New work in progress: "The King is Undead"

The fourth and last tune on the featured playlist on my temporary
website (http://www.myspace.com/dawier) is the beginning of a work for
either organ and piano or organ and orchestra, again in 72-edo near-JI,
and again using 31&41 MIRACLE temperament. I'm planning on working in
19&53 kleismic (generator: 316.67 cents), which I'd imagine would work
better with minor tonalities.

Since I don't have adaptive JI as an option, I had to use a few wolf
fourths. I'm more lenient with those than wolf fifths and octaves, as
I'm more tolerant of parallel fourths than I am the other perfect
consonances. It's actually my first attempt at non-ET, non-meantone
four-part Baroque polyphony, and this could also be played in 53-tone.

I used the church organ sound in the freepats, and I also rerecorded
"The Waterloo Rag" with the bright piano sound, which I like better than
what I have on the Roland for either. I'm not playing it live; it's
sequenced with Noteworthy again.

So what do you think?

~D.

On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 13:16 -0600, Danny Wier wrote:
> The fourth and last tune on the featured playlist on my temporary
> website (http://www.myspace.com/dawier)

Wrong URL. It's http://www.myspace.com/dannywier .

Hi Danny,

>The fourth and last tune on the featured playlist on my temporary
>website (http://www.myspace.com/dawier) is the beginning of a work for
>either organ and piano or organ and orchestra, again in 72-edo near-JI,
>and again using 31&41 MIRACLE temperament. I'm planning on working in
>19&53 kleismic (generator: 316.67 cents), which I'd imagine would work
>better with minor tonalities.

I'm not following. The King is Undead will be in miracle or in
kleismic?

>Since I don't have adaptive JI as an option, I had to use a few wolf
>fourths. I'm more lenient with those than wolf fifths and octaves, as
>I'm more tolerant of parallel fourths than I am the other perfect
>consonances. It's actually my first attempt at non-ET, non-meantone
>four-part Baroque polyphony, and this could also be played in 53-tone.
>I used the church organ sound in the freepats, and I also rerecorded
>"The Waterloo Rag" with the bright piano sound, which I like better than
>what I have on the Roland for either. I'm not playing it live; it's
>sequenced with Noteworthy again.
>
>So what do you think?
>
>~D.

The new piece rocks!!

I still don't like the piano sound on Waterloo much, and I still think
it's too fast, but it's still a fantastic piece.

-Carl

This is quite good. The wolf 4ths sounded kinda authentic, but kind of
detracted.
Are you using a sequencer? I wonder if you might be able to put those notes
in a parallel track with the temperament you actually want there. I've used
this technique to do other types of manipulations.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Danny Wier <dawiertx@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 13:16 -0600, Danny Wier wrote:
> > The fourth and last tune on the featured playlist on my temporary
> > website (http://www.myspace.com/dawier)
>
> Wrong URL. It's http://www.myspace.com/dannywier .
>
>
>

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

Danny Wier wrote:
> The fourth and last tune on the featured playlist on my temporary
> website (http://www.myspace.com/dawier) is the beginning of a work for
> either organ and piano or organ and orchestra, again in 72-edo near-JI,
> and again using 31&41 MIRACLE temperament. I'm planning on working in
> 19&53 kleismic (generator: 316.67 cents), which I'd imagine would work
> better with minor tonalities.
> > Since I don't have adaptive JI as an option, I had to use a few wolf
> fourths. I'm more lenient with those than wolf fifths and octaves, as
> I'm more tolerant of parallel fourths than I am the other perfect
> consonances. It's actually my first attempt at non-ET, non-meantone
> four-part Baroque polyphony, and this could also be played in 53-tone.
> > I used the church organ sound in the freepats, and I also rerecorded
> "The Waterloo Rag" with the bright piano sound, which I like better than
> what I have on the Roland for either. I'm not playing it live; it's
> sequenced with Noteworthy again.
> > So what do you think?
> > ~D.

I agree that wolf fourths seem less objectionable in general -- it seems more usual to treat a fourth as a dissonance than a fifth. The organ sounds a bit grainy, but that could be the streaming audio. Otherwise, I think the style of the music and the tuning is a good match for the organ timbre, and the dissonance just adds a little spice.

On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 11:25 -0800, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Hi Danny,
>
> >The fourth and last tune on the featured playlist on my temporary
> >website (http://www.myspace.com/dawier) is the beginning of a work for
> >either organ and piano or organ and orchestra, again in 72-edo near-JI,
> >and again using 31&41 MIRACLE temperament. I'm planning on working in
> >19&53 kleismic (generator: 316.67 cents), which I'd imagine would work
> >better with minor tonalities.
>
> I'm not following. The King is Undead will be in miracle or in
> kleismic?

