Carlos Glass 1

Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It means live
modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor to the pitch and key of a
note in the original scale.

http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html

At 05:39 AM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
>Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
>means live modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor
>to the pitch and key of a note in the original scale.
>
>http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
>http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html

Carlo,

Very good to see you working with this! It's a very powerful
paradigm, but so far little-explored. Kurt Bigler is the most
proficient with it that I've heard, but unfortunately I don't
think he's ever recorded it. He does have some extended JI
harpsichord improvs up here:

http://voxdigitalis.com/dual-harmonic-recordings.html

I'll have to try nagging him about it. :)

-Carl

Thanks Carl
it's an uncharted territory. it's a very humbling experience but I would like to keep working
on this 'paradigm'.
I'll check out the music of Kurt Bigler.
thanks again.

Carlo

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 05:39 AM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
> >Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
> >means live modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor
> >to the pitch and key of a note in the original scale.
> >
> >http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
> >http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
>
> Carlo,
>
> Very good to see you working with this! It's a very powerful
> paradigm, but so far little-explored. Kurt Bigler is the most
> proficient with it that I've heard, but unfortunately I don't
> think he's ever recorded it. He does have some extended JI
> harpsichord improvs up here:
>
> http://voxdigitalis.com/dual-harmonic-recordings.html
>
> I'll have to try nagging him about it. :)
>
> -Carl
>

This dual harmonic appears to be the same as one of Canwrights.
along the same idea of Erv Helixsongs.
7th paper down below
http://anaphoria.com/wilson.html

in general
The eikosany is a hotbed of modulations.

The tuning here is funny in that you have 12-24 plus 27.
Many of the subharmonic flutes will tune an exit hole a 3/2 or 4/3 away from one of the subharmonics.
It is the same idea with the inverse, the harmonic and higher up the series,
except possibly on one of those planets where they have12 fingers to play flutes with this many equidistant holes

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>

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

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> At 05:39 AM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
> >Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
> >means live modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor
> >to the pitch and key of a note in the original scale.
> >
> >http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3 > <http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3>
> >http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html > <http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html>
>
> Carlo,
>
> Very good to see you working with this! It's a very powerful
> paradigm, but so far little-explored. Kurt Bigler is the most
> proficient with it that I've heard, but unfortunately I don't
> think he's ever recorded it. He does have some extended JI
> harpsichord improvs up here:
>
> http://voxdigitalis.com/dual-harmonic-recordings.html > <http://voxdigitalis.com/dual-harmonic-recordings.html>
>
> I'll have to try nagging him about it. :)
>
> -Carl
>
>

Kraig wrote:

>This dual harmonic appears to be the same as one of Canwrights.
> along the same idea of Erv Helixsongs.
>7th paper down below
>http://anaphoria.com/wilson.html

Kurt's done a lot of experimenting with dual harmonic scales
on the halberstadt, which I've helped him with. As I discussed
here recently, there are only a few obvious ways to do it.
I believe Canright gives 4/3 an 11 identity, whereas I prefer to
give 1/1 a 15 identity. I believe Kurt prefers to center it
on C and G instead of F and C, for fingering reasons.

> in general
>The eikosany is a hotbed of modulations.

Dual harmonic scales don't really have anything to do with the
eikosany, and it's hard to put a subset of the eikosany on a
harpsichord. But the eikosany is pretty much the best all-around
resource in pure JI in my opinion, if that's what you wanted
to hear.

-Carl

Carlo,

Is this then a type of adaptive tuning? Just one that is under the arbitrary
control of the performer?

Thanks,

Chris

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...> wrote:

> Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
> means live
> modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor to the pitch
> and key of a
> note in the original scale.
>
> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
>
>
>

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

At 01:36 PM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
>Carlo,
>
>Is this then a type of adaptive tuning? Just one that is under the arbitrary
>control of the performer?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Chris

Yes, that's accurate in a sense. But as "adaptive tuning" is usually
used to mean something much more advanced, I think we should have a
separate name for this for usual usage. Kurt and I call it "XMW"
tuning, for Xenharmonic Moving Windows. It probably wouldn't be much
of a stretch to come up with a better term. :)

-Carl

what about calliing it simply "Dynamic Modulation"?
:-)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 01:36 PM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
> >Carlo,
> >
> >Is this then a type of adaptive tuning? Just one that is under the arbitrary
> >control of the performer?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Chris
>
> Yes, that's accurate in a sense. But as "adaptive tuning" is usually
> used to mean something much more advanced, I think we should have a
> separate name for this for usual usage. Kurt and I call it "XMW"
> tuning, for Xenharmonic Moving Windows. It probably wouldn't be much
> of a stretch to come up with a better term. :)
>
> -Carl
>

modulated adaptive tuning?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carlo Serafini" <carlo@...>

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:43:13
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Carlos Glass 1

what about calliing it simply "Dynamic Modulation"?
:-)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 01:36 PM 12/11/2008, you wrote:
> >Carlo,
> >
> >Is this then a type of adaptive tuning? Just one that is under the arbitrary
> >control of the performer?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Chris
>
> Yes, that's accurate in a sense. But as "adaptive tuning" is usually
> used to mean something much more advanced, I think we should have a
> separate name for this for usual usage. Kurt and I call it "XMW"
> tuning, for Xenharmonic Moving Windows. It probably wouldn't be much
> of a stretch to come up with a better term. :)
>
> -Carl
>

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

At 02:43 PM 12/11/2008, Carlo wrote:
>what about calliing it simply "Dynamic Modulation"?
>:-)

I like it!

It's actually my particular brand of dynamic modulation
that Kurt implemented in his software. The name of the
paper where I discuss it is XMW...

http://lumma.org/music/theory/XMW.txt

-Carl

At 02:48 PM 12/11/2008, Chris wrote:
> modulated adaptive tuning?

Maybe "manual adaptive tuning". But seriously, if the
phrase "adaptive tuning" comes out anywhere in the term
for this, you are going to seriously confuse people
(trust me on this). -Carl

yes Carl, I would leave the term 'adaptive tuning' for stuff like Hermode Tuning
http://www.hermode.com/index_en.html

- C

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 02:48 PM 12/11/2008, Chris wrote:
> > modulated adaptive tuning?
>
> Maybe "manual adaptive tuning". But seriously, if the
> phrase "adaptive tuning" comes out anywhere in the term
> for this, you are going to seriously confuse people
> (trust me on this). -Carl
>

All due respect to you both
- doesn't modulation bring to mind the "classical" modulate of keys and
here we are talking about changing tuning?

I suggest using "retuning" instead of modulation.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...> wrote:

> yes Carl, I would leave the term 'adaptive tuning' for stuff like
> Hermode Tuning
> http://www.hermode.com/index_en.html
>
> - C
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > At 02:48 PM 12/11/2008, Chris wrote:
> > > modulated adaptive tuning?
> >
> > Maybe "manual adaptive tuning". But seriously, if the
> > phrase "adaptive tuning" comes out anywhere in the term
> > for this, you are going to seriously confuse people
> > (trust me on this). -Carl
> >
>
>
>

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

At 03:42 PM 12/11/2008, Chris wrote:
>All due respect to you both
>- doesn't modulation bring to mind the "classical" modulate of keys and
>here we are talking about changing tuning?
>
>I suggest using "retuning" instead of modulation.

It's actually a change of keys, not a change of tuning.

-Carl

ok,

I gotta take your word at it. I'm not hearing modulation - but I almost
failed ear training in college.

Quite honestly I need to study Carlos' website more.

Its a great idea, and intricate.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 03:42 PM 12/11/2008, Chris wrote:
> >All due respect to you both
> >- doesn't modulation bring to mind the "classical" modulate of keys and
> >here we are talking about changing tuning?
> >
> >I suggest using "retuning" instead of modulation.
>
> It's actually a change of keys, not a change of tuning.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Well it sounds terribly out of tune to me.I understand why you want this
dynamic modulation.
But in practical reality will it help you play correct JI? I don't think so.
With JI you must know exactly which intervals to play otherwise it's worse
than equal temperament.
Or am I wrong in thinking this is for just intonation?

-Marcel

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...> wrote:

> Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
> means live
> modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor to the pitch
> and key of a
> note in the original scale.
>
> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
>
>
>

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

what could "out of tune" possibly mean within the context of tuning
experimentation?

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> Well it sounds terribly out of tune to me.I understand why you want this
> dynamic modulation.
> But in practical reality will it help you play correct JI? I don't think so.
> With JI you must know exactly which intervals to play otherwise it's worse
> than equal temperament.
> Or am I wrong in thinking this is for just intonation?
>
> -Marcel
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...> wrote:
>
>> Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
>> means live
>> modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor to the pitch
>> and key of a
>> note in the original scale.
>>
>> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
>> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

:)Well. It apeared to me that dynamic modulation in this case is ment to
more easily play just intonation.
I might be wrong in thinking this and if it is indeed only expirimentation
then there is no out of tune sure.
But in just intonation where you beleive there is a 'correct' way of playing
things then out of tune is valid.
As this example sounded to me a lot like just intonation chords the
modulations sounded out of tune.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:

> what could "out of tune" possibly mean within the context of tuning
> experimentation?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...<m.develde%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Well it sounds terribly out of tune to me.I understand why you want this
> > dynamic modulation.
> > But in practical reality will it help you play correct JI? I don't think
> so.
> > With JI you must know exactly which intervals to play otherwise it's
> worse
> > than equal temperament.
> > Or am I wrong in thinking this is for just intonation?
> >
> > -Marcel
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...<carlo%40seraph.it>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
> >> means live
> >> modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor to the
> pitch
> >> and key of a
> >> note in the original scale.
> >>
> >> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
> >> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>

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

And what I also ment was that it apears to me dynamic modulation is ment to
save keys on the keyboard.Then I'm thinking you probably wouldn't want most
of the keys that you reach by dynamic modulation on your keyboard as the
results won't be musically meaningfull (unless you're in equal temperament
which would be a complete dynamic modulation of itself)
So why do it unless you have a valid theory behind it and know you need the
notes you reach by dynamic modulation.
Again I understand the idea, but in practice it just doesn't give anything
musical it seems. And that's exactly what it sounds like to me aswell.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

> :)Well. It apeared to me that dynamic modulation in this case is ment to
> more easily play just intonation.
> I might be wrong in thinking this and if it is indeed only expirimentation
> then there is no out of tune sure.
> But in just intonation where you beleive there is a 'correct' way of
> playing things then out of tune is valid.
> As this example sounded to me a lot like just intonation chords the
> modulations sounded out of tune.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...>wrote:
>
>> what could "out of tune" possibly mean within the context of tuning
>> experimentation?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...<m.develde%40gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> > Well it sounds terribly out of tune to me.I understand why you want this
>> > dynamic modulation.
>> > But in practical reality will it help you play correct JI? I don't think
>> so.
>> > With JI you must know exactly which intervals to play otherwise it's
>> worse
>> > than equal temperament.
>> > Or am I wrong in thinking this is for just intonation?
>> >
>> > -Marcel
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...<carlo%40seraph.it>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Carlos Glass 1 is a short example demonstrating DYNAMIC MODULATION. It
>> >> means live
>> >> modulation changes during performance transposing the anchor to the
>> pitch
>> >> and key of a
>> >> note in the original scale.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.seraph.it/dep/det/CarlosGlass1.mp3
>> >> http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

At 08:47 PM 12/11/2008, Dante wrote:
>what could "out of tune" possibly mean within the context of tuning
>experimentation?

