Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Moonsuite

The scale works quite well! One question is where did you start the tuning process and did you proceed in one direction only.
I only heard two sections?

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carlo Serafini wrote:
>
> Moonsuite is an experiment using an "empirical" tuning I made up while > studying LMSO's new
> tuning latch function.
> The suite is composed of 3 pieces. All of them have a similar > structure: a lead sound, a pad
> sound and some background noise.
> (see blog for details)
>
> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/moonsuite.mp3 > <http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/moonsuite.mp3>
> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html > <http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html>
>
>

🔗Carlo Serafini <carlo@...>

Hi Kraig
thanks for listening!
I started from C going up.
The sections are three, maybe I crossfaded them so seamslessly that they sound like two.
:-)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> The scale works quite well! One question is where did you start the
> tuning process and did you proceed in one direction only.
> I only heard two sections?
>
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
>
> Carlo Serafini wrote:
> >
> > Moonsuite is an experiment using an "empirical" tuning I made up while
> > studying LMSO's new
> > tuning latch function.
> > The suite is composed of 3 pieces. All of them have a similar
> > structure: a lead sound, a pad
> > sound and some background noise.
> > (see blog for details)
> >
> > http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/moonsuite.mp3
> > <http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html>
> >
> >
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carlo Serafini <carlo@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carlo Serafini" <carlo@...>
>wrote:
>
> Moonsuite is an experiment using an "empirical" tuning I made up
>while studying LMSO's new
> tuning latch function.
> The suite is composed of 3 pieces. All of them have a similar
>structure: a lead sound, a pad
> sound and some background noise.
> (see blog for details)
>
> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/moonsuite.mp3
> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
>

This is groovy, sounds good!

But this statement about the tuning on your website:
"do not follow any possible theory" is demonstratably not true, for
the tuning is what I've been calling a "shadow tuning", and a
very precise one at that.

The "rules" are simple: Just intervals (11 limit in your tuning) and
superparticular Just intervals (only 18/17 and 17/16 in your tuning,
very nice), built in chains based off of either the tonic or a
"shadow" interval. And maximum "punning", or double-meanings, amongst
the intervals, within small tolerances and in a way that directly
refers to the partials which are the "key" to the tuning.

You can demonstrate this to yourself: in this tuning, your "shadow"
interval is the "classic", discussed quite a bit on the Tuning list,
422 cents. This is a Noble (phi mediant) interval, a point of maximum
Harmonic Entropy, and very close to the mean of 14/11 and 9/7. It is
ideal for floating a /11/, /9/-, and /7/ heavy JI structure within,
but not directly on, 1:1 and 2:1, exactly as you have done by ear.

Bop up a 9/7 from that 422 cent shadow and what do you find? Your 857
cent interval. In the meantime you've made a fair pun with, or fuzzy
detuning of, the inverse of 11/9, which is 18/11, and if you stick to
that feeling as you wander about from there, using simpler Just
intervals, you're going to wind up with a tuning that, wherever you
play, tends to put energy (via coincidence and near-coincidence) into
the region between the 7th and 11th partials: a kind of
characteristic "formant" in the overall spectrum.

Anyway, from there, just wander up and down using simple Just
intervals, and you'll immediately find 9 notes of your tuning. The
other 3 are Just off the tonic, but I think they also "pun" with Just
intervals in the series built off the "shadow" interval, don't have
time to check.

This:

1/1
70.672
169.627
296.175
422.097
527.349
572.734
692.177
762.849
857.181
1024.372
1095.045
2/1

took less than 10 minutes to figure out, absolutely strictly
following the rules of "shadow tuning", and using the "most classic"
shadow interval. Look familiar? :-)

By the way, I reverse-engineered the shadow-tuning "theory" from
earing in tunings over the last several years, not vice versa, and
I'm tickled pink that you created a tuning by ear that can be
described so precisely this way.

Did you continually check the tuning against the tonic and itself as
you made it, try to keep a "oneness" to it?

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Carlo Serafini <carlo@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carlo Serafini" <carlo@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron
> I am surprised, puzzled and flattered by your analysis!
>
> Surprised because I did not have anything like you say in mind
>while creating this tuning.

That doesn't matter- I also didn't have anything in mind the many
times I went hunting around for "floating" and "other" tunings that
were somehow "natural and organic".

In fact what I'm saying would be relevant even if you got the
tuning by throwing dice, because I'm describing the structure.
>
> Puzzled because all I did was going through something similar to a
>circle of fifths by ear
> without checking neither if I was close to a 3/2 interval nor
>checking "continually the
> tuning against the tonic".

