Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic [MMM] The impossible has been done! Beethoven in Just Intonation.

After 9 months of on and off fighting with this piece to put it in Just
Intonation, it's finally done.
Here is the finished version of Beethovens Drei Equali Andante in De Velde
JI :)

/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI).mid

Here is the transcription:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI).ods
And here the Scala sequence file:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI).seq

Here are midi renderings of each trombone playing louder than the others so
you can follow the individual melodies better (very revealing!):
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m1.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m3.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m4.mid

Here renderings with the midi organ and piano sounds (both giving a
different look at the tuning):
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/other_sounds/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_organ.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/other_sounds/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_piano.mid

And here the 12tet renderings for comparison (and a laugh):
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/12tet/WoO30-Andante_(12tet).mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/12tet/WoO30-Andante_(12tet)_organ.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/12tet/WoO30-Andante_(12tet)_piano.mid

For those who think this is not correct 5-limit Just Intonation and in the
past have used mocking names such as "De Velde JI", I will now agree with
the name, I kinda like it, and call this De Velde JI ;)
Classic 5-limit JI rules don't solve comma problems, De Velde JI does.

If you thought Just Intonation is impossible for common practice music, this
piece should be a prime example of the impossibility of JI, yet as you can
hear it is done nonetheless.
And the Techniques used here will work in all common practice music to put
it in correct "De Velde" JI.
If after hearing this piece you think it isn't correct or in tune, then show
me a version that's better!
Either a different way of Just Intonation with for instance higher primes,
or classic 5-limit JI with comma shifts (or a drifting version), or
"adaptive ji" (oh how I hate adaprive ji, the big melody killer), or some
temperament.
Again, if you think this isn't right, then make a better one (or simply
state you prefer 12tet, in which case you must be deaf).
As you can see I've included the Scala sequence file and open office doument
with the tuning.
Simply modify the ods file data and then copy paste the data into the Scala
sequence file, then press "transform sequence to midi file" in Scala and
it's done, couldn't be easyer.
Please do provide the tuning so I can render it into thesame midi files with
thesame sounds etc for a fair comparison.

Also, for my sake please discuss this piece on either this list or on the
Just Intonation Yahoo group:
/JustIntonation/
As I am no longer a member of the Tuning Yahoo group.
After Carl decided to moderate me after a message he didn't like, I decided
to leave.
Carl then sent me a message offlist to show his tuning of the beginning of
Drei Equali (with the main melody horribly out of tune) after which we had a
discussion after which Carl banned me from the tuning list.
How the hell he got it in his mind to ban me while I'm not even a member and
after an offlist discussion which he started is beyond me, but anyhow I'm
not a member there and frankly the way Carl dominates every discussion there
about JI with his strong anti-JI sentiment makes me glad I'm out of there.

Now for some very simple comma problem solutions:
4/3 5/3 2/1
4/3 5/3 9/4
3/2 15/8 9/4
3/2 2/1 5/2
4/3 5/3 2/1 8/3

or:
1/1 5/4 3/2
1/1 5/4 5/3 (or 1/1 4/3 5/3)
9/8 4/3 5/3 (sounds way better if you give it a bass of 2/3)
9/8 4/3 15/8 (or 9/8 3/2 15/8 etc)
1/1 5/4 3/2 2/1

This is the 1/1 5/4 27/16 chord which is most often mistaken for 1/1 6/5 3/2
minor chord after which you'd get a comma problem.
The 1/1 5/4 27/16 is not a minor chord but a 1/1 5/4 3/2 major chord with
9/8 ontop of the 3/2 and the 3/2 not played.
I predict there is also a 1/1 6/5 3/2 16/9 chord (1/1 5/4 40/27 5/3, 1/1
32/27 4/3 8/5) but I have no example of it yet and it doesn't occur in the
drei equali piece.
These 2 chords solve just about all real comma problems.
Then it's simply working out what the chord progressions are, the movement
of the true fundamental bass (which moves in consonant intervals) and the
melodies etc and every piece can be put in JI.
I'm still working on good rules for these but this is not finished yet and
have not included my clumsy attempts at this kind of analysis in the
transcription.

As last words I'd like to thank Petr Parizek for his email communications
with me about this piece.
It was very helpfull to have feedback, and Petr showed me a solution for
measure 35-36 which I had previously abandoned myself, thank you!

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Sorry to have to say this, but I found I made one little mistake in melody 2
measure 39.
It says a 27/8 there which should be 10/3.

It was the note I was most unsure about of the whole piece. 27/8 or 10/3
It was 50/50% at first but then thought I had found a few hints it should be
27/8 (60/40% chance or so) but I guessed wrong.

One of the rules I have invented goes that 2 melodies that move together in
thesame way (for instance 2 notes a fifth apart that both go up a whole
tone) stay in thesame ratio.
(like 1/1 5/4 -> 9/8 45/32 etc)

I didn't see such a thing going on with melody 2 in measure 39 but I was
seeing wrong.
It is there only it's hidden a bit.
It goes like this:

m1: m2:
(15/8) (3/1)
(135/64) |
(75/32) (27/8)

Now I thought nothing wrong with this, not breaking my rule.
But I overlooked that the note is held and forms 64/45 between 135/64 and
3/1 and then they both step up by a whole tone.
What's wrong in the above example is that melody 1 is going up by 10/9 and
melody 2 by 9/8.
So it should be:

m1: m2:
(15/8) (3/1)
(135/64) |
(75/32) (10/3)

Both stepping up by 10/9.

I've updated all the (DeVelde-JI) files including transcription and scala
file.
So if you've allready downloaded the files before this post, please
redownload :(
Sorry about that, don't think it'll happen again.

Also uploaded a few extra files comparing melody against melody 2 so you can
hear this action of melodies moving in thesame way staying in fixed ratio to
eachother.
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2vs1.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2vs3.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2vs4.mid
If you want to compare other melodies against others you could make your own
files, I've simply put midi volume of the melodies I want to hear to 90 and
others to 50.

Marcel

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

I think it sounds good for the most part, although there were a few
minor chords that sounded a bit off to me. For example, on the Gm that
came in a bit before the end, I would have liked to have heard a
higher Bb, although it didn't kill the piece.

One thing I think to note is that while this piece is going on, when
you hear it, in your mind you are thinking about the JI structure and
different prime factorizations of the intervals, which might give an
added layer of meaning to you when you hear stuff like this. For
someone like me, that isn't thinking about that, the Bb sounded flat
on the Gm chord, and I wish it were a 6/5, even if you did conceive of
it as 32/27.

Nonetheless, this does sound good, and I'd love to hear what your
methodology behind all of this is.

-Mike

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry to have to say this, but I found I made one little mistake in melody 2
> measure 39.
> It says a 27/8 there which should be 10/3.
>
> It was the note I was most unsure about of the whole piece. 27/8 or 10/3
> It was 50/50% at first but then thought I had found a few hints it should be
> 27/8 (60/40% chance or so) but I guessed wrong.
>
> One of the rules I have invented goes that 2 melodies that move together in
> thesame way (for instance 2 notes a fifth apart that both go up a whole
> tone) stay in thesame ratio.
> (like 1/1 5/4 -> 9/8 45/32 etc)
>
> I didn't see such a thing going on with melody 2 in measure 39 but I was
> seeing wrong.
> It is there only it's hidden a bit.
> It goes like this:
>
> m1: m2:
> (15/8) (3/1)
> (135/64) |
> (75/32) (27/8)
>
> Now I thought nothing wrong with this, not breaking my rule.
> But I overlooked that the note is held and forms 64/45 between 135/64 and
> 3/1 and then they both step up by a whole tone.
> What's wrong in the above example is that melody 1 is going up by 10/9 and
> melody 2 by 9/8.
> So it should be:
>
> m1: m2:
> (15/8) (3/1)
> (135/64) |
> (75/32) (10/3)
>
> Both stepping up by 10/9.
>
> I've updated all the (DeVelde-JI) files including transcription and scala
> file.
> So if you've allready downloaded the files before this post, please
> redownload :(
> Sorry about that, don't think it'll happen again.
>
> Also uploaded a few extra files comparing melody against melody 2 so you can
> hear this action of melodies moving in thesame way staying in fixed ratio to
> eachother.
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2vs1.mid
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2vs3.mid
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_(DeVelde-JI)_m2vs4.mid
> If you want to compare other melodies against others you could make your own
> files, I've simply put midi volume of the melodies I want to hear to 90 and
> others to 50.
>
> Marcel
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Mike,

Thanks for listening.