In this example, there are transitions between very standard
5-limit harmony and some extended stuff that could be jarring.
Also -- and I wouldn't swear to this but -- I thought I detected
some retuning artifacts in the first couple notes after a
modulation. I sometimes hear, or think I hear (I can never
quite tell if I'm imagining it) this sort of thing with pitch
bend retuning using channel swapping, which I believe is how
LMSO does this.

-Carl

Marcel wrote:
>So why do it unless you have a valid theory behind it and know you
>need the notes you reach by dynamic modulation.

It's pretty simple. The Carlos harmonic scale is a harmonic series
segment. It contains an approximate diatonic scale, but it is only
consonant in one key. If you want to change keys, you simply want
to rotate the scale so that it's consonant in the new key. I believe
Carlo has a diagram on his blog. The idea is, you can just play your
music as you would in equal temperament, but it will sound in just
intonation as long as you can handle continually telling the system
what key you are playing in. There are some subtleties outlined in
my XMW document, but that's about it. You may prefer a keyboard
with all the extra tones on it from the start, but such keyboards are
not widely available (though that is finally changing). Others may
prefer to make harness the skills they've learned on the traditional
keyboard.

-Carl

Aaah I understand.Ok then I understand why you'd want this.
But, I don't beleive you can call this in tune as this is not how just
intonation works.
You can just step any just intonation chord up by any interval, that'll be
horribly out of tune.
Modulations have to follow specific rules.
I mean when you play this scale from it's root key it may be in tune.
But when you then use any of those keys as a new root the following chords
may be in tune with the new root, but the modulation itself will probably be
very much out of tune.
It's like playing in major or minor, you can't just play for instance a
4:5:6 chord to any of the keys of a major scale and still be in major key.
You can allready play wrong sounding things in this way in equal
temperament, now the traps and wrong modulations for this are many many
times bigger in just intonation.
It's just not how music works.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
> >So why do it unless you have a valid theory behind it and know you
> >need the notes you reach by dynamic modulation.
>
> It's pretty simple. The Carlos harmonic scale is a harmonic series
> segment. It contains an approximate diatonic scale, but it is only
> consonant in one key. If you want to change keys, you simply want
> to rotate the scale so that it's consonant in the new key. I believe
> Carlo has a diagram on his blog. The idea is, you can just play your
> music as you would in equal temperament, but it will sound in just
> intonation as long as you can handle continually telling the system
> what key you are playing in. There are some subtleties outlined in
> my XMW document, but that's about it. You may prefer a keyboard
> with all the extra tones on it from the start, but such keyboards are
> not widely available (though that is finally changing). Others may
> prefer to make harness the skills they've learned on the traditional
> keyboard.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

At 09:38 PM 12/11/2008, Marcel wrote:
>Aaah I understand.Ok then I understand why you'd want this.
>But, I don't beleive you can call this in tune as this is not how just
>intonation works.
>You can just step any just intonation chord up by any interval, that'll be
>horribly out of tune.

One must keep the relationships between the notes of the chord
the same when moving the chord. Which is exactly what this approach
does.

>I mean when you play this scale from it's root key it may be in tune.
>But when you then use any of those keys as a new root the following chords
>may be in tune with the new root, but the modulation itself will probably be
>very much out of tune.
>It's like playing in major or minor, you can't just play for instance a
>4:5:6 chord to any of the keys of a major scale and still be in major key.
>You can allready play wrong sounding things in this way in equal
>temperament, now the traps and wrong modulations for this are many many
>times bigger in just intonation.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example?

-Carl

who decides how music works? You?
I think you can not apply rules created for 12tET to anything outside it.
I am not trying to be belligerent and I understand my piece may sound awkward and out of
tune but that's an experiment trying to show what the possibilities are once you cross the
border of xentonality. We all, I guess, were brought up with 12tET so it is not easy to
accept anything else.
Was Harry Partch out of tune?
The idea for this tune was this sentence by Wendy Carlos:
""I wound up with an array of 12 times 12 (144) different
pitches in the octave, each of which represents a pattern of the 12
closest-fit partials to a particular fundamental. You play the piece by starting in one key
and then as you move along to another, you hit a reference key on a special little keyboard
and it instantly retunes the whole instrument."
http://www.wendycarlos.com/cochran.html
(the notes are not really 144, but that's another story)
That's what I tried to achieve. I am not close to Wendy's expertise on this matter by any
stretch of the imagination, I am only a beginner!
;-))

-C

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel de Velde" <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
>
> It's just not how music works.
>

well it looks like you have a diamond like Partch just taken out to higher harmonics +27. this means that you also have all this material subharmonically too

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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:
>
> who decides how music works? You?
> I think you can not apply rules created for 12tET to anything outside it.
> I am not trying to be belligerent and I understand my piece may sound > awkward and out of
> tune but that's an experiment trying to show what the possibilities > are once you cross the
> border of xentonality. We all, I guess, were brought up with 12tET so > it is not easy to
> accept anything else.
> Was Harry Partch out of tune?
> The idea for this tune was this sentence by Wendy Carlos:
> ""I wound up with an array of 12 times 12 (144) different
> pitches in the octave, each of which represents a pattern of the 12
> closest-fit partials to a particular fundamental. You play the piece > by starting in one key
> and then as you move along to another, you hit a reference key on a > special little keyboard
> and it instantly retunes the whole instrument."
> http://www.wendycarlos.com/cochran.html > <http://www.wendycarlos.com/cochran.html>
> (the notes are not really 144, but that's another story)
> That's what I tried to achieve. I am not close to Wendy's expertise on > this matter by any
> stretch of the imagination, I am only a beginner!
> ;-))
>
> -C
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "Marcel de Velde" > <m.develde@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's just not how music works.
> >
>
>

At 12:04 AM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
>well it looks like you have a diamond like Partch just taken out to
>higher harmonics +27. this means that you also have all this material
>subharmonically too.

It looks like a diamond but one must remember all tones are not
available at once! There is no way to play subharmonic chords.

-Carl

oh. because of the way the keyboard is tune? If you have a 'zavinul' keyboard the backward thing would give it you:)

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>

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

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> At 12:04 AM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
> >well it looks like you have a diamond like Partch just taken out to
> >higher harmonics +27. this means that you also have all this material
> >subharmonically too.
>
> It looks like a diamond but one must remember all tones are not
> available at once! There is no way to play subharmonic chords.
>
> -Carl
>
>

The fascinating thing of this approach, for me, is that I can use an Halberstadt keyboard
because all I have at any single moment is only 12 notes per octave.
The keyboard becomes something like a symphonic harp where you have pedals to change
the pitch of the strings but in a very more xeno-advanced-alien way.
Maybe the Vulcan harp of Mr. Spock could do something like that!!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like a diamond but one must remember all tones are not
> available at once! There is no way to play subharmonic chords.
>
> -Carl
>

you could arrange the whole thing where you had 12 subharmonic series too

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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:
>
> The fascinating thing of this approach, for me, is that I can use an > Halberstadt keyboard
> because all I have at any single moment is only 12 notes per octave.
> The keyboard becomes something like a symphonic harp where you have > pedals to change
> the pitch of the strings but in a very more xeno-advanced-alien way.
> Maybe the Vulcan harp of Mr. Spock could do something like that!!
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like a diamond but one must remember all tones are not
> > available at once! There is no way to play subharmonic chords.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
>

Carlos Harmonic:
1/1, 17/16, 9/8, 19/16, 5/4, 21/16, 11/8, 3/2, 13/8, 27/16, 7/4, 15/8
Carlos Subharmonic:
1/1, 16/15, 8/7, 32/27, 16/13, 4/3, 16/11, 32/21, 8/5, 32/19, 16/9, 32/17

something like that?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> you could arrange the whole thing where you had 12 subharmonic series too
>

yes i understand keeping the relations of the chord the same when moving the
chord.but as a very basic example take pythagorean as the basic scale and
then modulate it according to dynamic modulation.
play 1/1 3/2 9/4 and play this chord up by 9/8 every time. that's not
correct. and you can't even get back to where you started after just 2
modulations except exactly thesame way back. (since 1024/729 is not part of
the 12-tone pythagorean scale, and even if you were to include it, there's
no way back in just 3 modulations of 9/8)
seen from the first root key this will give 1/1 3/2 9/4 > 9/8 27/16 81/32 >
81/64 243/128 729/512
now this will only give you the out of tune in the range of pythagorean
comma etc
but now do thesame with 5-limit intervals or 7-limit intervals and it gets
very out of tune very fast. and will make it impossible to modulate directly
back to the original key after just 2 modulations most of the time.
it's just not how music is constructed.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 09:38 PM 12/11/2008, Marcel wrote:
> >Aaah I understand.Ok then I understand why you'd want this.
> >But, I don't beleive you can call this in tune as this is not how just
> >intonation works.
> >You can just step any just intonation chord up by any interval, that'll be
> >horribly out of tune.
>
> One must keep the relationships between the notes of the chord
> the same when moving the chord. Which is exactly what this approach
> does.
>
> >I mean when you play this scale from it's root key it may be in tune.
> >But when you then use any of those keys as a new root the following chords
> >may be in tune with the new root, but the modulation itself will probably
> be
> >very much out of tune.
> >It's like playing in major or minor, you can't just play for instance a
> >4:5:6 chord to any of the keys of a major scale and still be in major key.
> >You can allready play wrong sounding things in this way in equal
> >temperament, now the traps and wrong modulations for this are many many
> >times bigger in just intonation.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

music decides. physics and math and your ears and brain.yes harry partch was
out of tune.
if that's the effect you're going for (effect it is) then go right ahead. i
was just under the impression you were trying to do just intonation.
apparently i was wrong since you think you can play anything and there is
nothing deciding how music works.
glad bach etc didn't think so..

btw think wendy carlos was out of tune too. and she used this tuning system
only on one song and then never did anything like that again. smart girl.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Carlo Serafini <carlo@...> wrote:

> who decides how music works? You?
> I think you can not apply rules created for 12tET to anything outside it.
> I am not trying to be belligerent and I understand my piece may sound
> awkward and out of
> tune but that's an experiment trying to show what the possibilities are
> once you cross the
> border of xentonality. We all, I guess, were brought up with 12tET so it is
> not easy to
> accept anything else.
> Was Harry Partch out of tune?
> The idea for this tune was this sentence by Wendy Carlos:
> ""I wound up with an array of 12 times 12 (144) different
> pitches in the octave, each of which represents a pattern of the 12
> closest-fit partials to a particular fundamental. You play the piece by
> starting in one key
> and then as you move along to another, you hit a reference key on a special
> little keyboard
> and it instantly retunes the whole instrument."
> http://www.wendycarlos.com/cochran.html
> (the notes are not really 144, but that's another story)
> That's what I tried to achieve. I am not close to Wendy's expertise on this
> matter by any
> stretch of the imagination, I am only a beginner!
> ;-))
>
> -C
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Marcel de Velde" <m.develde@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's just not how music works.
> >
>
>
>

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

ah sorry very stupid error of thinking from me.just woke up :)
if you take my pythagorean example with dynamic modulation you can offcourse
get back to where you started after 2 modulations of 9/8 since you only need
the root key to indicate dynamic modulation. but then it still holds that
after 3 dynamic modulations you can't directly get back to where you started
(and still getting worse with 5-limit etc)

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

> yes i understand keeping the relations of the chord the same when moving
> the chord.but as a very basic example take pythagorean as the basic scale
> and then modulate it according to dynamic modulation.
> play 1/1 3/2 9/4 and play this chord up by 9/8 every time. that's not
> correct. and you can't even get back to where you started after just 2
> modulations except exactly thesame way back. (since 1024/729 is not part of
> the 12-tone pythagorean scale, and even if you were to include it, there's
> no way back in just 3 modulations of 9/8)
> seen from the first root key this will give 1/1 3/2 9/4 > 9/8 27/16 81/32 >
> 81/64 243/128 729/512
> now this will only give you the out of tune in the range of pythagorean
> comma etc
> but now do thesame with 5-limit intervals or 7-limit intervals and it gets
> very out of tune very fast. and will make it impossible to modulate directly
> back to the original key after just 2 modulations most of the time.
> it's just not how music is constructed.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> At 09:38 PM 12/11/2008, Marcel wrote:
>> >Aaah I understand.Ok then I understand why you'd want this.
>> >But, I don't beleive you can call this in tune as this is not how just
>> >intonation works.
>> >You can just step any just intonation chord up by any interval, that'll
>> be
>> >horribly out of tune.
>>
>> One must keep the relationships between the notes of the chord
>> the same when moving the chord. Which is exactly what this approach
>> does.
>>
>> >I mean when you play this scale from it's root key it may be in tune.
>> >But when you then use any of those keys as a new root the following
>> chords
>> >may be in tune with the new root, but the modulation itself will probably
>> be
>> >very much out of tune.
>> >It's like playing in major or minor, you can't just play for instance a
>> >4:5:6 chord to any of the keys of a major scale and still be in major
>> key.
>> >You can allready play wrong sounding things in this way in equal
>> >temperament, now the traps and wrong modulations for this are many many
>> >times bigger in just intonation.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. Could you give an example?
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

It's not a diamond, but a cross set. David Cope, in his instrument-building and early computer music days, used the 8x8 cross set based on the harmonic series segment 8-15.