Both, I hope, with miracle for major keys and kleismic for minor, more
or less. The minor tetrachord would be 0 11 19 30, close to what you get
in 19 equal temperament.

I have a 53-tone set I call "joker", with the 19-tone sub-subset in
parentheses:

(0) 1 3 (4) 5 7 (8) 10 (11) 12 14 (15) 16
18 (19) 20 22 (23) 24 26 (27) 29 (30) 31 33 (34) 35
37 (38) 39 41 (42) 43 (45) 46 48 (49) 50 52 (53)
54 56 (57) 58 60 (61) 62 (64) 65 67 (68) 69 71 (72)

This will also allow me to use the thirteenth harmonic more, with the
classic diminished fifth being interpreted as either 13/9 or 32/25, and
one of my favorite chords, dim7bb9, as 75:90:108:130:156 (0 19 38 57 76
in 72-edo; 0 14 28 42 56 in 53).

> The new piece rocks!!

Why thank you! I hope it still rocks if/when I'm finished with it.

> I still don't like the piano sound on Waterloo much, and I still think
> it's too fast, but it's still a fantastic piece.

I'm torn on the piano sound. The Roland isn't as bright as I want,
freepats is too bright. Also, freepats has no stereo separation, which
I'd much rather have. But I'm planning on revising "Waterloo", where the
tempo changes a little so it won't sound so robotic. There are a few
heavy parts that need to be a wee bit slower, as in half = 100 instead
of 108.

I did try the software piano you recommended, Carl, and I liked it,
except it doesn't play notes lower than A0. I'm still looking for a
cross between a Bosendorfer (range to C0 included) and a Yamaha (who
owns Bosendorfer now, incidentally).

~D.

On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 18:19 -0500, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> This is quite good. The wolf 4ths sounded kinda authentic, but kind of
> detracted.
> Are you using a sequencer? I wonder if you might be able to put those notes
> in a parallel track with the temperament you actually want there. I've used
> this technique to do other types of manipulations.

Yeah, I'm using Noteworthy, and trying to master Rosegarden in the
meanwhile. I actually did write everything in 12-equal on one track,
then distributed all the notes on six grand staffs, all tuned 16 2/3
cents apart and silenced the 12-equal track.

You can actually merge staffs in Noteworthy and give notes different
colors to make multi-colored notation. Untuned 12-equal notes could be
black, notes tuned 17 cents sharp red, notes tuned 17 cents flat blue,
and so on. However, measures with rests will clutter everything, so I'd
make printable scores with Lilypond instead and use Tartini-Couper
quarter tone accidentals and comma arrows - or Sagittal notation if I
need it.

~D.

On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 23:24 -0500, Herman Miller wrote:
> Danny Wier wrote:

> > Since I don't have adaptive JI as an option, I had to use a few wolf
> > fourths. I'm more lenient with those than wolf fifths and octaves, as
> > I'm more tolerant of parallel fourths than I am the other perfect
> > consonances. It's actually my first attempt at non-ET, non-meantone
> > four-part Baroque polyphony, and this could also be played in 53-tone.

> I agree that wolf fourths seem less objectionable in general -- it seems
> more usual to treat a fourth as a dissonance than a fifth. The organ
> sounds a bit grainy, but that could be the streaming audio. Otherwise, I
> think the style of the music and the tuning is a good match for the
> organ timbre, and the dissonance just adds a little spice.

The way I see it, if 32/27 is an acceptable minor third, then why isn't
27/20 an acceptable fourth?

I was put off by the off-sounding intervals in diminished chords, since
in C#o7, the C# is a comma flat and the Bb a comma sharp. I'm too used
to hearing organ in 12-et, and I thought I was hearing a calliope. Then
I realized I wanted a macabre sound in the first place.

I still have to master the art of using "kosher wolves" like 27/20,
21/16 and so on. You want them in tenser moments; you definitely don't
resolve to such things.

~D.

my Beyond the windows CD used a 40/27 prominently in and out for 55 minutes and i heard no complaints. in fact it was spaced an octave and a fifth where the harmonic of the lower would make it more noticeable.