> I think it sounds good for the most part, although there were a few
> minor chords that sounded a bit off to me. For example, on the Gm that
> came in a bit before the end, I would have liked to have heard a
> higher Bb, although it didn't kill the piece.
>
> One thing I think to note is that while this piece is going on, when
> you hear it, in your mind you are thinking about the JI structure and
> different prime factorizations of the intervals, which might give an
> added layer of meaning to you when you hear stuff like this. For
> someone like me, that isn't thinking about that, the Bb sounded flat
> on the Gm chord, and I wish it were a 6/5, even if you did conceive of
> it as 32/27.
>
I'm not sure which chord you mean.
Do you mean Gm in measure 40?
It's a perfect 1/1 6/5 3/2 chord.
Infact all minor chords are perfect 1/1 6/5 3/2 chords except in measure 22
which is 1/1 5/4 3/2 27/16 which then immediatelly goes to 9/8 3/2 27/16
clearly showing it's a major chord + 9/8 whole tone and not a real minor
chord.
Btw if you're talking about measure 40 specifically. Are you listening to
the corrected version?
In the corrected version I corrected a Bb note in melody 2 in measure 39,
which did indeed make the Bb in measure 40 sound "lower". In the corrected
version both Bb in measure 39 and 40 are now thesame (Bb of) 10/3.
( I made A4 15/4 for readability of the numbers, so if you're used to C as
1/1 then simply substract a whole tone of all the ratios in the
transcription)

>
> Nonetheless, this does sound good, and I'd love to hear what your
> methodology behind all of this is.
>
> -Mike
>

Thanks :)
My methodology has been to not quit trying to put this piece in JI and throw
everything I could think of at it haha.
So I have been trying to combine theory with the ear.
Tried many different things, lost a lot of time trying out minor thirds like
19/16 etc which ended up not working at all.
Only recently when I got real close to this version I did theories get more
hold but still used the ear too.
In the end the theories that made this possible are the following:
1: Prime 5-limit
2: Melodies that are very clear to the ear don't have comma shifts.
3: You can get comma shifts in harmonies but only if the note that shift is
first part of one melody and then shifts because the note is then replaced
by a note from another melody.
4: 1/1 5/4 27/16 is a chord that is allowed under special circumstances and
can be seen as for instance a major chord + whole tone. (also probably 1/1
6/5 16/9 as I explained in my first message but it does not occur in this
piece)
5: The fundamental bass of a chord allways moves in consonant intervals. Now
this one I'm still not sure how to use because I'm clumsy at a JI defenition
of the fundamental bass. But everywhere in the piece the fundamental bass
moves by either 3/2 5/4 or 6/5 or their inversions. In places where it seems
the fundamental bass moves by 9/8 I have check to play the progressions as 2
3/2 movements and this shows the hidden fundamental bass progression and
allways works. However clumsy right now and still have a lot to work out
this technique saved me from a lot of wrong progressions allready.
6: When 2 tones move at thesame time in thesame way they keep thesame ratio
to eachother (I explained this one in my previous post). I haven't studied
counterpoint but I know it has rules that go something like this? Anyhow I
see this as a sort of JI counterpoint rule :) Only found it recently, still
have to work out what exactly defines an equal step and if there are any
exceptions.
7: I see scales as beeing built out of consonant progressions of the
fundamental bass and major chords (perhaps minor chords too). Like 1/1 9/8
5/4 4/3 3/2 5/4 15/8 2/1 is a major chord on 4/3 1/1 3/2 which is 2 times
progressions of 3/2 of the fundamental bass, the simplest scale.

Marcel

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Perhaps I'm ignorant, so I wish to be enlightened - My impression was that
JI would reduce the beating of chordal members - however, listening to this
in pianoteq there are some distinctly "rough" intervals / chords.

So this I ask - what is the advantage then if JI is not more consonant?

Chris

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Sorry to have to say this, but I found I made one little mistake in melody
> 2
> measure 39.
> It says a 27/8 there which should be 10/3.
>
> It was the note I was most unsure about of the whole piece. 27/8 or 10/3
> It was 50/50% at first but then thought I had found a few hints it should
> be
> 27/8 (60/40% chance or so) but I guessed wrong.
>
> One of the rules I have invented goes that 2 melodies that move together in
> thesame way (for instance 2 notes a fifth apart that both go up a whole
> tone) stay in thesame ratio.
> (like 1/1 5/4 -> 9/8 45/32 etc)
>
> I didn't see such a thing going on with melody 2 in measure 39 but I was
> seeing wrong.
> It is there only it's hidden a bit.
> It goes like this:
>
> m1: m2:
> (15/8) (3/1)
> (135/64) |
> (75/32) (27/8)
>
> Now I thought nothing wrong with this, not breaking my rule.
> But I overlooked that the note is held and forms 64/45 between 135/64 and
> 3/1 and then they both step up by a whole tone.
> What's wrong in the above example is that melody 1 is going up by 10/9 and
> melody 2 by 9/8.
> So it should be:
>
> m1: m2:
> (15/8) (3/1)
> (135/64) |
> (75/32) (10/3)
>
> Both stepping up by 10/9.
>
> I've updated all the (DeVelde-JI) files including transcription and scala
> file.
> So if you've allready downloaded the files before this post, please
> redownload :(
> Sorry about that, don't think it'll happen again.
>
> Also uploaded a few extra files comparing melody against melody 2 so you
> can
> hear this action of melodies moving in thesame way staying in fixed ratio
> to
> eachother.
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_
> (DeVelde-JI)_m2vs1.mid
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_
> (DeVelde-JI)_m2vs3.mid
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/drei_equali/melodies/m2vs/WoO30-Andante_
> (DeVelde-JI)_m2vs4.mid
> If you want to compare other melodies against others you could make your
> own
> files, I've simply put midi volume of the melodies I want to hear to 90 and
> others to 50.
>
> Marcel
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris,

> Perhaps I'm ignorant, so I wish to be enlightened - My impression was that
> JI would reduce the beating of chordal members - however, listening to this
> in pianoteq there are some distinctly "rough" intervals / chords.
>
Pianoteq doesn't play midi files with tuning information correctly it seems.
Just tried it out. Some of the presets did it very bad.
I got the best result with the Blanchet harpsichord when set to equal
temperament (strange enough flat made it worse) but even then it's not spot
on.
I don't know what pianoteq does but it's not perfectly in tune according to
equal temperament so the midi pitch bends don't bring the notes to their
correct pitches.
Offcourse if you accidently selected a very different tuning from equal
temperament like zarlino or werkmeister then the results will be very far
off.
Untill now if I wanted good tuning I've used a scala scale inside pianoteq
and then a midi file specific for that scale so it hits the right notes.
No such scale or midi file available for this piece though as I'no longer
use pianoteq myself.

>
> So this I ask - what is the advantage then if JI is not more consonant?
>
> Chris
>
Rest assured that JI is more consonant :)Don't you have a soundcard that
plays the midi files correctly?
Then compare with for instance the organ sound. It makes it very clear how
terribly out of tune 12tet is, while the JI version sounds 100% tight.

Though expect yet another new version soon of my drei equali piece :(
I found I've been sloppy in applying my own JI rules (especially the one
that notes that move together keep thesame ratio between them).
When following my own rules very strict it makes a few notes different
throughout the whole piece which make it even more clear.
But a main difference is that from measure 15 to 20 the pitch drops by a
syntonic comma, big difference, and that the Gm chords end up higher in
relation. So from measure 15 to 25 the piece has changed substantially.
Have been checking it for the past 2 days, will do more checking to know
every single note is now correct to my theory (so I won't ever have to
repost) and then post.

Marcel

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Perhaps it would be best for you to release an mp3 file that sounds as you
want.

If you need hosting for the file I can provide that for free. All you need
to do is email the mp3 file and I will put it up at
http://micro.soonlabel.com for you.

When I tried to play you midi on my windows XP installation I had no sound.
Not sure why that is.
However, I think you would receive a better reception is you provide a mp3
file with a high quality should.

Just my 2 cents,

Chris

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
> > Perhaps I'm ignorant, so I wish to be enlightened - My impression was
> that
> > JI would reduce the beating of chordal members - however, listening to
> this
> > in pianoteq there are some distinctly "rough" intervals / chords.
> >
> Pianoteq doesn't play midi files with tuning information correctly it
> seems.
> Just tried it out. Some of the presets did it very bad.
> I got the best result with the Blanchet harpsichord when set to equal
> temperament (strange enough flat made it worse) but even then it's not spot
> on.
> I don't know what pianoteq does but it's not perfectly in tune according to
> equal temperament so the midi pitch bends don't bring the notes to their
> correct pitches.
> Offcourse if you accidently selected a very different tuning from equal
> temperament like zarlino or werkmeister then the results will be very far
> off.
> Untill now if I wanted good tuning I've used a scala scale inside pianoteq
> and then a midi file specific for that scale so it hits the right notes.
> No such scale or midi file available for this piece though as I'no longer
> use pianoteq myself.
>
> >
> > So this I ask - what is the advantage then if JI is not more consonant?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> Rest assured that JI is more consonant :)Don't you have a soundcard that
> plays the midi files correctly?
> Then compare with for instance the organ sound. It makes it very clear how
> terribly out of tune 12tet is, while the JI version sounds 100% tight.
>
> Though expect yet another new version soon of my drei equali piece :(
> I found I've been sloppy in applying my own JI rules (especially the one
> that notes that move together keep thesame ratio between them).
> When following my own rules very strict it makes a few notes different
> throughout the whole piece which make it even more clear.
> But a main difference is that from measure 15 to 20 the pitch drops by a
> syntonic comma, big difference, and that the Gm chords end up higher in
> relation. So from measure 15 to 25 the piece has changed substantially.
> Have been checking it for the past 2 days, will do more checking to know
> every single note is now correct to my theory (so I won't ever have to
> repost) and then post.
>
> Marcel
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Perhaps it would be best for you to release an mp3 file that sounds as you
> want.
>
> If you need hosting for the file I can provide that for free. All you need
> to do is email the mp3 file and I will put it up at
> http://micro.soonlabel.com for you.
>
> When I tried to play you midi on my windows XP installation I had no sound.
> Not sure why that is.
> However, I think you would receive a better reception is you provide a mp3
> file with a high quality should.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
> Chris
>