If i understand correctly this is something different?The cross set you're
talking about has a static modulation scale.
There's the fixed scale 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1
And in this scale you can take any of the fixed scales intervals and use it
as the ground for a harmony of thesame scale
So you can play (seen from the fixed ground note) 1/1 5/4 3/2 and move that
up by 9/8 and play 9/8 45/32 27/16 but not move it up again by 9/8 since the
base 'modulation' scale is fixed. (you could move it up by 10/9 in this
example, then using as ground 5/4 which is in the static modulation scale
unlike 81/64)

I thought what Carlo wrote in the first message is a different system where
you can modulate continualy by any note of the scale you're playing in?
So that in a scale of 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1 you can play
1/1 5/4 3/2 and move that up by 9/8 to get 9/8 45/32 27/16 seen from the
original ground. And then can move it up again by any interval in the scale
including 9/8 again, and again if wanted etc. Hence the name dynamic
modulation?

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:

> It's not a diamond, but a cross set. David Cope, in his
> instrument-building and early computer music days, used the 8x8 cross set
> based on the harmonic series segment 8-15.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

Marcel wrote:

>yes i understand keeping the relations of the chord the same when moving the
>chord.but as a very basic example take pythagorean as the basic scale and
>then modulate it according to dynamic modulation.
//
>you can't even get back to where you started after just 2
>modulations except exactly thesame way back.

It depends on how you deal with common tones at the pitch level.
See my document.

>(since 1024/729 is not part of the 12-tone pythagorean scale,

I think the whole point is to have access to more than 12 pitches!

>and even if you were to include it, there's no way back in just
>3 modulations of 9/8) seen from the first root key this will
>give 1/1 3/2 9/4 > 9/8 27/16 81/32 > 81/64 243/128 729/512
>now this will only give you the out of tune in the range of
>pythagorean comma etc

If you're concerned about coming up with pitches a comma away
from the starting scale, that's valid. But not everybody thinks
this is a problem. Commas can be a problem if the composer
doesn't pay attention to them. But used as elements of a
composition, they can rock.

-Carl

Daniel wrote:

>It's not a diamond, but a cross set.

There's several ways to do it. Carlo is showing a
diamond on his blog.

-Carl

Marcel wrote:
>yes harry partch was out of tune.

Oh dear. You're going to get a flame war now! :)

>was just under the impression you were trying to do just intonation.

Much of Partch's music was justly-intoned.

>apparently i was wrong since you think you can play anything and there
>is nothing deciding how music works.

Would you care to give a definition of "in tune"? How can I tell
if a piece of music is in tune according to your standards?

Do you think this is out of tune?

http://lumma.org/stuff/Calliope.mp3

-Carl

Marcel wrote:

>If i understand correctly this is something different?The cross set you're
>talking about has a static modulation scale.
>There's the fixed scale 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1
>And in this scale you can take any of the fixed scales intervals and use it
>as the ground for a harmony of thesame scale
>So you can play (seen from the fixed ground note) 1/1 5/4 3/2 and move that
>up by 9/8 and play 9/8 45/32 27/16 but not move it up again by 9/8 since the
>base 'modulation' scale is fixed. (you could move it up by 10/9 in this
>example, then using as ground 5/4 which is in the static modulation scale
>unlike 81/64)
>
>I thought what Carlo wrote in the first message is a different system where
>you can modulate continualy by any note of the scale you're playing in?
>So that in a scale of 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1 you can play
>1/1 5/4 3/2 and move that up by 9/8 to get 9/8 45/32 27/16 seen from the
>original ground. And then can move it up again by any interval in the scale
>including 9/8 again, and again if wanted etc. Hence the name dynamic
>modulation?

These are two variations described in my document:

http://lumma.org/music/theory/XMW.txt

They would both qualify as "dynamic modulation".

-Carl

Well Partch may have beleived he was doing things justly intoned but I
beleive he was wrong.But there's a difference I feel in trying to do things
the way he did it and work creatively with the sound of certain intervals
and trying to tune normal music / basic harmony and melody for which there
is even more clearly one correct way.

I will write my defenition of in tune here in not too long a time but it's
big :)
But I beleive that even without my perfect defenition of just intonation
which only I posess and can't expect any other listmembers to follow
offcourse :), that still common sense can be used regarding just intonation
and at least base it on music theory like for instance that of Rameau. And
then if you allready notice it gives trouble to do even 5-limit just
intonation even on such basic things. Then why not try to work this out
instead of getting ideas like filling up your keyboard with all kinds of
strange intervals and then expect without know how to use them with just
expirimentation you're going to make something musically correct? I don't
think that's usefull at all and will lead to nothing and frankly I can't
find a good example of great music it has led to.
Also this way of working on this list apparently hasn't led to much. How
many intelligent people are on this list putiing masive effort into tuning.
Yet the outcome sounds terrible and hasn't led to anything even remotely as
musical as for instance baroque music.
This is because most people here have a wrong aproach.
Ah I can go on and on. But I've just started reading this list and I don't
want to make everybody mad which is probably allready too late :)
I hope to eventually do the opposite, make everybody on this list very happy
haha

btw yes i do think the mp3 link you gave is out of tune. It's partly in tune
though :) but wrong use of the 7th is the most obvious thing I hear wrong.

If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it correctly for you
and we can debate it if you want.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
> >yes harry partch was out of tune.
>
> Oh dear. You're going to get a flame war now! :)
>
> >was just under the impression you were trying to do just intonation.
>
> Much of Partch's music was justly-intoned.
>
> >apparently i was wrong since you think you can play anything and there
> >is nothing deciding how music works.
>
> Would you care to give a definition of "in tune"? How can I tell
> if a piece of music is in tune according to your standards?
>
> Do you think this is out of tune?
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/Calliope.mp3
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

btw, while my defenition of in tune is too big to post here now and i'll get
to it later.but do you have a clear defenition of what is in tune?
if not, shouldn't that come first?

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

> Well Partch may have beleived he was doing things justly intoned but I
> beleive he was wrong.But there's a difference I feel in trying to do
> things the way he did it and work creatively with the sound of certain
> intervals and trying to tune normal music / basic harmony and melody for
> which there is even more clearly one correct way.
>
> I will write my defenition of in tune here in not too long a time but it's
> big :)
> But I beleive that even without my perfect defenition of just intonation
> which only I posess and can't expect any other listmembers to follow
> offcourse :), that still common sense can be used regarding just intonation
> and at least base it on music theory like for instance that of Rameau. And
> then if you allready notice it gives trouble to do even 5-limit just
> intonation even on such basic things. Then why not try to work this out
> instead of getting ideas like filling up your keyboard with all kinds of
> strange intervals and then expect without know how to use them with just
> expirimentation you're going to make something musically correct? I don't
> think that's usefull at all and will lead to nothing and frankly I can't
> find a good example of great music it has led to.
> Also this way of working on this list apparently hasn't led to much. How
> many intelligent people are on this list putiing masive effort into tuning.
> Yet the outcome sounds terrible and hasn't led to anything even remotely as
> musical as for instance baroque music.
> This is because most people here have a wrong aproach.
> Ah I can go on and on. But I've just started reading this list and I don't
> want to make everybody mad which is probably allready too late :)
> I hope to eventually do the opposite, make everybody on this list very
> happy haha
>
> btw yes i do think the mp3 link you gave is out of tune. It's partly in
> tune though :) but wrong use of the 7th is the most obvious thing I hear
> wrong.
>
> If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it correctly for you
> and we can debate it if you want.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> Marcel wrote:
>> >yes harry partch was out of tune.
>>
>> Oh dear. You're going to get a flame war now! :)
>>
>> >was just under the impression you were trying to do just intonation.
>>
>> Much of Partch's music was justly-intoned.
>>
>> >apparently i was wrong since you think you can play anything and there
>> >is nothing deciding how music works.
>>
>> Would you care to give a definition of "in tune"? How can I tell
>> if a piece of music is in tune according to your standards?
>>
>> Do you think this is out of tune?
>>
>> http://lumma.org/stuff/Calliope.mp3
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

ok thank you i'll read it later. have to leave now.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
>
> >If i understand correctly this is something different?The cross set you're
> >talking about has a static modulation scale.
> >There's the fixed scale 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1
> >And in this scale you can take any of the fixed scales intervals and use
> it
> >as the ground for a harmony of thesame scale
> >So you can play (seen from the fixed ground note) 1/1 5/4 3/2 and move
> that
> >up by 9/8 and play 9/8 45/32 27/16 but not move it up again by 9/8 since
> the
> >base 'modulation' scale is fixed. (you could move it up by 10/9 in this
> >example, then using as ground 5/4 which is in the static modulation scale
> >unlike 81/64)
> >
> >I thought what Carlo wrote in the first message is a different system
> where
> >you can modulate continualy by any note of the scale you're playing in?
> >So that in a scale of 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1 you can play
> >1/1 5/4 3/2 and move that up by 9/8 to get 9/8 45/32 27/16 seen from the
> >original ground. And then can move it up again by any interval in the
> scale
> >including 9/8 again, and again if wanted etc. Hence the name dynamic
> >modulation?
>
> These are two variations described in my document:
>
> http://lumma.org/music/theory/XMW.txt
>
> They would both qualify as "dynamic modulation".
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

the way LMSO handles dynamic modulation is:
"each key selects one modulation and always the same modulation relative to the original
tonic" so it does not drift away from the starting point.
That's a conceptually manageable way of keeping track of things, IMO.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel wrote:
>
>
> >you can't even get back to where you started after just 2
> >modulations except exactly thesame way back.
>
> It depends on how you deal with common tones at the pitch level.