That's very impressive because there's no way I could get such
a precise shadow tuning without referencing the tonic and continually
checking it against itself (to hear if it "floats" and is "somehow
one".)

>
> Flattered because you spent some time with my tuning, listened to
>my song and liked it!

My pleasure. But as I said, I didn't spend much time at all because
you've made a "classic" shadow tuning, regardless of how you went
about it.
>
> I'll try to figure out what you said, I'm impressed.

I just took a few minutes to go through it, and it's even closer to
a perfect shadow tuning than I thought.

Check it out:

422 cents may be "the" shadow interval, it even has names on the
Tuning List, for quite some time now- Noble high third, Metastable
Supramajor Third, etc.

Let's call it Nh3.

Now, the Nh3 "floats" between 14/11 and 9/7, so maybe it makes sense
to keep an eye and ear on the 7, 9, and 11th partials. And we're
going to favor superparticular intervals as well as 7/9/11-flavored
simple JI.

Starting at the Nh3, let's go up a step that fits our criteria, say,
12/11, both superparticular and refering to the eleventh partial.

that gives us an interval of 573 cents.
Moonsuite tuning: 572 cents.

up a 9/7 from Nh3, also ideal according to this theory: 857 cents.
Moonsuite tuning: 857 cents.

how about, say, 7/6 up from the Nh3? 689 cents.
Moonsuite tuning: 689.7 cents.

Lessee, how about 11/9 down from the Nh3? 74 cents.
Moonsuite tuning: 72 cents.

At this point, if we were to transpose so that the Nh3 were to be the
tonic, we have:

1/1
12/11
7/6
9/7
18/11
2/1

within the tuning. The deviations from what you have are negligable,
as the one "big" error is still only 2 cents.

Do you really think that Occam's razor is going to chalk that
structure up to sheer coincidence?

How about the other intervals?

Let's see, looking at our 11-limit shadow structure which is floating
off the Nh3. How about doing a nifty pun? We'll put the square root
of 2, 600 cents, into this structure and at the same time use another
11-limit simple superparticular interval.

11/10 up from the 9/7 gives us 600 cents,

transposed against the original tonic: 1022 cents.
Moonsuite tuning: 1021.4 cents

We now have a shadow tuning of:

1/1 (at Nh3)
12/11
7/6
9/7
99/70 (600 cents and 11/10 above 9/7)
18/11
2/1

How about the other intervals? Well, the 763.1 cent interval in the
Moonsuite tuning is within 2 cents of 14/9. That means that the
original tonic has a 9/7 below it and the shadow tonic has a 9/7
above it.

We have the curious 169.7 interval of Moonsuite.
That's easy now that we see the shadow tuning- what's 19/11 from the
Nh3, in relation to the original tonic? 168.3 cents

1/1 (at Nh3)
12/11
7/6
9/7
99/70 (600 cents, and 11/10 above 9/7)
18/11
19/11
2/1

Coincidence? Yeah, right.

We don't even have to mention the position of the 763c/14:9 interval
at 19/18 below the 857 cent interval, in the original transpostion,
but you can see that the shadow tuning has an interval 19/18 above
its circa 850cent interval, and the original tuning has an interval
19/18 below its circa 850cent interval.

The shadow structure transposed back to the original tonic:

1/1
74.592 cents
168.195 cents
422.000 cents
572.637 cents
688.871 cents
857.084 cents
1022.088 cents
1200.000 cents

You can fill out the rest with Just and superparticular intervals, I
don't have time to figure out more red threads (the m3 is 14/13 below
the Nh3 etc).

take care,

Cameron Bobro

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I would say something is going on here. What comes to mind is that with 12 ET we are used to these intervals acting in real music as quite often different intervals by gesture, which capitalizes on the ambiguous nature of the mistuning. So possibly if one would wish to construct another 'empirical' 12 ET one might gravitate to those same qualities in intervals one choose, out of some 'cultural habit'. Just a thought. What i want is to see now is how an 'empirical' 7 'equal" tone tuning would turn out