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the hosting offer but I have a google page that would do fine.
However I'm still to download some soundfonts and figure out timidity.
I'll do that as soon as I'm done with the drei equali.
Right now I'm still working with midi sounds from my soundcard.
Btw, you can also play the midi files in your browser with quicktime, I
think it renders the midi sounds with it's own soundfonts and you'll need a
soudcard only for audio output.
Though this is kinda pointless for the drei equali right now as I see it is
still wrong as it's posted now.
I'm getting there though. My rule of notes that move thesame stay in thesame
ratio leads to a fourth of 27/20 very often.
This is I think why the fourth is considered a dissonance.
This is the key to solving drei equali. I see the whole structure of the
piece in my head right now, writing it down as we speak :)

Marcel

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Marcel,

I have gigabytes of soundfonts available at

http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank

You (and anyone else) are welcome to them

I try to avoid quicktime. The Windows version leaves lots to be desired.

When you have a new midi I will try Timidity - that is a good program.

Chris

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> >
> > Perhaps it would be best for you to release an mp3 file that sounds as
> you
> > want.
> >
> > If you need hosting for the file I can provide that for free. All you
> need
> > to do is email the mp3 file and I will put it up at
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com for you.
> >
> > When I tried to play you midi on my windows XP installation I had no
> sound.
> > Not sure why that is.
> > However, I think you would receive a better reception is you provide a
> mp3
> > file with a high quality should.
> >
> > Just my 2 cents,
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for the hosting offer but I have a google page that would do fine.
> However I'm still to download some soundfonts and figure out timidity.
> I'll do that as soon as I'm done with the drei equali.
> Right now I'm still working with midi sounds from my soundcard.
> Btw, you can also play the midi files in your browser with quicktime, I
> think it renders the midi sounds with it's own soundfonts and you'll need a
> soudcard only for audio output.
> Though this is kinda pointless for the drei equali right now as I see it is
> still wrong as it's posted now.
> I'm getting there though. My rule of notes that move thesame stay in
> thesame
> ratio leads to a fourth of 27/20 very often.
> This is I think why the fourth is considered a dissonance.
> This is the key to solving drei equali. I see the whole structure of the
> piece in my head right now, writing it down as we speak :)
>
> Marcel
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris,

> Marcel,
>
> I have gigabytes of soundfonts available at
>
> http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank
>
> You (and anyone else) are welcome to them
>
>
Many thanks!
I will clear some harddiskspace and download them comming days :)

> I try to avoid quicktime. The Windows version leaves lots to be desired.
>
> Yes I know what you mean.
Sad to see apple is trying to make windows users miserable, apparently on
purpose.

When you have a new midi I will try Timidity - that is a good program.
>
> Chris
>
Ok cool.And I'll try to get mine working too.

Here you can find the new midi:
www.develde.net

I've also put up an mp3 of the new version made with pianoteq harsichord.
It doesn't show the tuning very well, but it's better than nothing.
Made unison width 0 (which makes the sound even more artificial) and
selected flat temperament.

I'm calling it a preliminary version as I can't be sure of every single
note.
I've just found out my new rule of notes that move in thesame way stay in
thesame ratio to eachother is a nonesense rule :)
I was allready kind of expecting this but it would have been nice if it
held.
It does seem to hold under certain circumstances but ah well.
What I am sure of is the general structure and the dissonant fourths of
27/10.
They uphold my 1/1 5/4 27/16 comma solution perfectly.
After a few hours of listening to the dissonant fourths in this piece I'm
really starting to like them.
They have an arabic feel to them to me :)
Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
Marcel

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Marcel, as has been mentioned several times before... would you put up an .mp3 that is to your sastisfaction as as tuning? And not a plinky sound like harpsichord.

I've also had trouble playing your MIDI files, for whatever reason. Basically all the work you've done is for nothing, from my vantage point, because I CAN'T HEAR FOR CERTAIN WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> > Marcel,
> >
> > I have gigabytes of soundfonts available at
> >
> > http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank
> >
> > You (and anyone else) are welcome to them
> >
> >
> Many thanks!
> I will clear some harddiskspace and download them comming days :)
>
>
> > I try to avoid quicktime. The Windows version leaves lots to be desired.
> >
> > Yes I know what you mean.
> Sad to see apple is trying to make windows users miserable, apparently on
> purpose.
>
> When you have a new midi I will try Timidity - that is a good program.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> Ok cool.And I'll try to get mine working too.
>
> Here you can find the new midi:
> www.develde.net
>
> I've also put up an mp3 of the new version made with pianoteq harsichord.
> It doesn't show the tuning very well, but it's better than nothing.
> Made unison width 0 (which makes the sound even more artificial) and
> selected flat temperament.
>
> I'm calling it a preliminary version as I can't be sure of every single
> note.
> I've just found out my new rule of notes that move in thesame way stay in
> thesame ratio to eachother is a nonesense rule :)
> I was allready kind of expecting this but it would have been nice if it
> held.
> It does seem to hold under certain circumstances but ah well.
> What I am sure of is the general structure and the dissonant fourths of
> 27/10.
> They uphold my 1/1 5/4 27/16 comma solution perfectly.
> After a few hours of listening to the dissonant fourths in this piece I'm
> really starting to like them.
> They have an arabic feel to them to me :)
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Cheers,
> Marcel
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Cameron,

> Marcel, as has been mentioned several times before... would you put up an
> .mp3 that is to your sastisfaction as as tuning? And not a plinky sound like
> harpsichord.
>
> I've also had trouble playing your MIDI files, for whatever reason.
> Basically all the work you've done is for nothing, from my vantage point,
> because I CAN'T HEAR FOR CERTAIN WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
>

Yes I'm done enough now with the piece to focus on Timidity and finding a
good soundfont.
Expect a good mp3 in the next few days.

I've now updated the piece to preliminary version 2.
This may very well be the final version. Can't hear anything wrong with it
anymore.

I've updated all the files at www.develde.net
Also the pianoteq harsichord mp3, which sounds great now.

Also commented the html transcription.
Recomended download. I clearly point out all the dissonant fourths in the
tuning.

I'm so glad that after all this time and all these failures and making
myself rediculous for a 100 times on the lists I can finally make true on my
promises.
This piece will change Just Intonation forever! :-)

Marcel

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris :)

> I think we all appreciate your humility Marcel :-)
>
> Seriously - why is this going to change JI?
>

It will change JI and music theory and music as a whole.
In here I solve the most difficult problems facing Just Intonation.
I solved the comma problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can not give enough explamation marks to point out the importance of this.
From this piece it can be learned how to put all common practice music in
correct JI.
For the first time ever music can be put in tune.
In the longer run the implications for music theory are enormous.
You can literally read music theory in the tuning of the piece.
JI is at the basis of music, it's the way music works.
In some time after more progres programs can be made that compose music, or
assist in composition in ways unheard of now and impossible with currect
music theory.
And microtones can be used etc etc.
This all will lead to new music (and not atonal crap like music schools put
out a lot now)
etc etc etc.
It's hard to overestimate the impact solving JI will have I think.

Marcel

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

🔗Aaron Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
> Though expect yet another new version soon of my drei equali piece :(
> I found I've been sloppy in applying my own JI rules (especially the one
> that notes that move together keep thesame ratio between them).
>

So, we'll look forward to a final, final, final, final, final, final, FINAL
version? Whoopee!

> When following my own rules very strict it makes a few notes different
> throughout the whole piece which make it even more clear.
> But a main difference is that from measure 15 to 20 the pitch drops by a
> syntonic comma, big difference, and that the Gm chords end up higher in
> relation. So from measure 15 to 25 the piece has changed substantially.
> Have been checking it for the past 2 days, will do more checking to know
> every single note is now correct to my theory (so I won't ever have to
> repost) and then post.
>

Perhaps you are discovering that it's impossible to make 2+2=5? Or that you
are just pushing the lump in the bedsheet to another location?

Nah, maybe you'll see that it about 7 years, but not now, right? Then you'd
have to retract all the bold claims you've been making over and over again.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Aaron Johnson <aaron@...>

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> Friendly as ever :)
>
>
I am actually pretty friendly :) I just lose patience with foolishness.....

>
>
> Perhaps you are discovering that it's impossible to make 2+2=5? Or that
> you
> > are just pushing the lump in the bedsheet to another location?
> >
>
> No I am discovering and PROVING that what other have allways said is
> impossible is infact POSSIBLE.
> JI doesn't have a comma problem. People used to have a comma problem but I
> solved this problem now.
> Go listen for yourself and look at the transcription: www.develde.net
>
>
Sure, 40/27 is an ok interesting interval. But, guess what: it has NO PLACE
in Beethoven, ok? Write some new interesting music with it. You've certainly
proven yourself to be, at the very least, a very _creative_ person.