I don't think so! Actually it is refreshingly consonant.
:-)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Do you think this is out of tune?
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/Calliope.mp3
>
> -Carl
>

I beg to differ. That diagram (http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html ) only
shows 'modes' of Carlos Harmonic.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
Carlo is showing a diamond on his blog.

that is what i thought. all diamonds are cross sets but it is hard for me to see seeing it written the way it is

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>

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

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Daniel wrote:
>
> >It's not a diamond, but a cross set.
>
> There's several ways to do it. Carlo is showing a
> diamond on his blog.
>
> -Carl
>
>

Partch was at least doing right for what he wanted to say musically. European historical concern had passing interest to him. I think you will find most JI practitioners not interested in doing what already has been done harmonically and melodically

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>

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

Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
> Well Partch may have beleived he was doing things justly intoned but I
> beleive he was wrong.But there's a difference I feel in trying to do > things
> the way he did it and work creatively with the sound of certain intervals
> and trying to tune normal music / basic harmony and melody for which there
> is even more clearly one correct way.
>
> I will write my defenition of in tune here in not too long a time but it's
> big :)
> But I beleive that even without my perfect defenition of just intonation
> which only I posess and can't expect any other listmembers to follow
> offcourse :), that still common sense can be used regarding just > intonation
> and at least base it on music theory like for instance that of Rameau. And
> then if you allready notice it gives trouble to do even 5-limit just
> intonation even on such basic things. Then why not try to work this out
> instead of getting ideas like filling up your keyboard with all kinds of
> strange intervals and then expect without know how to use them with just
> expirimentation you're going to make something musically correct? I don't
> think that's usefull at all and will lead to nothing and frankly I can't
> find a good example of great music it has led to.
> Also this way of working on this list apparently hasn't led to much. How
> many intelligent people are on this list putiing masive effort into > tuning.
> Yet the outcome sounds terrible and hasn't led to anything even > remotely as
> musical as for instance baroque music.
> This is because most people here have a wrong aproach.
> Ah I can go on and on. But I've just started reading this list and I don't
> want to make everybody mad which is probably allready too late :)
> I hope to eventually do the opposite, make everybody on this list very > happy
> haha
>
> btw yes i do think the mp3 link you gave is out of tune. It's partly > in tune
> though :) but wrong use of the 7th is the most obvious thing I hear wrong.
>
> If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it correctly > for you
> and we can debate it if you want.
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@... > <mailto:carl%40lumma.org>> wrote:
>
> > Marcel wrote:
> > >yes harry partch was out of tune.
> >
> > Oh dear. You're going to get a flame war now! :)
> >
> > >was just under the impression you were trying to do just intonation.
> >
> > Much of Partch's music was justly-intoned.
> >
> > >apparently i was wrong since you think you can play anything and there
> > >is nothing deciding how music works.
> >
> > Would you care to give a definition of "in tune"? How can I tell
> > if a piece of music is in tune according to your standards?
> >
> > Do you think this is out of tune?
> >
> > http://lumma.org/stuff/Calliope.mp3 > <http://lumma.org/stuff/Calliope.mp3>
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

a diamond can be formed out of the common tone modulation of any material. at least that is how i refer to the term since it can be mapped in the same way.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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:
>
> I beg to differ. That diagram > (http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html > <http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html> ) only
> shows 'modes' of Carlos Harmonic.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> Carlo is showing a diamond on his blog.
>
>

Hi Carlo,

When you show all the modes of a scale, you get the
"diamond" or "tonality diamond" of that scale.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carlo Serafini" <carlo@...> wrote:
>
> I beg to differ. That diagram
(http://www.seraph.it/blog_files/category-music.html ) only shows
'modes' of Carlos Harmonic.
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@> wrote:
> >
> Carlo is showing a diamond on his blog.
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel de Velde"
<m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Well Partch may have beleived he was doing things justly intoned
> but I beleive he was wrong.

Many of Partch's instruments were percussion instruments which
were only weakly pitched, or not at all. Just Intonation isn't
terribly meaningful on such instruments. But on many of his
instruments clear JI is audible -- most obviously on the
chromelodeon.

> I will write my defenition of in tune here in not too long a
> time but it's big :)

I look forward to reading it. The Tuning list is generally
better than this one for matters of theory like this.
Keep in mind, also, that the best theories tend to be the
simplest not the biggest.

> instead of getting ideas like filling up your keyboard with all
> kinds of strange intervals and then expect without know how to
> use them with just expirimentation you're going to make
> something musically correct? I don't think that's usefull at
> all and will lead to nothing and frankly I can't find a good
> example of great music it has led to.

Despite that only a handful of generalized keyboards have ever
been made, there are more than a few pieces of music made on
them that I like very much. And I have more than 10GB of
microtonal mp3 files (not necessarily keyboard-based) on my
computer, all of which I like very much. I'd be happy to point
you to files you may not have heard as we go along.

One must keep in mind that music, even within 12-ET, is much
a matter of taste. Some in the microtonal community prefer
to experiment with large numbers of tones, but others do
indeed develop very intricate theories to guide them through
the new territory.

> Yet the outcome sounds terrible

Does it? How long have you been listening?

> This is because most people here have a wrong aproach.
> Ah I can go on and on. But I've just started reading this
> list

Just started reading it and you already know we have the
wrong approach? That's impressive.

> btw yes i do think the mp3 link you gave is out of tune.
> It's partly in tune though :) but wrong use of the 7th is
> the most obvious thing I hear wrong.

A lot of microtonal music (not to mention Barbershop
quartet music) is based on the idea that the 7th harmonic
and its relations are consonant. If you don't agree that's
fine, but many many people do agree, both under experimental
conditions and in musical settings.

> If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it
> correctly for you and we can debate it if you want.

I'll take you up on that. I'll post it later tonight.

-Carl

it took me quite a while to hear the pitches in some of Partch's instrument but they are most definitely there.
One you hear them they never go away. I hear nothing but melody and harmony in his work.

I think the problem is that we are usually trained to think of the pitches of these type of sounds as being unimportant. I will agree that these are not idea timbers which is why i have avoided the short decay sound in my own instruments. His though do have great flexibility in being able to change direction on a dime where as even muting i cannot move as fast as him. Except on my marimba, possibly hammer dulcimer.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>

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

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, "Marcel de Velde"
> <m.develde@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well Partch may have beleived he was doing things justly intoned
> > but I beleive he was wrong.
>
> Many of Partch's instruments were percussion instruments which
> were only weakly pitched, or not at all. Just Intonation isn't
> terribly meaningful on such instruments. But on many of his
> instruments clear JI is audible -- most obviously on the
> chromelodeon.
>
> > I will write my defenition of in tune here in not too long a
> > time but it's big :)
>
> I look forward to reading it. The Tuning list is generally
> better than this one for matters of theory like this.
> Keep in mind, also, that the best theories tend to be the
> simplest not the biggest.
>
> > instead of getting ideas like filling up your keyboard with all
> > kinds of strange intervals and then expect without know how to
> > use them with just expirimentation you're going to make
> > something musically correct? I don't think that's usefull at
> > all and will lead to nothing and frankly I can't find a good
> > example of great music it has led to.
>
> Despite that only a handful of generalized keyboards have ever
> been made, there are more than a few pieces of music made on
> them that I like very much. And I have more than 10GB of
> microtonal mp3 files (not necessarily keyboard-based) on my
> computer, all of which I like very much. I'd be happy to point
> you to files you may not have heard as we go along.
>
> One must keep in mind that music, even within 12-ET, is much
> a matter of taste. Some in the microtonal community prefer
> to experiment with large numbers of tones, but others do
> indeed develop very intricate theories to guide them through
> the new territory.
>
> > Yet the outcome sounds terrible
>
> Does it? How long have you been listening?
>
> > This is because most people here have a wrong aproach.
> > Ah I can go on and on. But I've just started reading this
> > list
>
> Just started reading it and you already know we have the
> wrong approach? That's impressive.
>
> > btw yes i do think the mp3 link you gave is out of tune.
> > It's partly in tune though :) but wrong use of the 7th is
> > the most obvious thing I hear wrong.
>
> A lot of microtonal music (not to mention Barbershop
> quartet music) is based on the idea that the 7th harmonic
> and its relations are consonant. If you don't agree that's
> fine, but many many people do agree, both under experimental
> conditions and in musical settings.
>
> > If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it
> > correctly for you and we can debate it if you want.
>
> I'll take you up on that. I'll post it later tonight.
>
> -Carl
>
>

Kraig wrote:

>it took me quite a while to hear the pitches in some of Partch's
>instrument but they are most definitely there.
>One you hear them they never go away. I hear nothing but melody and
>harmony in his work.
>
>I think the problem is that we are usually trained to think of the
>pitches of these type of sounds as being unimportant. I will agree that
>these are not idea timbers which is why i have avoided the short decay
>sound in my own instruments. His though do have great flexibility in
>being able to change direction on a dime where as even muting i cannot
>move as fast as him. Except on my marimba, possibly hammer dulcimer.

I don't know of anyone who likes Partch's music more than me, or
places it in a higher place in the Western canon (Partch of course
would is rolling at the thought of me placing him there). The
short-decay percussion sometimes would evoke JI blend, with a gliss.
But Partch usually wrote ostinato-like patterns for these, where
frankly the tuning is not important (so long as it can distinguish
the small intervals he sometimes used in these arpeggiated patterns).

Alas, to many new listeners (including myself when I first heard
it), it just sounds like noise.

-Carl

I wrote:

>> If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it
>> correctly for you and we can debate it if you want.
>
>I'll take you up on that. I'll post it later tonight.

OK, I am actually going to give you two short pieces.

First, one of the Drei Equali of Beethoven:

http://lumma.org/stuff/Andante12.mid

Second, one of my own pieces:

http://lumma.org/music/score/midi/TuneForAdam.mid

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

-Carl

Hi Carl
I thought that a 'tonality diamond' was something like those showed on "Genesis of a music"
where you have otonalities and utonalities. My diagram is different in this respect. maybe it
qualifies as a 'diamond' too.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlo,
>
> When you show all the modes of a scale, you get the
> "diamond" or "tonality diamond" of that scale.
>
> -Carl
>

At 10:52 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Carl
>I thought that a 'tonality diamond' was something like those showed on
>"Genesis of a music" where you have otonalities and utonalities. My
>diagram is different in this respect. maybe it qualifies as a 'diamond'
>too.

It depends how far one wants to generalize the concept.

-Carl

Hi Carl,
Thanks for the document.
I understand now that the fixed modulation scale version is also called
dynamic modulation.
This resolves the not getting back to original pitch problem in the static
dynamic modulation version, but this was just one thing of many things I do
not see this as a practical or correct way of making just intonation music.
Without getting into small obvious problems both these aproaches give (like
not having the choice of 10/9 or 9/8 modulation, not beeing able to modulate
by thesame interval repeatedly in the case of the static dynamic modulation,
etc etc), I will try to explain the bigger problem.

To do even relatively simple harmony in just intonation you need many many
more notes than 12.
The idea that simply using low intervals relative to the grountone of the
harmony will give a correctly tuned just intonation harmony is false.
So for instance a scale of 1/1 16/15 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5
15/8 2/1 will not allow you to play all simple harmonies you find in for
instance baroque music. Infact you won't be able to play but a few.

Now thesame thing goes for modulations.
A simple 12 tone scale will give only very few correct modulations in very
few situations.
In fact modulation and harmony are one and thesame.
And again you need many many more notes than 12.

