange tunings I was hearing.
>
> That 20/17 looks a little out of place, so I did a search
> thru a database I have of 13-limit intervals and found these
> alternative candidates:
>
> 2 3 5 7 11 13 ratio ~cents
>
> [ 1 -5 0 0 1 1] 286/243 282.0705998
> [ 5 -2 -2 1 -1 1] 2912/2475 281.4981964
> [-7 4 0 -1 0 1] 1053/896 279.5217588
> [-1 -2 2 0 1 -1] 275/234 279.5077066
> [ 0 5 -2 -1 1 -1] 2673/2275 279.1119507
> [ 3 1 0 1 -1 -1] 168/143 278.9353032
>
> But 20/17 obviously still has much smaller ratio terms
> than any of these.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
>
> Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> From: George Zelenz <ploo@...>
> To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Gyaling Tuning: The Diamond Path
>
>
> Monzo-Abondonzo,
>
> why does (to your eyes) the 20/17 look out of place?
>
> GZ

Hi George,

I was just going with Jacky's original observation that
this tuning "had some beautiful 13-limit ratios".
So I gave him a few more to consider. :)

My note at the end that "20/17 obviously still has much
smaller ratio terms" was meant as a "nod of approval"
for Jacky's choice.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Joe,

Two things:

{you wrote...}
>I was just going with Jacky's original observation that this tuning "had >some beautiful 13-limit ratios". So I gave him a few more to consider. :)

I think George's eyebrows might have gotten raised in that Jacky was *measuring* the tuning, not creating it; therefore, any tuning that was found was... the 'right' one. But your clarification also puts your remarks in better light, not that you were trying to 'correct' the original tuning.

Item 2: check the date on your computer - I new mail had come in, right into the MMM mailbox, but I couldn't see it! Sorted by date, it should be the newest.

Newest, that is, unless your computer is one year behind! Your email, taking the date from your machine, was sent on Jan. 13, 2001...

Cheers,
Jon

Monz,

McClaren was right I guess, you ARE living in the past. Oh my gosh, your
computer walked right into that one.

Jon was very perceptive in the movement of my eyebrows. I'm kind of a 13 nut,
as 26 is my number. I have made a few scales that did not have a 20/17, but
looked quite similiar to Jacky's measurements. Just looking at his findings you
can hear it's juicy texture. One hears the 13/10 a fair amount in Mayan music
as well.

Happy Old Years!

George

"Jonathan M. Szanto" wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Two things:
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I was just going with Jacky's original observation that this tuning "had
> >some beautiful 13-limit ratios". So I gave him a few more to consider. :)
>
> I think George's eyebrows might have gotten raised in that Jacky was
> *measuring* the tuning, not creating it; therefore, any tuning that was
> found was... the 'right' one. But your clarification also puts your remarks
> in better light, not that you were trying to 'correct' the original tuning.
>
> Item 2: check the date on your computer - I new mail had come in, right
> into the MMM mailbox, but I couldn't see it! Sorted by date, it should be
> the newest.
>
> Newest, that is, unless your computer is one year behind! Your email,
> taking the date from your machine, was sent on Jan. 13, 2001...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/