Redefining the 'rules' is not transcending them. Sorry, but your are still a
circle-squarer. Or windmill chaser.

Did I mention that I traveled backwards in time to write this message to
you? I saw, 7 years into the future, that you are still foolishly wrestling
with all this....

>
> >
> Nah, maybe you'll see that it about 7 years, but not now, right? Then you'd
> > have to retract all the bold claims you've been making over and over
> again.
> >
>
> I hope that it won't take you 7 years to see that the greatest thing in
> tuning has been done right in front of your eyes and that you didn't
> understand it and acted like this to the person who did it ;)

Wow. "The greatest thing in tuning?" Since what? Since EVER?

If you think changing the fabric of reality to make 3/2 = 40/27 is the
"greatest thing in tuning", be my guest. It still doesn't change the fact
that you're turning Beethoven into skunk shit. And that leads us to the
final question: who, besides yourself, have you convinced here?

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> I am actually pretty friendly :) I just lose patience with foolishness.....
>

Oh I agree right away that I have plenty of foolishness in me.
But I hope this foolishness is well balanced by other sides :)

>
> > No I am discovering and PROVING that what other have allways said is
> > impossible is infact POSSIBLE.
> > JI doesn't have a comma problem. People used to have a comma problem but
> I
> > solved this problem now.
> > Go listen for yourself and look at the transcription: www.develde.net
> >
> >
> Sure, 40/27 is an ok interesting interval. But, guess what: it has NO PLACE
> in Beethoven, ok?
>

No I did not and Beethoven did not write a single 40/27.
It's a 27/20
There's a difference.
For instance counterpoint considers the fourth a dissonance often. But the
fifth is allways consonant.
Why are you trying to turn my fourth into a fifth?
My fourth of 27/20 will never have it's fundamental bass on itself to form a
40/27 fifth.
Fundamental bass moves in consonant intervals. My fourth is a dissonance. No
fundamental bass on my dissonant fourth means never ever a 40/27 fifth.
Sure from this dissonant fourth of 27/20 to the octave is 40/27. But this is
not a 40/27 fifth from the fundamental bass and will not sound as such.

> Write some new interesting music with it. You've certainly
> proven yourself to be, at the very least, a very _creative_ person.
>
> Redefining the 'rules' is not transcending them. Sorry, but your are still
> a
> circle-squarer. Or windmill chaser.
>

No circle squaring here or perpetual mobile etc here.
I can understand you've become fully convinced the comma problem can never
be solved.
But you have been wrong in thinking so.
Yes it's true it can never be solved when all fourths and fifths should be
4/3 and 3/2.
But it is solved with a fourth beeing sometimes 4/3 sometimes 27/20 and
fifth allways 3/2.

> Did I mention that I traveled backwards in time to write this message to
> you? I saw, 7 years into the future, that you are still foolishly wrestling
> with all this....
>
> >
> > >
> > Nah, maybe you'll see that it about 7 years, but not now, right? Then
> you'd
> > > have to retract all the bold claims you've been making over and over
> > again.
> > >
> >
> > I hope that it won't take you 7 years to see that the greatest thing in
> > tuning has been done right in front of your eyes and that you didn't
> > understand it and acted like this to the person who did it ;)
>
> Wow. "The greatest thing in tuning?" Since what? Since EVER?
>
> If you think changing the fabric of reality to make 3/2 = 40/27 is the
> "greatest thing in tuning", be my guest. It still doesn't change the fact
> that you're turning Beethoven into skunk shit. And that leads us to the
> final question: who, besides yourself, have you convinced here?
>

Please stop calling my dissonant fourth of 27/20 a fifth.

And I have no idea how many people are currently looking into my solution
and how many of these will be convinced.
But I am convinced that given time just about everybody will agree with me.
I will continue to tune pieces with my solution and people will like what
they hear and see that every piece can be solved this way and that the
results make incredible sense etc.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

perhaps I'm silly - but how can this be true JI with a 4th that is not
perfect?

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> > I am actually pretty friendly :) I just lose patience with
> foolishness.....
> >
>
> Oh I agree right away that I have plenty of foolishness in me.
> But I hope this foolishness is well balanced by other sides :)
>
> >
> > > No I am discovering and PROVING that what other have allways said is
> > > impossible is infact POSSIBLE.
> > > JI doesn't have a comma problem. People used to have a comma problem
> but
> > I
> > > solved this problem now.
> > > Go listen for yourself and look at the transcription: www.develde.net
> > >
> > >
> > Sure, 40/27 is an ok interesting interval. But, guess what: it has NO
> PLACE
> > in Beethoven, ok?
> >
>
> No I did not and Beethoven did not write a single 40/27.
> It's a 27/20
> There's a difference.
> For instance counterpoint considers the fourth a dissonance often. But the
> fifth is allways consonant.
> Why are you trying to turn my fourth into a fifth?
> My fourth of 27/20 will never have it's fundamental bass on itself to form
> a
> 40/27 fifth.
> Fundamental bass moves in consonant intervals. My fourth is a dissonance.
> No
> fundamental bass on my dissonant fourth means never ever a 40/27 fifth.
> Sure from this dissonant fourth of 27/20 to the octave is 40/27. But this
> is
> not a 40/27 fifth from the fundamental bass and will not sound as such.
>
> > Write some new interesting music with it. You've certainly
> > proven yourself to be, at the very least, a very _creative_ person.
> >
> > Redefining the 'rules' is not transcending them. Sorry, but your are
> still
> > a
> > circle-squarer. Or windmill chaser.
> >
>
> No circle squaring here or perpetual mobile etc here.
> I can understand you've become fully convinced the comma problem can never
> be solved.
> But you have been wrong in thinking so.
> Yes it's true it can never be solved when all fourths and fifths should be
> 4/3 and 3/2.
> But it is solved with a fourth beeing sometimes 4/3 sometimes 27/20 and
> fifth allways 3/2.
>
> > Did I mention that I traveled backwards in time to write this message to
> > you? I saw, 7 years into the future, that you are still foolishly
> wrestling
> > with all this....
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > Nah, maybe you'll see that it about 7 years, but not now, right? Then
> > you'd
> > > > have to retract all the bold claims you've been making over and over
> > > again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I hope that it won't take you 7 years to see that the greatest thing in
> > > tuning has been done right in front of your eyes and that you didn't
> > > understand it and acted like this to the person who did it ;)
> >
> > Wow. "The greatest thing in tuning?" Since what? Since EVER?
> >
> > If you think changing the fabric of reality to make 3/2 = 40/27 is the
> > "greatest thing in tuning", be my guest. It still doesn't change the fact
> > that you're turning Beethoven into skunk shit. And that leads us to the
> > final question: who, besides yourself, have you convinced here?
> >
>
> Please stop calling my dissonant fourth of 27/20 a fifth.
>
> And I have no idea how many people are currently looking into my solution
> and how many of these will be convinced.
> But I am convinced that given time just about everybody will agree with me.
> I will continue to tune pieces with my solution and people will like what
> they hear and see that every piece can be solved this way and that the
> results make incredible sense etc.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 3 Oct 2009, at 2:25 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> It will change JI and music theory and music as a whole.
> In here I solve the most difficult problems facing Just Intonation.
> I solved the comma problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I can not give enough explamation marks to point out the importance > of this.
>

It has maybe some importance for JI music, but not all music is in JI and needs to be in JI.

> From this piece it can be learned how to put all common practice > music in
> correct JI.
>

Once more - not every music work cries "I want to be in JI".

> For the first time ever music can be put in tune.
>

Then you should explain what this "in tune" means. Not every chord is based on thirds - there are inversions with different interval structure, then quartal chords, chords combining thirds and fourths, clusters... Chords can be diatonic, or chromatic, or go behind 12 tones thanks to microtonality. There are also chords done in different ET or other microtonal scales, which has nothing to do with JI, they are intentionally detuned in their system.

Music is based on contrast, one element of it is consonance and dissonance. There's no reason to do everything uniform and have all chords perfectly "tuned".

There is also another problem - even when you JI tune by some miracle all chords (verticals), melodies will be out of tune (horizontals). From this point of you especially polyphonic, counterpointal music will be difficult if not impossible to tune.

> In the longer run the implications for music theory are enormous.
>

I don't think. Stay cool. We can't expect revolutions in this field. Maybe after another 500 years :-)

> You can literally read music theory in the tuning of the piece.
> JI is at the basis of music, it's the way music works.
>

Which music?

> In some time after more progres programs can be made that compose > music, or
> assist in composition in ways unheard of now and impossible with > currect
> music theory.
>

Such programs exist even now, but good composer doesn't need such help :-) And why do you mention it, has it something to do with tuning?

> And microtones can be used etc etc.
> This all will lead to new music (and not atonal crap like music > schools put
> out a lot now)
>

Atonality is a part of history of music, and can be used well like all the other means if you know how. Yes, there's a lot of atonal crap as well as tonal or any other crap. It's not problem of school.