To give you a very simple example I gave before in another thread (where it
wasn't paid deserved attention to):
In a harmony of 3 or more tones, these tones do not only vibrate together
with the groundtone, but also vibrate together amongst eachother.
For instance in 1/1 5/4 3/2 the tones 5/4 and 3/2 vibrate together in the
ratio 6/5. This is important and very audible.
If you take for instance 1/1 4/3 9/5 or 1/1 4/3 7/4 you think hey these are
the lowest ratios this must be the correct way to play this harmony.
But in the case of 1/1 4/3 9/5: 4/3 and 9/5 vibrate together in the ratio
27/20, very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost all
situations.
And in the case of 1/1 4/3 7/4: 4/3 and 7/4 vibrate together in the ratio
21/16, again very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost
all situations.
Almost allways the correct way to tune this harmony is 1/1 4/3 16/9.
But you do use 7/4 often when dividing 4/3 for instance 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4 (but
not allways)
And 9/5 in for instance 1/1 6/5 9/5 9/2.
I could give thousands of more examples where the lowest ratios to the
groundtones are not the ones to make correct harmonies.
I've strugled with the problem myself and realised I had to come up with a
way to construct and "rate" harmonies from simple to more complex, not based
on some sort of 'consonance' in the way i had been using to describe it
before.
Before i mainly rated a harmony based on how fast the groundtone had to
vibrate to be in harmony with all the other tones of the harmony (there's
got to be a word for this but i don't know it :)
In other words 1/1 6/5 9/5 9/4 = 20:24:36:45 and 1/1 4/3 16/9 = 9:12:16 etc
This wasn't satisfactory for me as an explanation of harmony or as a way to
contruct harmony or rate harmony (many problems with this in many ways
including higher prime harmonics but i won't bore you with this long story)
and after long thinking i found a new way to look at harmony. (which btw i'm
going to call de velde theory of harmony :) but will take me atleast another
half year to finish, maybe longer)

Take the harmonic series. 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 etc
And the intervals the tones have in the harmonic series: 2/1 3/2 4/3 5/4 6/5
7/6 8/7 etc
To see the harmonic series and the intervals / structure it gives as the
building blocks of harmony. (why i think this is so is a long story again)
Now you can place several limits for instance to construct and rate harmony.
Harmonic limit - how far up the harmonic scale you go.
Prime limit - for instance include no higher primes than 7.
'inversion' limit - for instance inversion limit 6 won't allow to invert the
7th. (more complex than this but again long story)
and i have several other things thought up to order this system.
most simple harmony is 1/1 2/1
then 1/1 2/1 3/1 or 1/1 2/1 4/1 depending on how you limit / order / rate.
then for instance 1/1 3/2 3/1, then 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1, 1/1 3/2 3/1 4/1, 1/1
2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1, 1/1 3/2 3/1 4/1 5/1, 1/1 2/1 3/1 15/8 5/1, etc etc
I've calculated that for instance if you use harmonic 9 limit and prime 5
limit and no other limits you get the following intervals:
1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 27/20 45/32 3/2 8/5 5/3 27/16 16/9 9/5 15/8 2/1 81/40
135/64 32/15 20/9 9/4 12/5 5/2 81/32 8/3 27/10 45/16 3/1 16/5 10/3 27/8 32/9
18/5 15/4 4/1 81/20 135/32 64/15 40/9 9/2 24/5 5/1 81/16 16/3 27/5 45/8 6/1
32/5 20/3 27/4 36/5 15/2 8/1 9/1
brought to one octave this is the following scale:
1/1 81/80 135/128 16/15 10/9 9/8 6/5 5/4 81/64 4/3 27/20 45/32 3/2 8/5 5/3
27/16 16/9 9/5 15/8 2/1
(note that i simply brought back things to one octave but that you can't
just shift pitches in a harmony by octaves, 9/4 is not thesame as 9/8! and
32/15 is not thesame as 16/15! same goes for many other intervals)
Above example gives only the most basic harmonies and the most basic
modulation structure.
Even if you were not to agree with my method to construct / rate harmony (of
which this is just the smallest tip of the iceberg), i can't see anybody
disagreeing with the correct tuning of any of the harmonies the above
example describes.

To give a bit more complex example (but still largely simple) of intervals
given with this system.
Here are the intervals of harmonic 10 limit without any other limits
(although inversion limit would be practical here but too long to explain so
not limiting here)
1/1 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 80/63 9/7 35/27 21/16 4/3 27/20 48/35 25/18
7/5 45/32 10/7 35/24 40/27 3/2 32/21
54/35 14/9 25/16 63/40 100/63 8/5 45/28 175/108 105/64 5/3 27/16 320/189
12/7 140/81 7/4 16/9 25/14 9/5 175/96
64/35 50/27 28/15 15/8 40/21 27/14 35/18 63/32 160/81 2/1 81/40 128/63
72/35 56/27 25/12 21/10 135/64 400/189
32/15 15/7 175/81 35/16 20/9 9/4 16/7 81/35 7/3 75/32 189/80 64/27 50/21
12/5 135/56 175/72 315/128 200/81 5/2
81/32 160/63 18/7 70/27 21/8 8/3 75/28 27/10 175/64 96/35 25/9 14/5 45/16
20/7 81/28 35/12 189/64 80/27 3/1
64/21 108/35 28/9 25/8 63/20 200/63 16/5 45/14 175/54 105/32 10/3 27/8
640/189 24/7 280/81 7/2 32/9 25/7 18/5
175/48 128/35 100/27 56/15 15/4 80/21 27/7 35/9 63/16 320/81 4/1 81/20
256/63 144/35 112/27 25/6 21/5 135/32
800/189 64/15 30/7 350/81 35/8 40/9 9/2 32/7 162/35 14/3 75/16 189/40
128/27 100/21 24/5 135/28 175/36 315/64
400/81 5/1 81/16 320/63 36/7 140/27 21/4 16/3 75/14 27/5 175/32 192/35 50/9
28/5 45/8 40/7 81/14 35/6 189/32
160/27 6/1 128/21 216/35 56/9 25/4 63/10 400/63 32/5 45/7 175/27 105/16
20/3 27/4 48/7 7/1 64/9 50/7 36/5
175/24 200/27 15/2 160/21 54/7 70/9 63/8 8/1 25/3 60/7 35/4 80/9 9/1 10/1
above brought to one octave:
1/1 81/80 64/63 36/35 28/27 25/24 21/20 135/128 200/189 16/15 15/14 175/162
35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 81/70 7/6 75/64
189/160 32/27 25/21 6/5 135/112 175/144 315/256 100/81 5/4 81/64 80/63 9/7
35/27 21/16 4/3 75/56 27/20 175/128
48/35 25/18 7/5 45/32 10/7 81/56 35/24 189/128 40/27 3/2 32/21 54/35 14/9
25/16 63/40 100/63 8/5 45/28 175/108
105/64 5/3 27/16 320/189 12/7 140/81 7/4 16/9 25/14 9/5 175/96 64/35 50/27
28/15 15/8 40/21 27/14 35/18 63/32
160/81 2/1

people who compose music in just intonation will either have to use a scale
similar to the ones above, or write the intervals as they write the notes
and make a custom scale for each composition.
the small 'harmonic' or just intonation 12 tone scales i see everywhere are
useless.

To end my story:
This dynamic modulation you talk about is based on misunderstanding of the
complexity and structure of harmony and modulation.
To use it will result in out of tune music. You may be better off using
equal temperament.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Marcel wrote:
>
> >If i understand correctly this is something different?The cross set you're
> >talking about has a static modulation scale.
> >There's the fixed scale 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1
> >And in this scale you can take any of the fixed scales intervals and use
> it
> >as the ground for a harmony of thesame scale
> >So you can play (seen from the fixed ground note) 1/1 5/4 3/2 and move
> that
> >up by 9/8 and play 9/8 45/32 27/16 but not move it up again by 9/8 since
> the
> >base 'modulation' scale is fixed. (you could move it up by 10/9 in this
> >example, then using as ground 5/4 which is in the static modulation scale
> >unlike 81/64)
> >
> >I thought what Carlo wrote in the first message is a different system
> where
> >you can modulate continualy by any note of the scale you're playing in?
> >So that in a scale of 1/1 9/8 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 15/8 2/1 you can play
> >1/1 5/4 3/2 and move that up by 9/8 to get 9/8 45/32 27/16 seen from the
> >original ground. And then can move it up again by any interval in the
> scale
> >including 9/8 again, and again if wanted etc. Hence the name dynamic
> >modulation?
>
> These are two variations described in my document:
>
> http://lumma.org/music/theory/XMW.txt
>
> They would both qualify as "dynamic modulation".
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Hi Marcel,

>To do even relatively simple harmony in just intonation you need many many
>more notes than 12.

This is the point of the various dynamic modulation schemes -- to give
access to more than 12 notes.

>To give you a very simple example I gave before in another thread (where it
>wasn't paid deserved attention to):

I've read all your posts carefully. Unfortunately, we're not on
the same wavelength yet...

>But in the case of 1/1 4/3 9/5: 4/3 and 9/5 vibrate together in the ratio
>27/20, very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost all
>situations.

Sure. What does it have to do with dynamic modulation?

>And in the case of 1/1 4/3 7/4: 4/3 and 7/4 vibrate together in the ratio
>21/16, again very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost
>all situations.
>Almost allways the correct way to tune this harmony is 1/1 4/3 16/9.

Yes, that's the most consonant version of this chord in JI. But you
may find it interesting that this chord is at least as consonant, if
not more consonant, in pajara temperament (e.g. 22-ET). Try it and
tell us what you think!

>I could give thousands of more examples where the lowest ratios to the
>groundtones are not the ones to make correct harmonies.

So far you haven't given any. Written as harmonic series segments,
1/1 4/3 7/4 is 12:16:21 and 1/1 4/3 9/5 is 15:20:27, while 1/1 4/3 16/9
is 9:12:16. And I would guess you agree with me that these three chords
are ranked from most to least consonant according to the magnitude of
their roots here. Yes?

(In order to be able to compare chords that are not the same approximate
width, I look not just at the magnitude of the root, but instead at the
geometric mean of the product of all the terms in the chord. For
example, the cube root of 12*16*21 = 15.9.)

>To end my story:
>This dynamic modulation you talk about is based on misunderstanding of the
>complexity and structure of harmony and modulation.
>To use it will result in out of tune music. You may be better off using
>equal temperament.

I recommend you think through such claims a bit more carefully.

-Carl

Hi Carl :)
The main point i was making was the following.
With a mere 12 tones per octave you can't make many in tune harmonies.
I mean a harmony, lets stay with 1/1 4/3 16/9 is only correct when played
that way, yet you also need 9/5 etc for other harmonies.
This is before any modulating.
So just 12 notes per octave and then a 12 note modulation scale aren't going
to cut it both in harmony and modulation.
Not with your examples either it seems.