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

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

Danny Wier wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 23:24 -0500, Herman Miller wrote:
> > Danny Wier wrote:
>
> > > Since I don't have adaptive JI as an option, I had to use a few wolf
> > > fourths. I'm more lenient with those than wolf fifths and octaves, as
> > > I'm more tolerant of parallel fourths than I am the other perfect
> > > consonances. It's actually my first attempt at non-ET, non-meantone
> > > four-part Baroque polyphony, and this could also be played in 53-tone.
>
> > I agree that wolf fourths seem less objectionable in general -- it > seems
> > more usual to treat a fourth as a dissonance than a fifth. The organ
> > sounds a bit grainy, but that could be the streaming audio. > Otherwise, I
> > think the style of the music and the tuning is a good match for the
> > organ timbre, and the dissonance just adds a little spice.
>
> The way I see it, if 32/27 is an acceptable minor third, then why isn't
> 27/20 an acceptable fourth?
>
> I was put off by the off-sounding intervals in diminished chords, since
> in C#o7, the C# is a comma flat and the Bb a comma sharp. I'm too used
> to hearing organ in 12-et, and I thought I was hearing a calliope. Then
> I realized I wanted a macabre sound in the first place.
>
> I still have to master the art of using "kosher wolves" like 27/20,
> 21/16 and so on. You want them in tenser moments; you definitely don't
> resolve to such things.
>
> ~D.
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> my Beyond the windows CD used a 40/27 prominently in and out for 55
> minutes and i heard no complaints. in fact it was spaced an octave
and a
> fifth where the harmonic of the lower would make it more noticeable.

Another example of there being no such thing as absolute
'dissonance'...it depends on stylistic contexts, timbre, etc.

For example I'm always amazed at how all the complaining about
19-equal or even 31-equal 5ths being too flat etc. never bear out in
my experience. In the contexts in which they are appropriately used,
they sound fine to me. Just active and colorful. And the same people
who complain might accept 7-equal 5ths with joy. Maybe though they
don't like the middle ground, and enjoy the extremes--really in tune
or really sour.

I think listening to intervals while tuning makes them more noticable
than when they are used in most musical contexts, save the slowest of
tempi.

Since you've mentioned it, "Beyond the Windows" is fantastic, as I'm
sure I've told you. Last year a friend and I listened to it in a
darkened room at a listening session. We both agreed that it was
incredible that it was 55 minutes...it didn't feel that long at all, a
sure sign that you had our attention throughout.

-AKJ

>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /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/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
>
> Danny Wier wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 23:24 -0500, Herman Miller wrote:
> > > Danny Wier wrote:
> >
> > > > Since I don't have adaptive JI as an option, I had to use a
few wolf
> > > > fourths. I'm more lenient with those than wolf fifths and
octaves, as
> > > > I'm more tolerant of parallel fourths than I am the other perfect
> > > > consonances. It's actually my first attempt at non-ET,
non-meantone
> > > > four-part Baroque polyphony, and this could also be played in
53-tone.
> >
> > > I agree that wolf fourths seem less objectionable in general -- it
> > seems
> > > more usual to treat a fourth as a dissonance than a fifth. The organ
> > > sounds a bit grainy, but that could be the streaming audio.
> > Otherwise, I
> > > think the style of the music and the tuning is a good match for the
> > > organ timbre, and the dissonance just adds a little spice.
> >
> > The way I see it, if 32/27 is an acceptable minor third, then why
isn't
> > 27/20 an acceptable fourth?
> >
> > I was put off by the off-sounding intervals in diminished chords,
since
> > in C#o7, the C# is a comma flat and the Bb a comma sharp. I'm too used
> > to hearing organ in 12-et, and I thought I was hearing a calliope.
Then
> > I realized I wanted a macabre sound in the first place.
> >
> > I still have to master the art of using "kosher wolves" like 27/20,
> > 21/16 and so on. You want them in tenser moments; you definitely don't
> > resolve to such things.
> >
> > ~D.
> >
> >
>

2008/12/19 Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>:

> You can actually merge staffs in Noteworthy and give notes different
> colors to make multi-colored notation. Untuned 12-equal notes could be
> black, notes tuned 17 cents sharp red, notes tuned 17 cents flat blue,
> and so on. However, measures with rests will clutter everything, so I'd
> make printable scores with Lilypond instead and use Tartini-Couper
> quarter tone accidentals and comma arrows - or Sagittal notation if I
> need it.

You have Sagittal notation working in Lilypond?! I'm making great
progress in understanding Lilypond's new pitch notation, anyway. I
can, for example, produce a MIDI file in 31-equal to match a score
using those Tartini-Couper accidentals. Still no Sagittal, though.

Graham

On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 14:13 +0800, Graham Breed wrote:

> You have Sagittal notation working in Lilypond?! I'm making great
> progress in understanding Lilypond's new pitch notation, anyway. I
> can, for example, produce a MIDI file in 31-equal to match a score
> using those Tartini-Couper accidentals. Still no Sagittal, though.

I forgot, we discussed this months ago - you have to do all sorts of
tweaking with Lilypond to get it to do any kind of Sagittal, if it's
even possble.

I really just need Tartini-Couper plus comma arrows for now, so maybe I
could make it work in Lilypond. But I still haven't gotten close to
mastering the language.

~D.