> etc etc etc.
> It's hard to overestimate the impact solving JI will have I think.
>
> Marcel
>

Daniel Forro

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Yip.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Oct 2009, at 2:25 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
> > It will change JI and music theory and music as a whole.
> > In here I solve the most difficult problems facing Just Intonation.
> > I solved the comma problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > I can not give enough explamation marks to point out the importance
> > of this.
> >
>
> It has maybe some importance for JI music, but not all music is in JI
> and needs to be in JI.
>
> > From this piece it can be learned how to put all common practice
> > music in
> > correct JI.
> >
>
> Once more - not every music work cries "I want to be in JI".
>
> > For the first time ever music can be put in tune.
> >
>
> Then you should explain what this "in tune" means. Not every chord is
> based on thirds - there are inversions with different interval
> structure, then quartal chords, chords combining thirds and fourths,
> clusters... Chords can be diatonic, or chromatic, or go behind 12
> tones thanks to microtonality. There are also chords done in
> different ET or other microtonal scales, which has nothing to do with
> JI, they are intentionally detuned in their system.
>
> Music is based on contrast, one element of it is consonance and
> dissonance. There's no reason to do everything uniform and have all
> chords perfectly "tuned".
>
> There is also another problem - even when you JI tune by some miracle
> all chords (verticals), melodies will be out of tune (horizontals).
> From this point of you especially polyphonic, counterpointal music
> will be difficult if not impossible to tune.
>
> > In the longer run the implications for music theory are enormous.
> >
>
> I don't think. Stay cool. We can't expect revolutions in this field.
> Maybe after another 500 years :-)
>
> > You can literally read music theory in the tuning of the piece.
> > JI is at the basis of music, it's the way music works.
> >
>
> Which music?
>
> > In some time after more progres programs can be made that compose
> > music, or
> > assist in composition in ways unheard of now and impossible with
> > currect
> > music theory.
> >
>
> Such programs exist even now, but good composer doesn't need such
> help :-) And why do you mention it, has it something to do with
> tuning?
>
> > And microtones can be used etc etc.
> > This all will lead to new music (and not atonal crap like music
> > schools put
> > out a lot now)
> >
>
> Atonality is a part of history of music, and can be used well like
> all the other means if you know how. Yes, there's a lot of atonal
> crap as well as tonal or any other crap. It's not problem of school.
>
> > etc etc etc.
> > It's hard to overestimate the impact solving JI will have I think.
> >
> > Marcel
> >
>
> Daniel Forro
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Daniel,

There is also another problem - even when you JI tune by some miracle
> all chords (verticals), melodies will be out of tune (horizontals).
> From this point of you especially polyphonic, counterpointal music
> will be difficult if not impossible to tune.
>

I will reply in more depth soon but have no time now sorry.
But I'll say that melodies in correct JI will be 100% perfect. Much better
than 12tet, melodies have expression etc.
Counterpoint in JI is perfect.
The drei equali is counterpointal too.

I've uploaded the 4 trombones playing seperately so you can hear the
individual melodies.
Though there are more melodies between the trombones, switching from
trombone to trombone.
I did not highlight these as I'd have to render hundreds of midi files, but
I can tell you these are also all perfectly in tune.
This is the beauty of music and JI!
You can listen to the melodies at www.develde.net just uploaded the what
looks like final version of drei equali.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Daniel,

It has maybe some importance for JI music, but not all music is in JI
> and needs to be in JI.
>

Well I think the underlying structure of all music is JI, and that all
deviations from JI are "colorings".

>
> > From this piece it can be learned how to put all common practice
> > music in
> > correct JI.
> >
>
> Once more - not every music work cries "I want to be in JI".
>

I didn't say that.
But to learn the structure of music one would want to put it in JI.
And I personally belief JI makes the individual melodies etc and the whole
music more clear.
It is also a thing of perfection, I like perfection in music / art.

>
>
> > For the first time ever music can be put in tune.
> >
>
> Then you should explain what this "in tune" means. Not every chord is
> based on thirds - there are inversions with different interval
> structure, then quartal chords, chords combining thirds and fourths,
> clusters... Chords can be diatonic, or chromatic, or go behind 12
> tones thanks to microtonality. There are also chords done in
> different ET or other microtonal scales, which has nothing to do with
> JI, they are intentionally detuned in their system.
>

Yes this intentional detuning I call "color".
But to understand color one must first know what to color. So it still has
everything to do with JI.

>
> Music is based on contrast, one element of it is consonance and
> dissonance. There's no reason to do everything uniform and have all
> chords perfectly "tuned".
>

No I think that is a way too simplistic description of music.
Music has structure, things harmonic progressions can and can't do, things
melodies can and can't do in a certain context etc etc.
The rules for this I belief ly in JI.

>
> There is also another problem - even when you JI tune by some miracle
> all chords (verticals), melodies will be out of tune (horizontals).
> From this point of you especially polyphonic, counterpointal music
> will be difficult if not impossible to tune.
>

I replied to this in my previous message.
JI is the only way all melodies are 100% perfectly in tune, and the rules
for counterpoint have their basis in JI I belief.

>
> > In the longer run the implications for music theory are enormous.
> >
>
> I don't think. Stay cool. We can't expect revolutions in this field.
> Maybe after another 500 years :-)
>

Revolutions we make ourselves :)
This is a great time to do special things in music and JI.
We have computers now to do calculations and try 10000 different tunings.
I don't think I would've stood a chance in tuning drei equali correctly if
it weren't for computers.
Also computers give the internet where people from all over the world can
discuss tuning in (near) real-time :)

>
> > You can literally read music theory in the tuning of the piece.
> > JI is at the basis of music, it's the way music works.
> >
>
> Which music?
>

All music.
I think the ear + brain interprets music according to JI.
Rational intervals, 5-limit harmony and melody (perhaps higher limits but
rarely if so it seems to me)
Again, even intentional detuning / coloring is relevant to JI.

>
>
> > In some time after more progres programs can be made that compose
> > music, or
> > assist in composition in ways unheard of now and impossible with
> > currect
> > music theory.
> >
>
> Such programs exist even now, but good composer doesn't need such
> help :-) And why do you mention it, has it something to do with
> tuning?
>

I don't think any program exists now that is anything near good.
I think tuning is at the very heart of music. It is the structure of music.
All music rules (other than rhythm (though related) and expression of
playing etc) flow from this. The relation /ratio of pitches.
I think normal music theory is severely lacking. It's a pseudoscience. To
solve JI would make part of it a real science.
A much better and deeper music theory can than be developed that is error
free.
Then composition programs etc can be made that'll do things that current
programs could only dream of. Different approaches to musical structure, and
this all perfectly in tune.
This is my vision.

>
> > And microtones can be used etc etc.
> > This all will lead to new music (and not atonal crap like music
> > schools put
> > out a lot now)
> >
>
> Atonality is a part of history of music, and can be used well like
> all the other means if you know how. Yes, there's a lot of atonal
> crap as well as tonal or any other crap. It's not problem of school.
>

I think it is for a large part.
The atonal crap is overrepresented as so many people see it as the way
forward.
But to solve JI and have better music theory comming from it would lead to
many many new insights how to progress music.
For instance counterpoints with arabic microtones etc.
And less crap all around comming from schools as they'll be able to teach
better music theory and practice flowing from better theory etc.

Please have a look at the transcription of the drei equali.
www.develde.net
Just uploaded a new version with 2 errors removed btw. version rc2 now.
I see music theory at work in the numbers.
I'll spend some time marking all the melody lines and true repetitions etc I
see and other things soon.
Will also type out all the harmonies etc, and fundamental basses and the
progressions of the fundamental bass.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > Well I think the underlying structure of all music is JI, and that >all
> > deviations from JI are "colorings".
>
> This is not accurate. The laws of physics make the spectra the underlying structure, not "JI" specifically. And equal to the structure of the spectra is scalar structure.

Sorry to disagree, but this distinction seems trivial. Wouldn't JI
just be the set of all possible subsets of all harmonic spectra? And
what exactly do you mean by scalar structure?

Now, on the other hand, the argument that human perceptual boundaries
limit what JI intervals we can perceive is one that I'm all for.

> > But to learn the structure of music one would want to put it in JI.
>
> In most musics it is the scalar/modal structure which is most important- otherwise you wouldn't recognize an "out of tune" melody, and there wouldn't exist expressive intonational possibilities.

This I agree with, especially the modal part. A 4:5:6 otonality by
itself might just sound like a static harmonic structure with a
certain timbre -- it isn't really until you build the major tonality
around it that it really springs to life -- and in a completely
different way.

I don't have a clue how it works or what's going on, but I wish I
could figure out how to apply it to 11-limit music... Hopefully soon!

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

I have recently been composing with a new scale (below) and am starting to think that making the greatest common divisor
(among other methods not directly related to JI so far as I know b/c the numerator is not taken into account)
can be a key way to create a scale the mind can easily process.