But for another example of where magnitude of root / harmonic mean / lowest
interval thing goes wrong is with the simple example of 1/1 5/4 45/32
(correct in most situations), vs 1/1 5/4 7/5
The reason why 1/1 5/4 45/32 is correct in most situations is because it is
5/4 + 9/8. if you look at my structure of harmony you can see this is much
simpler in construction than 5/4 + 28/25. There is more to it than just
simpler in construction. It requires not only high harmonics to build the
interval 28/25 but also means in this case a high inversion.
I've also ordered inversions and it gives major first then more and more
minor and grave. many intervals you can only play when playing in such a
grave minor 'key' and are totally out of place when you play them all of a
sudden in when playing in major or a more simple minor 'key'. This means
that the other examples of for instance 1/1 4/3 7/4 are not wrong in every
case. But you need to know exactly when you can play it, otherwise you
can't.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Hi Marcel,
>
>
> >To do even relatively simple harmony in just intonation you need many many
> >more notes than 12.
>
> This is the point of the various dynamic modulation schemes -- to give
> access to more than 12 notes.
>
> >To give you a very simple example I gave before in another thread (where
> it
> >wasn't paid deserved attention to):
>
> I've read all your posts carefully. Unfortunately, we're not on
> the same wavelength yet...
>
> >But in the case of 1/1 4/3 9/5: 4/3 and 9/5 vibrate together in the ratio
> >27/20, very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost all
> >situations.
>
> Sure. What does it have to do with dynamic modulation?
>
> >And in the case of 1/1 4/3 7/4: 4/3 and 7/4 vibrate together in the ratio
> >21/16, again very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost
> >all situations.
> >Almost allways the correct way to tune this harmony is 1/1 4/3 16/9.
>
> Yes, that's the most consonant version of this chord in JI. But you
> may find it interesting that this chord is at least as consonant, if
> not more consonant, in pajara temperament (e.g. 22-ET). Try it and
> tell us what you think!
>
> >I could give thousands of more examples where the lowest ratios to the
> >groundtones are not the ones to make correct harmonies.
>
> So far you haven't given any. Written as harmonic series segments,
> 1/1 4/3 7/4 is 12:16:21 and 1/1 4/3 9/5 is 15:20:27, while 1/1 4/3 16/9
> is 9:12:16. And I would guess you agree with me that these three chords
> are ranked from most to least consonant according to the magnitude of
> their roots here. Yes?
>
> (In order to be able to compare chords that are not the same approximate
> width, I look not just at the magnitude of the root, but instead at the
> geometric mean of the product of all the terms in the chord. For
> example, the cube root of 12*16*21 = 15.9.)
>
> >To end my story:
> >This dynamic modulation you talk about is based on misunderstanding of the
> >complexity and structure of harmony and modulation.
> >To use it will result in out of tune music. You may be better off using
> >equal temperament.
>
> I recommend you think through such claims a bit more carefully.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Carl,
Sorry if you felt offended by my remark that you may be better off using
equal temperament, but i ment it in general.Just in this short time I've
spent reading this list I see just about everybody experimenting away
without much thought into basics on how to get even simple things right,
just to find a new 'sound'. And as a result i hear ear hurting out of tune
all the time and many people here think that's how just intonation is
supposed to sound! Just intonation doesn't sound out of tune to just about
everybody!!
For fun I've played some "just intonation" music made by others to my
girlfriend and a few friends and they make ugly faces like someone scrathed
the scoolboard. I know many people here are familiar with such a response
from "un-initiated" and laugh it off saying they can't appreciate "pure
tuning" because they're so used to equal temperament. Well i say it's
exactly the other way around most of the time.
And such a tool as dynamic modulation with 12 notes per octave + 12 notes
per octave modulation will in the hands of just about everybody here make
more of wrongly tuned music.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Hi Marcel,
>
>
> >To do even relatively simple harmony in just intonation you need many many
> >more notes than 12.
>
> This is the point of the various dynamic modulation schemes -- to give
> access to more than 12 notes.
>
> >To give you a very simple example I gave before in another thread (where
> it
> >wasn't paid deserved attention to):
>
> I've read all your posts carefully. Unfortunately, we're not on
> the same wavelength yet...
>
> >But in the case of 1/1 4/3 9/5: 4/3 and 9/5 vibrate together in the ratio
> >27/20, very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost all
> >situations.
>
> Sure. What does it have to do with dynamic modulation?
>
> >And in the case of 1/1 4/3 7/4: 4/3 and 7/4 vibrate together in the ratio
> >21/16, again very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost
> >all situations.
> >Almost allways the correct way to tune this harmony is 1/1 4/3 16/9.
>
> Yes, that's the most consonant version of this chord in JI. But you
> may find it interesting that this chord is at least as consonant, if
> not more consonant, in pajara temperament (e.g. 22-ET). Try it and
> tell us what you think!
>
> >I could give thousands of more examples where the lowest ratios to the
> >groundtones are not the ones to make correct harmonies.
>
> So far you haven't given any. Written as harmonic series segments,
> 1/1 4/3 7/4 is 12:16:21 and 1/1 4/3 9/5 is 15:20:27, while 1/1 4/3 16/9
> is 9:12:16. And I would guess you agree with me that these three chords
> are ranked from most to least consonant according to the magnitude of
> their roots here. Yes?
>
> (In order to be able to compare chords that are not the same approximate
> width, I look not just at the magnitude of the root, but instead at the
> geometric mean of the product of all the terms in the chord. For
> example, the cube root of 12*16*21 = 15.9.)
>
> >To end my story:
> >This dynamic modulation you talk about is based on misunderstanding of the
> >complexity and structure of harmony and modulation.
> >To use it will result in out of tune music. You may be better off using
> >equal temperament.
>
> I recommend you think through such claims a bit more carefully.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Carl,Again sorry but I feel no need to try out 22tet.
I feel music is not tempered in any way. Just intonation is all I will play.
Btw I feel just intonation is much much more than simply playing music in
tune.
Tuning is the structure and basis of music. To correctly understand tuning
is to understand music.
I feel tuning is the way to understand music like nobody has ever understood
it before, not bach beethoven mozart etc.
And create music better than anybody before.
Infact I beleive that when tuning is finally fully understood it will be
possible to make a computer program that will make music that's more
beautifull than any made before :)

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Hi Marcel,
>
>
> >To do even relatively simple harmony in just intonation you need many many
> >more notes than 12.
>
> This is the point of the various dynamic modulation schemes -- to give
> access to more than 12 notes.
>
> >To give you a very simple example I gave before in another thread (where
> it
> >wasn't paid deserved attention to):
>
> I've read all your posts carefully. Unfortunately, we're not on
> the same wavelength yet...
>
> >But in the case of 1/1 4/3 9/5: 4/3 and 9/5 vibrate together in the ratio
> >27/20, very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost all
> >situations.
>
> Sure. What does it have to do with dynamic modulation?
>
> >And in the case of 1/1 4/3 7/4: 4/3 and 7/4 vibrate together in the ratio
> >21/16, again very close to 4/3 and audibly out of tune and wrong in almost
> >all situations.
> >Almost allways the correct way to tune this harmony is 1/1 4/3 16/9.
>
> Yes, that's the most consonant version of this chord in JI. But you
> may find it interesting that this chord is at least as consonant, if
> not more consonant, in pajara temperament (e.g. 22-ET). Try it and
> tell us what you think!
>
> >I could give thousands of more examples where the lowest ratios to the
> >groundtones are not the ones to make correct harmonies.
>
> So far you haven't given any. Written as harmonic series segments,
> 1/1 4/3 7/4 is 12:16:21 and 1/1 4/3 9/5 is 15:20:27, while 1/1 4/3 16/9
> is 9:12:16. And I would guess you agree with me that these three chords
> are ranked from most to least consonant according to the magnitude of
> their roots here. Yes?
>
> (In order to be able to compare chords that are not the same approximate
> width, I look not just at the magnitude of the root, but instead at the
> geometric mean of the product of all the terms in the chord. For
> example, the cube root of 12*16*21 = 15.9.)
>
> >To end my story:
> >This dynamic modulation you talk about is based on misunderstanding of the
> >complexity and structure of harmony and modulation.
> >To use it will result in out of tune music. You may be better off using
> >equal temperament.
>
> I recommend you think through such claims a bit more carefully.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Marcel wrote:
>Hi Carl :)
>The main point i was making was the following.
>With a mere 12 tones per octave you can't make many in tune harmonies.

Of course. But the main point I was trying to make is that
dynamic modulation does not limit you to 12 tones.

(And since you mention it, even if we were limited to 12 tones, we
could still get IV-V-I harmony for example, which is adequate for
many, many popular songs.)

>I mean a harmony, lets stay with 1/1 4/3 16/9 is only correct when played
>that way, yet you also need 9/5 etc for other harmonies.
>This is before any modulating.
>So just 12 notes per octave and then a 12 note modulation scale aren't going
>to cut it both in harmony and modulation.

You are interpreting the term "moulation" too strictly here, Marcel.
I call the setup "xenharmonic moving windows". The keyboard is like
a window showing a subset of the total available scale. I believe it
is appropriate to call moving the window a "modulation", but if that
term is confusing use another. :)

>But for another example of where magnitude of root / harmonic mean / lowest
>interval thing goes wrong is with the simple example of 1/1 5/4 45/32
>(correct in most situations), vs 1/1 5/4 7/5
>The reason why 1/1 5/4 45/32 is correct in most situations is because it is
>5/4 + 9/8. if you look at my structure of harmony you can see this is much
>simpler in construction than 5/4 + 28/25.

This will show up using the consonance rating method I described.
Would you like me to show you again?

-Carl

At 01:23 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>Carl,
>Sorry if you felt offended by my remark that you may be better off using
>equal temperament, but i ment it in general.

Hi Marcel,

I wasn't offended at all. But you'll look a lot smarter if you
make statements you can back up. So far, you seem to be at an
elementary level in your tuning theory adventure. Myself and others
are happy to help, so don't get discouraged!

>Just in this short time I've
>spent reading this list I see just about everybody experimenting away
>without much thought into basics on how to get even simple things right,
>just to find a new 'sound'. And as a result i hear ear hurting out of tune
>all the time and many people here think that's how just intonation is
>supposed to sound! Just intonation doesn't sound out of tune to just about
>everybody!!

Well, I've given you two MIDI files, as you requested. And I'm
anxious to hear how you'd tune them!

-Carl

At 01:30 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>Carl,Again sorry but I feel no need to try out 22tet.
>I feel music is not tempered in any way. Just intonation is all I will play.
>Btw I feel just intonation is much much more than simply playing music in
>tune.
>Tuning is the structure and basis of music. To correctly understand tuning
>is to understand music.
>I feel tuning is the way to understand music like nobody has ever understood
>it before, not bach beethoven mozart etc.
>And create music better than anybody before.
>Infact I beleive that when tuning is finally fully understood it will be
>possible to make a computer program that will make music that's more
>beautifull than any made before :)

It sounds like you have a direction in mind. Now it is just up to
you to fulfill it. Let's hear some music!

-Carl

Hi Carl,
I wasn't aware I was sent tuning files :)
How did you send them?