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Cameron Bobro wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "Carlo Serafini" <carlo@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cameron
> > I am surprised, puzzled and flattered by your analysis!
> >
> > Surprised because I did not have anything like you say in mind
> >while creating this tuning.
>
> That doesn't matter- I also didn't have anything in mind the many
> times I went hunting around for "floating" and "other" tunings that
> were somehow "natural and organic".
>
> In fact what I'm saying would be relevant even if you got the
> tuning by throwing dice, because I'm describing the structure.
> >
> > Puzzled because all I did was going through something similar to a
> >circle of fifths by ear
> > without checking neither if I was close to a 3/2 interval nor
> >checking "continually the
> > tuning against the tonic".
>
> That's very impressive because there's no way I could get such
> a precise shadow tuning without referencing the tonic and continually
> checking it against itself (to hear if it "floats" and is "somehow
> one".)
>
> >
> > Flattered because you spent some time with my tuning, listened to
> >my song and liked it!
>
> My pleasure. But as I said, I didn't spend much time at all because
> you've made a "classic" shadow tuning, regardless of how you went
> about it.
> >
> > I'll try to figure out what you said, I'm impressed.
>
> I just took a few minutes to go through it, and it's even closer to
> a perfect shadow tuning than I thought.
>
> Check it out:
>
> 422 cents may be "the" shadow interval, it even has names on the
> Tuning List, for quite some time now- Noble high third, Metastable
> Supramajor Third, etc.
>
> Let's call it Nh3.
>
> Now, the Nh3 "floats" between 14/11 and 9/7, so maybe it makes sense
> to keep an eye and ear on the 7, 9, and 11th partials. And we're
> going to favor superparticular intervals as well as 7/9/11-flavored
> simple JI.
>
> Starting at the Nh3, let's go up a step that fits our criteria, say,
> 12/11, both superparticular and refering to the eleventh partial.
>
> that gives us an interval of 573 cents.
> Moonsuite tuning: 572 cents.
>
> up a 9/7 from Nh3, also ideal according to this theory: 857 cents.
> Moonsuite tuning: 857 cents.
>
> how about, say, 7/6 up from the Nh3? 689 cents.
> Moonsuite tuning: 689.7 cents.
>
> Lessee, how about 11/9 down from the Nh3? 74 cents.
> Moonsuite tuning: 72 cents.
>
> At this point, if we were to transpose so that the Nh3 were to be the
> tonic, we have:
>
> 1/1
> 12/11
> 7/6
> 9/7
> 18/11
> 2/1
>
> within the tuning. The deviations from what you have are negligable,
> as the one "big" error is still only 2 cents.
>
> Do you really think that Occam's razor is going to chalk that
> structure up to sheer coincidence?
>
> How about the other intervals?
>
> Let's see, looking at our 11-limit shadow structure which is floating
> off the Nh3. How about doing a nifty pun? We'll put the square root
> of 2, 600 cents, into this structure and at the same time use another
> 11-limit simple superparticular interval.
>
> 11/10 up from the 9/7 gives us 600 cents,
>
> transposed against the original tonic: 1022 cents.
> Moonsuite tuning: 1021.4 cents
>
> We now have a shadow tuning of:
>
> 1/1 (at Nh3)
> 12/11
> 7/6
> 9/7
> 99/70 (600 cents and 11/10 above 9/7)
> 18/11
> 2/1
>
> How about the other intervals? Well, the 763.1 cent interval in the
> Moonsuite tuning is within 2 cents of 14/9. That means that the
> original tonic has a 9/7 below it and the shadow tonic has a 9/7
> above it.
>
> We have the curious 169.7 interval of Moonsuite.
> That's easy now that we see the shadow tuning- what's 19/11 from the
> Nh3, in relation to the original tonic? 168.3 cents
>
> 1/1 (at Nh3)
> 12/11
> 7/6
> 9/7
> 99/70 (600 cents, and 11/10 above 9/7)
> 18/11
> 19/11
> 2/1
>
> Coincidence? Yeah, right.
>
> We don't even have to mention the position of the 763c/14:9 interval
> at 19/18 below the 857 cent interval, in the original transpostion,
> but you can see that the shadow tuning has an interval 19/18 above
> its circa 850cent interval, and the original tuning has an interval
> 19/18 below its circa 850cent interval.
>
> The shadow structure transposed back to the original tonic:
>
> 1/1
> 74.592 cents
> 168.195 cents
> 422.000 cents
> 572.637 cents
> 688.871 cents
> 857.084 cents
> 1022.088 cents
> 1200.000 cents
>
> You can fill out the rest with Just and superparticular intervals, I
> don't have time to figure out more red threads (the m3 is 14/13 below
> the Nh3 etc).
>
> take care,
>
> Cameron Bobro
>
>