IE in the scale
> 1/1
> 10/9
> 5/4
> 37/27
> 3/2
> 5/3
> 49/27
> 2/1 (octave)
...the greatest common divisors are 2 and 3. Note this scale is NOT a straight harmonic series and not "low-limit"
(due to the use of x/27 tones and use of the factors 2 and 3 and not just either 3 or 2 in the denominator). It also
certainly fails as being low "odd limit"...the lowest prime factor in odd limit (if I have it right) is 37!

One problem I have with JI is that even though it aligns harmonics very well it often spaces root tones closely enough to cause some nasty beating issues (for example...this is why you don't hear half-steps used in chords within the same octave very often).
************************************
I'm pretty sure this is a whole in JI as, according to JI, the above problems "should" create triads that sound bad do to not being on the harmonic series...but, in reality, if you play this scale I would not be surprised if, like me, you find the triads to sound clear and consonant to you.

For sure, trying to acheive as many straight segments of the harmonic series as you can in the form of chords per scale (IE what JI does) is one way to get beautiful sounding scales...but I am quite convinced there are many others (and not just ones like the one above either).

Objections? Ideas for improvement? Please let me know what you think...

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, October 5, 2009 1:56:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: The impossible has been done! Beethoven in Just Intonation.

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@ yahoogroups. com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@. ..> wrote:
>
> > Well I think the underlying structure of all music is JI, and that >all
> > deviations from JI are "colorings".
>
> This is not accurate. The laws of physics make the spectra the underlying structure, not "JI" specifically. And equal to the structure of the spectra is scalar structure.

Sorry to disagree, but this distinction seems trivial. Wouldn't JI
just be the set of all possible subsets of all harmonic spectra? And
what exactly do you mean by scalar structure?

Now, on the other hand, the argument that human perceptual boundaries
limit what JI intervals we can perceive is one that I'm all for.

I don't have a clue how it works or what's going on, but I wish I
could figure out how to apply it to 11-limit music... Hopefully soon!

-Mike

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Mike B. wrote:
> Sorry to disagree, but this distinction seems trivial. Wouldn't JI
> just be the set of all possible subsets of all harmonic spectra? And
> what exactly do you mean by scalar structure?

I don't think it is a trivial distinction at all. For one thing, Marcel is using "JI" to refer basically to "5-limit" JI- and he's using his OWN interpretation of what that means. Which he then claims to be "nature". This is simply not so (not to mention sociopolitically ghastly, insert Godwin's law here). Spectra (which are not always harmonic!) are "natural", JI refers to interpretations/applications thereof.

By scalar structure, I mean the basic proportions of the material. For example, if you've got contrasting major and minor as a structual element, the actual precise intonation can vary a great deal before the thing becomes unrecognizable.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > > Well I think the underlying structure of all music is JI, and that >all
> > > deviations from JI are "colorings".
> >
> > This is not accurate. The laws of physics make the spectra the underlying structure, not "JI" specifically. And equal to the structure of the spectra is scalar structure.
>
> Sorry to disagree, but this distinction seems trivial. Wouldn't JI
> just be the set of all possible subsets of all harmonic spectra? And
> what exactly do you mean by scalar structure?
>
> Now, on the other hand, the argument that human perceptual boundaries
> limit what JI intervals we can perceive is one that I'm all for.
>
> > > But to learn the structure of music one would want to put it in JI.
> >
> > In most musics it is the scalar/modal structure which is most important- otherwise you wouldn't recognize an "out of tune" melody, and there wouldn't exist expressive intonational possibilities.
>
> This I agree with, especially the modal part. A 4:5:6 otonality by
> itself might just sound like a static harmonic structure with a
> certain timbre -- it isn't really until you build the major tonality
> around it that it really springs to life -- and in a completely
> different way.
>
> I don't have a clue how it works or what's going on, but I wish I
> could figure out how to apply it to 11-limit music... Hopefully >soon!

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> I don't think it is a trivial distinction at all. For one thing, Marcel is
> using "JI" to refer basically to "5-limit" JI- and he's using his OWN
> interpretation of what that means. Which he then claims to be "nature". This
> is simply not so (not to mention sociopolitically ghastly, insert Godwin's
> law here).
>

It is right now neither proven nor disproven that JI is "nature".
Whichever way you pick you do it by belief, not science.
I actually have an open mind to it. If I can ever disprove it I will.
But it is so much more interesting to take the position that JI is nature
and try to work from there.
I can't yet say it isn't and see so many signs that point to the direction
that it is.

Btw, I just looked at my tuning of the Lassus piece.
It has thesame solution I'm using now.
I should've realised the implications of this back then,but better late than
never.

Orlando di Lasso, Ave Regina Coelorum
Just Intonation by Marcel de Velde, 3 March 2009, www.develde.net

3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
" 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
16/9 10/9 " 16/9 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " 3/2 " 1/1 5/4 27/16
1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
" " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
" " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
" " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
" " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
9/8 9/5 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 8/5
" " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 8/5
9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
" " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
" " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2

This is what I dug up in a file from back then.
See the 1/1 5/4 27/16
The only solution!

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

A question I have is if JI can deal with symetrical constructs like the whole tone scale or fully diminished chords.

I am not yet too knowledgable of microtunings so I may be off base when I say I do not understand more than one perfect 4th for instance. My impression of JI was having to let the pitch level in essence "float" to retain pure intervals.

If the harmony is not built of pure pythagorean intervals I fail to see the advantage in JI. One can use an EDo, perhaps a high order one, and arrive at a similar approximation as the non pythagorean JI implementation with much reduction in complexity.

I also venture to say with clever application of appropiate tuning one could perhaps, now with computers, apply serial mean tone tunings, like Lucy's, and have access to most or all keys in many if not most circumstances, especially for "common practice" era music.

Again I may be off base.

Sincerly,

Chris
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > So, you'd claim that a frequency ratio of 1.25 to 1 is commonly found in
> > vibrating bodies, such as the human voice?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
> Are you talking about harmonic (or inharmonic) overtones of >voices / musical
> instruments etc?
> While very related, this is obviously not directly what tuning is >about.
> Besides this, all rational intervals are found in the harmonic >overtones.
> 27/20 is found between the 20th and 27th overtone, or you could >also say
> between 5/1 and 3 consecutive quints of 3/1.

Think about it. 5:1, where 1 is the fundamental, is commonly found in nature. 5:4, where 1 is the fundamental, is NOT. Just Intonation uses 5:4 in close voicing, that is, a 1 to 1.25 proportion with 1 as the fundamental. The proportion of 5:4 is found in the harmonic series- but not against the 1. The 5:4 interval of JI is a USAGE, an application, an interpretation, of a natural phenomenon, it is not a natural phenomenon in and of itself.

Within a melody or scale (which can viewed as a kind abstracted or ultimately condensed melody), the expressive possibilities more or less in the region of 1.25x the cps of the fundamental are vast. With most harmonic spectra, when performing whatever kind of "major 3d" you're almost always going to have a direct aural reference in the spectra to the fifth partial, that is, 5:1. Any usage of this natural phenomenon is already art. A 12-tET M3 is also a usage of the harmonic series, there's no escaping this. If the intent is a bright jangling M3, 5:4 is not a good usuage.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Think about it. 5:1, where 1 is the fundamental, is commonly found in
> nature. 5:4, where 1 is the fundamental, is NOT.
>

It is found in nature.
It is found between the fourth overtone and the 5th overtone. 4:5

> Just Intonation uses 5:4 in close voicing, that is, a 1 to 1.25 proportion
> with 1 as the fundamental. The proportion of 5:4 is found in the harmonic
> series- but not against the 1. The 5:4 interval of JI is a USAGE, an
> application, an interpretation, of a natural phenomenon, it is not a natural
> phenomenon in and of itself.
>

I don't get it.
Since when is the only right to call something a natural phenomenon when it
is a natural occuring ratio against the fundamental tone?
I do not hold this defenition personally.

>
> Within a melody or scale (which can viewed as a kind abstracted or
> ultimately condensed melody), the expressive possibilities more or less in
> the region of 1.25x the cps of the fundamental are vast. With most harmonic
> spectra, when performing whatever kind of "major 3d" you're almost always
> going to have a direct aural reference in the spectra to the fifth partial,
> that is, 5:1. Any usage of this natural phenomenon is already art. A 12-tET
> M3 is also a usage of the harmonic series, there's no escaping this. If the
> intent is a bright jangling M3, 5:4 is not a good usuage.
>

Now we're talking about what I call "coloring".
But again, I think JI is the thing that is beeing colored. In this specific
example of a bright jangling coloring, the coloring is relevant to the 5:4.
Why do you percieve a 12tet M3 as bright and hangling? It is bright because
it is colored relevant to 5:4 and is higher than that therefore the
brightness.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

What I really mean is:We percieve music much deeper I think that simple
minor major.
We perceive complex modal / scalar structures, complex chord progressions
etc etc etc.
I belief this to be a natural ability of the ear + brain (for a large part
the brain).
To understand how this works I think not to look at the ear to much but at
the brain.
Since this is next to impossible currently to see directly how this works in
the brain, I see it as the best option to find out what is natural by
retuning existing music to find the structures that i hear in music when
listening to it in JI ratios.
Right now I belief that the comma problem is solved and musical structures
in JI sound right and natural to me and make philosophical / logical sense
to me.
Now the other rules of music can be found in the ratios of the tones.
I belief this is the only practical way to currently find out how music
truly works on deeper levels.
This is what I mean by natural.
I could be all wrong and music could be a much less perfect phenomenon.
But I think math and how the brain works in regard to music are very closely
related.
And currently all things I see in JI point to this direction.
So this i what I mean by "natural". The way the brain percieves music,
musical structures, harmonies, melodies etc.
When listening to 12tet I think the brain interprets it as out of tune JI
music. colored JI music if you want.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with my defenition of natural in
regard to music.
I'm not talking about harmonic overtones directly. I'm talking about the way
the brain interprets music, and I think that this has a strong mathematical
foundation.