And regarding the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 vs 1/1 5/4 7/5 can you
indeed show me the cube root?
Can't find it on windows calculator. but don't currently see how 32*40*45
cube root can be lower than 20*25*28 cube root

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 01:23 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
> >Carl,
> >Sorry if you felt offended by my remark that you may be better off using
> >equal temperament, but i ment it in general.
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
> I wasn't offended at all. But you'll look a lot smarter if you
> make statements you can back up. So far, you seem to be at an
> elementary level in your tuning theory adventure. Myself and others
> are happy to help, so don't get discouraged!
>
> >Just in this short time I've
> >spent reading this list I see just about everybody experimenting away
> >without much thought into basics on how to get even simple things right,
> >just to find a new 'sound'. And as a result i hear ear hurting out of tune
> >all the time and many people here think that's how just intonation is
> >supposed to sound! Just intonation doesn't sound out of tune to just about
> >everybody!!
>
> Well, I've given you two MIDI files, as you requested. And I'm
> anxious to hear how you'd tune them!
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

midi files i ment offcourse

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

> Hi Carl,
> I wasn't aware I was sent tuning files :)
> How did you send them?
>
> And regarding the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 vs 1/1 5/4 7/5 can you
> indeed show me the cube root?
> Can't find it on windows calculator. but don't currently see how 32*40*45
> cube root can be lower than 20*25*28 cube root
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> At 01:23 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>> >Carl,
>> >Sorry if you felt offended by my remark that you may be better off using
>> >equal temperament, but i ment it in general.
>>
>> Hi Marcel,
>>
>> I wasn't offended at all. But you'll look a lot smarter if you
>> make statements you can back up. So far, you seem to be at an
>> elementary level in your tuning theory adventure. Myself and others
>> are happy to help, so don't get discouraged!
>>
>> >Just in this short time I've
>> >spent reading this list I see just about everybody experimenting away
>> >without much thought into basics on how to get even simple things right,
>> >just to find a new 'sound'. And as a result i hear ear hurting out of
>> tune
>> >all the time and many people here think that's how just intonation is
>> >supposed to sound! Just intonation doesn't sound out of tune to just
>> about
>> >everybody!!
>>
>> Well, I've given you two MIDI files, as you requested. And I'm
>> anxious to hear how you'd tune them!
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

At 01:51 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>I wasn't aware I was sent tuning files :)
>How did you send them?
>
>And regarding the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 vs 1/1 5/4 7/5 can you
>indeed show me the cube root?
>Can't find it on windows calculator. but don't currently see how 32*40*45
>cube root can be lower than 20*25*28 cube root

Hi Marcel,

It doesn't look like Windows calculator does cube roots, but you
can use Google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cube+root+(20+*+25+*+28)

Sorry, I now understand that you find 1/1 5/4 45/32 to be more consonant
than 1/1 5/4 7/5. That's not how I hear it, but let's take a look at
all the dyads in these chords. In terms of dissonance, I think we agree
that

5/4 = 5/4
9/8 < 28/25

The sticking point seems to be

7/5 ? 45/32

I hear 7/5 as more consonant. And it's enough more consonant to
more than compensate for the fact that 28/25 is more dissonant than
9/8, provided I'm not playing the chord at too low a register (in
the tenor the fact that 28/25 is _narrower_ than 9/8 starts to cause
faster beating).

But if you hear 7/5 as less consonant than 45/32, or even about
the same, then the fact that 9/8 is more consonant than 28/25 will
dominate the evaluation.

When I first heard 7-limit harmony on a piano (Michael Harrison's
From Ancient Worlds), I nearly jumped out of my skin. But after a
short time of playing 7-limit chords for myself on my synth and
listening to (and singing in) barbershop quartets and hearing
Harrison's piano album a few more times, I gained 7-limit listening
skills and now I hear 7-limit intervals as very consonant indeed.

That's not to say the 7-limit works for all listeners. If you find
it dissonant that's perfectly valid too. But most listeners we've
tested on these lists, and most listeners in psychoacoustic laboratory
experiments, find the 7-limit consonant when hearing bare chords.
It actually is documented that there's sometimes a problem with
trained musicians, who tend to hear anything out of the usual as out
of tune, because they've trained very hard to zero in on 5-limit
harmony and the diatonic scale come hell or high water.

-Carl

Besides this there are many other things that don't add up with magnitude of
root or harmonic mean.
First of all. It doesn't tell you much about the structure of a chord or
what it's purpose is and things like that.

And it sais that for instance 9:15:16 is a more consonant chord than
15:20:24? I don't think so.
And these are both 5-limit. With the magnitude of root / harmonic mean thing
you can just throw in high primes like 11 and 13 which sound very dissonant
yet still make those harmonies rate lower than 15:20:24?

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

> Hi Carl,
> I wasn't aware I was sent tuning files :)
> How did you send them?
>
> And regarding the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 vs 1/1 5/4 7/5 can you
> indeed show me the cube root?
> Can't find it on windows calculator. but don't currently see how 32*40*45
> cube root can be lower than 20*25*28 cube root
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> At 01:23 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
>> >Carl,
>> >Sorry if you felt offended by my remark that you may be better off using
>> >equal temperament, but i ment it in general.
>>
>> Hi Marcel,
>>
>> I wasn't offended at all. But you'll look a lot smarter if you
>> make statements you can back up. So far, you seem to be at an
>> elementary level in your tuning theory adventure. Myself and others
>> are happy to help, so don't get discouraged!
>>
>> >Just in this short time I've
>> >spent reading this list I see just about everybody experimenting away
>> >without much thought into basics on how to get even simple things right,
>> >just to find a new 'sound'. And as a result i hear ear hurting out of
>> tune
>> >all the time and many people here think that's how just intonation is
>> >supposed to sound! Just intonation doesn't sound out of tune to just
>> about
>> >everybody!!
>>
>> Well, I've given you two MIDI files, as you requested. And I'm
>> anxious to hear how you'd tune them!
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

Hi Carl,
Thanks for your reply and this interesting conversation :)

Google sais I'm right though about the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 beeing
higher than 1/1 5/4 7/5
cube root(20 * 25 * 28) = 24.1014226
cube root(32 * 40 * 45) = 38.6195754
but now you say that it should indeed be played as 1/1 5/4 7/5?
I agree 7/5 is more consonant to 1/1 in it's own. it's also a very possible
interval when playing for instance 1/1 6/5 7/5.
But I say it's false when playing with 1/1 5/4 and many other notes.
Playing 1/1 5/4 7/5 will also give you serious modulation problems.
In the following scale 1/1 5/4 45/32 will work perfectly and as musically
expected:
take the basic 5-limit 12 tone just intonation scale starting on C.
C-1/1, 16/15, 9/8, 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, 45/32, 3/2, 8/5, 5/3, 9/5, 15/8, 2/1
now play G#--8/5, C-2/1, D-9/2
and then G-3/2, B-15/8, D-9/2. Or G-3/2, C-2/1, E-5/2. Or G-3/2, A#-9/5,
D-9/2

i don't beleive there's more ways to tune thesame music if we're talking
normal classical music here atleast.
music is perfect in itself.
we can tolerate other tunings like equal temperament, or wrong use of the
7th harmonic etc. but we still interpret the music in our brain the way the
pure correct music math intends.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 01:51 PM 12/15/2008, you wrote:
> >Hi Carl,
> >I wasn't aware I was sent tuning files :)
> >How did you send them?
> >
> >And regarding the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 vs 1/1 5/4 7/5 can you
> >indeed show me the cube root?
> >Can't find it on windows calculator. but don't currently see how 32*40*45
> >cube root can be lower than 20*25*28 cube root
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
> It doesn't look like Windows calculator does cube roots, but you
> can use Google:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=cube+root+(20+*+25+*+28)
>
> Sorry, I now understand that you find 1/1 5/4 45/32 to be more consonant
> than 1/1 5/4 7/5. That's not how I hear it, but let's take a look at
> all the dyads in these chords. In terms of dissonance, I think we agree
> that
>
> 5/4 = 5/4
> 9/8 < 28/25
>
> The sticking point seems to be
>
> 7/5 ? 45/32
>
> I hear 7/5 as more consonant. And it's enough more consonant to
> more than compensate for the fact that 28/25 is more dissonant than
> 9/8, provided I'm not playing the chord at too low a register (in
> the tenor the fact that 28/25 is _narrower_ than 9/8 starts to cause
> faster beating).
>
> But if you hear 7/5 as less consonant than 45/32, or even about
> the same, then the fact that 9/8 is more consonant than 28/25 will
> dominate the evaluation.
>
> When I first heard 7-limit harmony on a piano (Michael Harrison's
> From Ancient Worlds), I nearly jumped out of my skin. But after a
> short time of playing 7-limit chords for myself on my synth and
> listening to (and singing in) barbershop quartets and hearing
> Harrison's piano album a few more times, I gained 7-limit listening
> skills and now I hear 7-limit intervals as very consonant indeed.
>
> That's not to say the 7-limit works for all listeners. If you find
> it dissonant that's perfectly valid too. But most listeners we've
> tested on these lists, and most listeners in psychoacoustic laboratory
> experiments, find the 7-limit consonant when hearing bare chords.
> It actually is documented that there's sometimes a problem with
> trained musicians, who tend to hear anything out of the usual as out
> of tune, because they've trained very hard to zero in on 5-limit
> harmony and the diatonic scale come hell or high water.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Ah found them :)Overlooked them the first time.
Thanks!

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> >> If you have the midi of the music or notes I will tune it
> >> correctly for you and we can debate it if you want.
> >
> >I'll take you up on that. I'll post it later tonight.
>
> OK, I am actually going to give you two short pieces.
>
> First, one of the Drei Equali of Beethoven:
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/Andante12.mid
>
> Second, one of my own pieces:
>
> http://lumma.org/music/score/midi/TuneForAdam.mid
>
> Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

At 02:15 PM 12/15/2008, Marcel wrote:
>Besides this there are many other things that don't add up with magnitude of
>root or harmonic mean.
>First of all. It doesn't tell you much about the structure of a chord or
>what it's purpose is and things like that.

Nope, it certainly doesn't. It just tells you consonance. And
even consonance is a complicated thing! It just gives you a 1-D
measure of it, so it can't be even close to perfect. But that
doesn't mean a 1-D measure can't capture an awful lot about
consonance. I like to compare it to IQ. Human intelligence is
a many-faceted thing. There's so much that any 1-D measure like
IQ cannot tell us. But on the other hand, it is precisely in
light of this fact that it is so amazing that IQ does indeed tell
us a great deal about human intelligence. There must be some
general mechanism for intelligence in the brain, that 75% of it
could be captured by a single number. The same is true of
consonance -- we can capture maybe 75% on a good day. That's a
triumph. But as with intelligence, the last 25% is a doosie.
It's extremely difficult to capture this last 25%.

>And it sais that for instance 9:15:16 is a more consonant chord than
>15:20:24? I don't think so.

The formula ignores "critical band effects" (beating, roughness,
and the like). If a chord contains small intervals, or if the
numbers in the chord are large (e.g. 401:501:601) it doesn't work.
It's just a rule of thumb. A very good rule of thumb.

>And these are both 5-limit.

16/15 is a 15-odd-limit interval. Prime limit is not applicable
to the consonance of dyads. It's also a narrow interval, which
means more of its partials will beat, which distracts from
consonance judgements.

>With the magnitude of root / harmonic mean thing
>you can just throw in high primes like 11 and 13 which sound very
>dissonant yet still make those harmonies rate lower than 15:20:24?

Good work. Please remember I did not explain the rule of thumb
in full. It has 3 main limitations:

* It doesn't work when the numbers get large. It starts to stop
working when the geomean gets to be around 10.

* It assumes harmonic timbres (won't work for metallophones and
many bells).

* It ignores SPAN, the fact that very wide intervals are neither
consonance or dissonant. So you can not compare 5/4, sqrt(20)= 4.5,
and 15/1, sqrt(15) = 3.9.

We have other methods when more precision is needed than this rule
can provide. Including something called "harmonic entropy", which
works when the numbers get large (e.g. 401 501 601), and indeed can
even compare irrational intervals (as in a temperament) to rational
ones. Harmonic entropy cannot be calculated with google, however.
:)

-Carl

At 02:32 PM 12/15/2008, Marcel wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>Thanks for your reply and this interesting conversation :)

Likewise.

>Google sais I'm right though about the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32 beeing
>higher than 1/1 5/4 7/5
>cube root(20 * 25 * 28) = 24.1014226
>cube root(32 * 40 * 45) = 38.6195754
>but now you say that it should indeed be played as 1/1 5/4 7/5?

I said I thought 1/1 5/4 7/5 was more consonant, when played in
isolation in the alto or soprano range. Whether the chord
C E F# should be tuned 1/1 5/4 7/5 or 1/1 5/4 45/32 or 1/1 5/4 10/7
or any number of other ways completely depends on the musical
context!! And on the desired effect!

And bear in mind, neither 1/1 5/4 45/32 nor 1/1 5/4 7/5 are
consonances, so the difference between them is fairly subtle.
Nevertheless, when played in the middle octave of the keyboard
I hear the latter as slightly more 'together'.

>I agree 7/5 is more consonant to 1/1 in it's own.

Oh, OK. Great.

>it's also a very possible
>interval when playing for instance 1/1 6/5 7/5.

OK, we both agree here too.

>But I say it's false when playing with 1/1 5/4 and many other notes.

It's true that doing so creates the interval 28/25, which is
not a consonance.

>Playing 1/1 5/4 7/5 will also give you serious modulation problems.

That depends again on the musical context, and on how sophisticated
one's modulation algorithms are. But let's continue this discussion
in the context of the "retuning challenge".

>i don't beleive there's more ways to tune thesame music if we're talking
>normal classical music here atleast.

Just a note to keep in mind, this list is mainly for people interested
in composing new music, and even new *kinds* of music. It isn't so
much about retuning classical or existing music. Though it is an
interesting topic too, if you criticise people here that their scales
will not work for Bach, you will get a blank stare. :)

-Carl

Hi Carl,
I'm not quite sure yet wether you agree now to 1/1 5/4 45/32 and the 3
examples of how it resolves.
Do you agree these specific examples are the correct way to play it and in
these eamples 7/5 is wrong?

Btw my own theory does explain everything in one go.
But it's too early to write it all here. Although you should be able to see
many truths allready by looking into my examples before (also in other
thread in tuning list).

I realise most people here are to find new music.
But I've allready found that the way to find it is by proper theory and
first understanding the basics.
I see this experimenting here has lead and is leading to not much. And I can
feel the pain and frustration of all the people that come here with high
hopes and end up with little or nothing after years of hard work. I've been
there.
I've been experimenting away with music since I was a little kid. With
tuning in some form or another for i don't know could be 5 years.
Probably even longer in a lesser form after when I first heard aphex twin
selected ambient works II.
For the past 2 or 3 years I've been working on tuning full time (truly full
time, wake till sleep, no other job and live like a hermit :).
I know and fell for all the traps, but never fell for long and never
accepted out of tune or shortcuts.
Right now I see there's more music to be learned from conservatories and old
theory books than from this list. (and all theory books are wrong, but they
do have a lot of tricks and practical experience to offer)
While this list is where the real music should be. This should be the
forefront of classical, arabic and yet unknown music.
But while I gave some reasonably clear examples. You decide to stick to 7/5
(yes i know the answer to my question above allready) and 12-note dynamic
modulation for example.
And I'm thinking the rest of the list too. Made too many excuses for
yourselves allready to be able to think you're right now, you use these same
excuses when discussing with me. But you have to know somewhere that the way
just intonation is practiced on these lists is wrong?
I'll return later to this list with music and a paper detailing correct just
intonation more.
Otherwise I'll only end up shouting out of tune all the time in the meantime
to every mp3 posted :)

If anybody sees my examples of the harmonic series as the basis of harmonie
and looks a bit better and thinks wow this is amazing feel free to drop me
an email :)

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 02:32 PM 12/15/2008, Marcel wrote:
> >Hi Carl,
> >Thanks for your reply and this interesting conversation :)
>
> Likewise.
>
> >Google sais I'm right though about the harmonic mean of 1/1 5/4 45/32
> beeing
> >higher than 1/1 5/4 7/5
> >cube root(20 * 25 * 28) = 24.1014226
> >cube root(32 * 40 * 45) = 38.6195754
> >but now you say that it should indeed be played as 1/1 5/4 7/5?
>
> I said I thought 1/1 5/4 7/5 was more consonant, when played in
> isolation in the alto or soprano range. Whether the chord
> C E F# should be tuned 1/1 5/4 7/5 or 1/1 5/4 45/32 or 1/1 5/4 10/7
> or any number of other ways completely depends on the musical
> context!! And on the desired effect!
>
> And bear in mind, neither 1/1 5/4 45/32 nor 1/1 5/4 7/5 are
> consonances, so the difference between them is fairly subtle.
> Nevertheless, when played in the middle octave of the keyboard
> I hear the latter as slightly more 'together'.
>
> >I agree 7/5 is more consonant to 1/1 in it's own.
>
> Oh, OK. Great.
>
> >it's also a very possible
> >interval when playing for instance 1/1 6/5 7/5.
>
> OK, we both agree here too.
>
> >But I say it's false when playing with 1/1 5/4 and many other notes.
>
> It's true that doing so creates the interval 28/25, which is
> not a consonance.
>
> >Playing 1/1 5/4 7/5 will also give you serious modulation problems.
>
> That depends again on the musical context, and on how sophisticated
> one's modulation algorithms are. But let's continue this discussion
> in the context of the "retuning challenge".
>
> >i don't beleive there's more ways to tune thesame music if we're talking
> >normal classical music here atleast.
>
> Just a note to keep in mind, this list is mainly for people interested
> in composing new music, and even new *kinds* of music. It isn't so
> much about retuning classical or existing music. Though it is an
> interesting topic too, if you criticise people here that their scales
> will not work for Bach, you will get a blank stare. :)
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel de Velde"
<m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carl,
> I'm not quite sure yet wether you agree now to 1/1 5/4 45/32
> and the 3 examples of how it resolves.
> Do you agree these specific examples are the correct way to
> play it and in these examples 7/5 is wrong?

I haven't made any comments about any chord progressions
yet. And if I do, I won't use a value judgment like
"wrong" to describe a chord progression. It's simplistic
and anyway, chord progressions function within music, not
the other way around.

I do occasionally give negative feedback about pieces
of music. ;)

I'm anxious to talk about the retuning challenge. I'm
going to let the cat out of the bag and let everyone know
that I already have various retuned versions of both
pieces I sent. But I won't reveal them until you
reveal yours!

> I see this experimenting here has lead and is leading to
> not much.

Now we are going to get into muddy waters, Marcel. So
far you've posted nothing constructive here (a forum for
posting music). Moreover, it's clear you can't have heard
but a tiny fraction of the hundreds of pieces posted here
over the past 8 years, and many more released by members
of this community on CD and in other formats.

> Right now I see there's more music to be learned from
> conservatories and old theory books than from this list.

I wonder if you know that there are both conservatory-
trained musicians here, as well as self-taught professionals,
and world-class music theorists, instrument builders, etc.?

> I'll return later to this list with music

That'd be a good idea.

> If anybody sees my examples of the harmonic series as the basis
> of harmonie and looks a bit better and thinks wow this is amazing
> feel free to drop me an email :)

Frankly, Marcel, only newbies such as yourself would think
that, since you haven't posted anything amazing or even
original.

-Carl

I accept the retuning challenge for the beethoven song but it can take up to
a week, bussy week this week. (moving to a new appartment, which is only
about 100 meters away from my current one and i have almost no stuff but
still..)btw do you want a retuned midi file by scala (never made one but
probably won't be a problem) or an mp3? (or both)

You are wrong about me not posting anything amazing or original (unless
theory doesn't count and only music does) and in calling me a newbie :)
But I have no doubts you'll take your words back in time ;)

True I have not heard most music posted on this list or tuning list.
But the way just intonation is viewed here I don't expect I will agree with
much of the music posted.

Btw I realise I'm saying a lot of negative things here, but I intend all in
good spirit :)

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Marcel de Velde"
>
> <m.develde@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carl,
> > I'm not quite sure yet wether you agree now to 1/1 5/4 45/32
> > and the 3 examples of how it resolves.
> > Do you agree these specific examples are the correct way to
> > play it and in these examples 7/5 is wrong?
>
> I haven't made any comments about any chord progressions
> yet. And if I do, I won't use a value judgment like
> "wrong" to describe a chord progression. It's simplistic
> and anyway, chord progressions function within music, not
> the other way around.
>
> I do occasionally give negative feedback about pieces
> of music. ;)
>
> I'm anxious to talk about the retuning challenge. I'm
> going to let the cat out of the bag and let everyone know
> that I already have various retuned versions of both
> pieces I sent. But I won't reveal them until you
> reveal yours!
>
> > I see this experimenting here has lead and is leading to
> > not much.
>
> Now we are going to get into muddy waters, Marcel. So
> far you've posted nothing constructive here (a forum for
> posting music). Moreover, it's clear you can't have heard
> but a tiny fraction of the hundreds of pieces posted here
> over the past 8 years, and many more released by members
> of this community on CD and in other formats.
>
> > Right now I see there's more music to be learned from
> > conservatories and old theory books than from this list.
>
> I wonder if you know that there are both conservatory-
> trained musicians here, as well as self-taught professionals,
> and world-class music theorists, instrument builders, etc.?
>
> > I'll return later to this list with music
>
> That'd be a good idea.
>
> > If anybody sees my examples of the harmonic series as the basis
> > of harmonie and looks a bit better and thinks wow this is amazing
> > feel free to drop me an email :)
>
> Frankly, Marcel, only newbies such as yourself would think
> that, since you haven't posted anything amazing or even
> original.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel de Velde"
<m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> I accept the retuning challenge for the beethoven song but it
> can take up to a week, bussy week this week. (moving to a new
> appartment, which is only about 100 meters away from my current
> one and i have almost no stuff but still..) btw do you want a
> retuned midi file by scala (never made one but probably won't
> be a problem) or an mp3? (or both)

No problem, take your time. I used to love moving, but
these days I hate it. An mp3 is best, but either is fine.

> You are wrong about me not posting anything amazing or original
> (unless theory doesn't count and only music does)

Both count. I see no theory yet, just assertions.

> and in calling me a newbie :)

You admitted yourself you are new here!

> But I have no doubts you'll take your words back in time ;)

I'll be happy to do so.

> True I have not heard most music posted on this list or
> tuning list.

Then why do you make blanket statements about it?

> But the way just intonation is viewed here

You've had exchanges with myself and one or two others.
How do you know "how just intonation is viewed here"?

-Carl

> No problem, take your time. I used to love moving, but
> these days I hate it. An mp3 is best, but either is fine.
I haaaate it too. But luckily this is going to be an easy one.
Btw almost finished the beethoven one but have to put myself to bed now,
hope i have some time left tomorrow to finish and send it.

You admitted yourself you are new here!
Aah ok, yes new to this list. I thought you ment new to tuning or wet behind
the ears on tuning matters :)

Then why do you make blanket statements about it?
You've had exchanges with myself and one or two others.
How do you know "how just intonation is viewed here"?

Because I read several posts. I did not actively read or post on this list
before but I've been a member since september and have the posts archived
and read several threads.
Also because I asses you're probably a long time active and expert member of
this list and probably echo the ideas most in this list who have explored
just intonation hold.
I have not yet read anything to the contrary atleast.

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

Marcel wrote:

>> Then why do you make blanket statements about it?
>> You've had exchanges with myself and one or two others.
>> How do you know "how just intonation is viewed here"?
>
> Because I read several posts. I did not actively read or post
> on this list before but I've been a member since september

Wow, 3 months! :P

> Also because I asses you're probably a long time active and
> expert member of this list and probably echo the ideas most
> in this list who have explored just intonation hold.
> I have not yet read anything to the contrary atleast.

I more closely echo the consensus of the tuning-math and
harmonic_entropy lists. I don't think there's a consensus
here. Every time it comes up people just argue endlessly. :)

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
> It doesn't look like Windows calculator does cube roots, but you
> can use Google:

View/Scientific ....
Inv x^3
... Cube root :-)

WOOF!!!!

/^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>

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

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> I don't think there's a consensus
> here. Every time it comes up people just argue endlessly. :)
>
> -Carl
>
>