Marcel
www.develde.net

2009/10/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Think about it. 5:1, where 1 is the fundamental, is commonly found in
>> nature. 5:4, where 1 is the fundamental, is NOT.
>>
>
> It is found in nature.
> It is found between the fourth overtone and the 5th overtone. 4:5
>
>
>> Just Intonation uses 5:4 in close voicing, that is, a 1 to 1.25
>> proportion with 1 as the fundamental. The proportion of 5:4 is found in the
>> harmonic series- but not against the 1. The 5:4 interval of JI is a USAGE,
>> an application, an interpretation, of a natural phenomenon, it is not a
>> natural phenomenon in and of itself.
>>
>
> I don't get it.
> Since when is the only right to call something a natural phenomenon when it
> is a natural occuring ratio against the fundamental tone?
> I do not hold this defenition personally.
>
>
>>
>> Within a melody or scale (which can viewed as a kind abstracted or
>> ultimately condensed melody), the expressive possibilities more or less in
>> the region of 1.25x the cps of the fundamental are vast. With most harmonic
>> spectra, when performing whatever kind of "major 3d" you're almost always
>> going to have a direct aural reference in the spectra to the fifth partial,
>> that is, 5:1. Any usage of this natural phenomenon is already art. A 12-tET
>> M3 is also a usage of the harmonic series, there's no escaping this. If the
>> intent is a bright jangling M3, 5:4 is not a good usuage.
>>
>
> Now we're talking about what I call "coloring".
> But again, I think JI is the thing that is beeing colored. In this specific
> example of a bright jangling coloring, the coloring is relevant to the 5:4.
> Why do you percieve a 12tet M3 as bright and hangling? It is bright because
> it is colored relevant to 5:4 and is higher than that therefore the
> brightness.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

Somehow you mix in your explanations physical base of the sound and its perceiving, with music as a language, semantics.

Music in this sense is culture and education dependent. Nothing like the universal, or "natural" music - which will be accepted everywhere by everybody and understood in the same way - doesn't exist. Or maybe exists but then we must travel back on the time axis and return 50000 years to prehistory, and use only drums and percussions, and very simple complementary rhythms...

Daniel Forro

On 6 Oct 2009, at 9:12 PM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> What I really mean is:We percieve music much deeper I think that > simple
> minor major.
> We perceive complex modal / scalar structures, complex chord > progressions
> etc etc etc.
> I belief this to be a natural ability of the ear + brain (for a > large part
> the brain).
> To understand how this works I think not to look at the ear to much > but at
> the brain.
> Since this is next to impossible currently to see directly how this > works in
> the brain, I see it as the best option to find out what is natural by
> retuning existing music to find the structures that i hear in music > when
> listening to it in JI ratios.
> Right now I belief that the comma problem is solved and musical > structures
> in JI sound right and natural to me and make philosophical / > logical sense
> to me.
> Now the other rules of music can be found in the ratios of the tones.
> I belief this is the only practical way to currently find out how > music
> truly works on deeper levels.
> This is what I mean by natural.
> I could be all wrong and music could be a much less perfect > phenomenon.
> But I think math and how the brain works in regard to music are > very closely
> related.
> And currently all things I see in JI point to this direction.
> So this i what I mean by "natural". The way the brain percieves music,
> musical structures, harmonies, melodies etc.
> When listening to 12tet I think the brain interprets it as out of > tune JI
> music. colored JI music if you want.
> And I don't think there's anything wrong with my defenition of > natural in
> regard to music.
> I'm not talking about harmonic overtones directly. I'm talking > about the way
> the brain interprets music, and I think that this has a strong > mathematical
> foundation.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > Think about it. 5:1, where 1 is the fundamental, is commonly found in
> > nature. 5:4, where 1 is the fundamental, is NOT.
> >
>
> It is found in nature.
> It is found between the fourth overtone and the 5th overtone. 4:5

Let's say that the fundamental is 100 Hz. 125 Hz, which is the 5:4
relationship with the 1:1, is NOT found in a harmonic series! 500:400 Hz, 1000:800 Hz, and so on, are.
>
>
> > Just Intonation uses 5:4 in close voicing, that is, a 1 to 1.25 >proportion
> > with 1 as the fundamental. The proportion of 5:4 is found in the harmonic
> > series- but not against the 1. The 5:4 interval of JI is a USAGE, an
> > application, an interpretation, of a natural phenomenon, it is not a natural
> > phenomenon in and of itself.
> >
>
> I don't get it.
> Since when is the only right to call something a natural phenomenon >when it
> is a natural occuring ratio against the fundamental tone?
> I do not hold this defenition personally.

I'm going to stick with physics, thanks. The proportion 5:4 is one thing, a first position major 3d is another!
>
>
> >
> > Within a melody or scale (which can viewed as a kind abstracted or
> > ultimately condensed melody), the expressive possibilities more >or less in
> > the region of 1.25x the cps of the fundamental are vast. With most harmonic
> > spectra, when performing whatever kind of "major 3d" you're almost always
> > going to have a direct aural reference in the spectra to the fifth partial,
> > that is, 5:1. Any usage of this natural phenomenon is already art. A 12-tET
> > M3 is also a usage of the harmonic series, there's no escaping this. If the
> > intent is a bright jangling M3, 5:4 is not a good usuage.
> >
>
> Now we're talking about what I call "coloring".
> But again, I think JI is the thing that is beeing colored. In this >specific
> example of a bright jangling coloring, the coloring is relevant to >the 5:4.

No, it is audibly relevant to the 5:1.

> Why do you percieve a 12tet M3 as bright and hangling? It is bright >because
> it is colored relevant to 5:4 and is higher than that therefore the
> brightness.

It is colored relevant to the 5:1, the harmonic series.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Somehow you mix in your explanations physical base of the sound and
> its perceiving, with music as a language, semantics.
>

Yes I do.
I think only a small part of music lies in physical base of the sound and
it's perceiving by the ear.
I think the largest part of how music is percieved lies in the brain.
I think this brain perceivement of music is closely linked and works in
harmony with the ear and the actual physics of sound.

>
> Music in this sense is culture and education dependent. Nothing like
> the universal, or "natural" music - which will be accepted everywhere
> by everybody and understood in the same way - doesn't exist. Or maybe
> exists but then we must travel back on the time axis and return 50000
> years to prehistory, and use only drums and percussions, and very
> simple complementary rhythms...
>
I don't think the same. I see it the other way around.Chordal progressions
for instance have an understandable structure, I think to everybody in the
world.
And natural ability of the brain. One that can be enhanced by training, but
natural ability nontheless.
Perhaps understanding the true structure and workings of music will aid in a
deeper understanding of the brain.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Let's say that the fundamental is 100 Hz. 125 Hz, which is the 5:4
> relationship with the 1:1, is NOT found in a harmonic series! 500:400 Hz,
> 1000:800 Hz, and so on, are.
>

Yes agreed.
But it is found in the harmonic series between the fourth and fifth
harmonic.
Why say it is only natural when it occures above the fundamental sound as a
resonance of that fundamental.
I say 4:5 occurs naturally between the fourth and fifth harmonic of a
fundamental and I'm perfectly right in saying so.

> > I don't get it.
> > Since when is the only right to call something a natural phenomenon >when
> it
> > is a natural occuring ratio against the fundamental tone?
> > I do not hold this defenition personally.
>
> I'm going to stick with physics, thanks. The proportion 5:4 is one thing, a
> first position major 3d is another!
>

A first position major 3d does occur in the harmonic series as 4:5:6th
harmonics of a tone.
Also as 20:25:30th harmonics of a tone.
Music is so clearly not about direct harmonics of a fundamental you play I
don't even know why you bring it up and say it's the only thing you can call
natural.
Are you saying music is a very unnatural thing per defenition and can never
be natural? (unless one plays 1 fundamental and only direct overtones of
that fundamental? which i'd hardly call music?)

> Now we're talking about what I call "coloring".
> > But again, I think JI is the thing that is beeing colored. In this
> >specific
> > example of a bright jangling coloring, the coloring is relevant to >the
> 5:4.
>
> No, it is audibly relevant to the 5:1.
>

Ok I'm very gald we agree on it beeing audibly relevant to a JI interval.
Wether this is 5:4 or 5:1 I don't really care for the sake of this argument.
Would be nitpicking about details if you can allready agree to this much
more important point.

>
>
> > Why do you percieve a 12tet M3 as bright and hangling? It is bright
> >because
> > it is colored relevant to 5:4 and is higher than that therefore the
> > brightness.
>
> It is colored relevant to the 5:1, the harmonic series.
>

Lets just say it's colored to a JI interval. I think we can both agree with
that defenition in our own way :)

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Marcel, there is tons of music which relies on a very UNNATURAL structure, and you are fighting against this with your commas. In "nature", four fifths simply doesn't make any kind of 5:4. They refer not to the 5th partial, but to the 81st!

You want "natural" JI structure?
Let the commas shift as they will.

There is a deep fundamental difference between music which was concieved of as comma shifting and music which was not.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> What I really mean is:We percieve music much deeper I think that >simple
> minor major.
> We perceive complex modal / scalar structures, complex chord >progressions
> etc etc etc.
> I belief this to be a natural ability of the ear + brain (for a >large part
> the brain).
> To understand how this works I think not to look at the ear to much >but at
> the brain.
> Since this is next to impossible currently to see directly how this >works in
> the brain, I see it as the best option to find out what is natural >by
> retuning existing music to find the structures that i hear in music >when
> listening to it in JI ratios.
> Right now I belief that the comma problem is solved and musical >structures
> in JI sound right and natural to me and make philosophical / >logical sense
> to me.
> Now the other rules of music can be found in the ratios of the >tones.
> I belief this is the only practical way to currently find out how >music
> truly works on deeper levels.
> This is what I mean by natural.
> I could be all wrong and music could be a much less perfect >phenomenon.
> But I think math and how the brain works in regard to music are >very closely
> related.
> And currently all things I see in JI point to this direction.
> So this i what I mean by "natural". The way the brain percieves >music,
> musical structures, harmonies, melodies etc.
> When listening to 12tet I think the brain interprets it as out of >tune JI
> music. colored JI music if you want.
> And I don't think there's anything wrong with my defenition of >natural in
> regard to music.
> I'm not talking about harmonic overtones directly. I'm talking >about the way
> the brain interprets music, and I think that this has a strong >mathematical
> foundation.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Marcel, there is tons of music which relies on a very UNNATURAL structure,
> and you are fighting against this with your commas. In "nature", four fifths
> simply doesn't make any kind of 5:4. They refer not to the 5th partial, but
> to the 81st!
>

Aah here we strongly strongly disagree.
My comma fighting is a problem of me understanding music, not a problem of
music itself.
When the comma is solved I see a very coherent musical structure.

And in JI if one truly makes a musical structure of four fifths you indeed
get an 81/64
But it is simply impossible musically to make this structure so that you
indeed do four fifths and still hear / make a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord only with
81/64 instead of 5/4.
Many times where people think they're adding fifths this way they somehow
use a fourth in inversion instead of a fifth, and then you do get 5/4.
Give me one simple musical structure or chordal passage which you say gives
a mathematical impossibility if one were to put it in JI?
I said I solved the comma problem (human understanding problem, not a music
problem)
This problem of stacking fifths not adding up to 5/4 is now solved.
Once you get your head around it, it is actually a very very simple
solution, and a beautifull one.
The fourth can be 27/20 under certain circumstances. This solves it all. It
truly does. No more unsolvable comma problem.

> You want "natural" JI structure?
> Let the commas shift as they will.
>
No this is not natural JI.
A comma shift is a very good indicator one did the JI very wrong.

>
> There is a deep fundamental difference between music which was concieved of
> as comma shifting and music which was not.
>
I don't understand what you mean by this.Can you explain?

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > Let's say that the fundamental is 100 Hz. 125 Hz, which is the 5:4
> > relationship with the 1:1, is NOT found in a harmonic series! 500:400 Hz,
> > 1000:800 Hz, and so on, are.
> >
>
> Yes agreed.
> But it is found in the harmonic series between the fourth and fifth
> harmonic.
> Why say it is only natural when it occures above the fundamental >sound as a
> resonance of that fundamental.

The PROPORTION of 5:4 is found in the harmonic series. The JI fundamental tone DERIVED from that proportion is NOT.

Let me put it this way: do you know how to calculate beating?

>
> A first position major 3d does occur in the harmonic series as >4:5:6th
> harmonics of a tone.
> Also as 20:25:30th harmonics of a tone.

No- those are octave transpositions. Sigh. Well, this isn't the first time I've hopeslessly tried to explain to someone here at the list things like, 150 and 300 Hz are different cycles per second, LOL.

The distinction matters- it matters in beating, and it matters further down the line when defining JI, and in taking a legitimate and informed look at what musical structure really is derived from the harmonic series, and what isn't, or may not be, and such things.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> The distinction matters- it matters in beating, and it matters further down
> the line when defining JI, and in taking a legitimate and informed look at
> what musical structure really is derived from the harmonic series, and what
> isn't, or may not be, and such things.

Dear Cameron,

With all respect, and without going into an endless discussion about
details.
You're making a lot of assumptions beforehand about what JI is or isn't.
And then after all these assumptions you come to the conclusion that JI
isn't possible and the true structure of music etc.

I say your assumptions that lead you to these beliefs are wrong.
I think the right way to tackle JI is different.

If we assume it the other way around, that JI is the way music works, then
this leads to the logical conclusion that assumptions that lead to the
conlcusion that JI doesn't work are wrong in themselves.
To start off with wrong assumptions (and nothing is proven in this field, so
to stick to preassumptions is stupid) will never lead to a solution, wether
there is one or not.
So this leaves us with a blanck sheet.
I think the next best thing to try is with an open mind to retune existing
music that sound musical to our ears in 12tet with a musical structure,
melody lines etc etc, and then try to put this in JI to see if it's at all
possible.
And I'm finding that it is very very difficult to do so, but that after
overcomming these difficulties it is indeed possible to put things that were
percieved as impossible in perfect JI.
And that the solution to putting things in JI indeed goes against some of
the normal presumptions that for instance a fourth is allways 4/3.
I say after much practical research (and I've explored many many JI options)
that JI is possible and gives a very very deep insight into musical
structure.
Something unobtainable with any other method.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

I'm afraid that your perception of what "music" is just too limited for me to have any kind of real discussion with you.

By the way, I agree that sticking the comma onto the 4th is a fine idea. You can also stick it onto the 2nd and 7th. This does NOT come from the harmonic series though, it is an artistic decision. You could also hit a tone a comma high and slide down- very natural. But also an artistic decision. Or you could temper. Artistic decision.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Marcel, there is tons of music which relies on a very UNNATURAL structure,
> > and you are fighting against this with your commas. In "nature", four fifths
> > simply doesn't make any kind of 5:4. They refer not to the 5th partial, but
> > to the 81st!
> >
>
> Aah here we strongly strongly disagree.
> My comma fighting is a problem of me understanding music, not a problem of
> music itself.
> When the comma is solved I see a very coherent musical structure.
>
> And in JI if one truly makes a musical structure of four fifths you indeed
> get an 81/64
> But it is simply impossible musically to make this structure so that you
> indeed do four fifths and still hear / make a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord only with
> 81/64 instead of 5/4.
> Many times where people think they're adding fifths this way they somehow
> use a fourth in inversion instead of a fifth, and then you do get 5/4.
> Give me one simple musical structure or chordal passage which you say gives
> a mathematical impossibility if one were to put it in JI?
> I said I solved the comma problem (human understanding problem, not a music
> problem)
> This problem of stacking fifths not adding up to 5/4 is now solved.
> Once you get your head around it, it is actually a very very simple
> solution, and a beautifull one.
> The fourth can be 27/20 under certain circumstances. This solves it all. It
> truly does. No more unsolvable comma problem.
>
>
> > You want "natural" JI structure?
> > Let the commas shift as they will.
> >
> No this is not natural JI.
> A comma shift is a very good indicator one did the JI very wrong.
>
> >
> > There is a deep fundamental difference between music which was concieved of
> > as comma shifting and music which was not.
> >
> I don't understand what you mean by this.Can you explain?
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Just one more explenation.
To add four 3/2 fifths reduced by the octave gives 81/64, not 5/4 indeed.
But to make a chordal progression that starts with 1/1 5/4 3/2 and then
after going up 4 fifths again tries to be 1/1 5/4 3/2 you think this is
impossible.
But surprise surprise..
To make this chordal progression in a musical way, one or more of the chords
will be a minor chord.
And in one of these minor chords one of the fifths isn't actually a fifth,
it's a fourth.
And this fourth isn't actually a 4/3 fourth, it's a 27/20 fourth.
And surprise surprise, you end up at 5/4 when adding these four "fifths",
not 81/64.

To make this structure with real 3/2 fifths and all chord major chords you
can hear for yourself that you're indeed comma shifting.
This is a correct comma shift, you're indeed modulating to remote keys.
And now it does make 81/64. But this is in no way in conflict with the 1/1
5/4 3/2 chord you started with as you're in a completely different key now.

Marcel
www.develde.net

2009/10/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> The distinction matters- it matters in beating, and it matters further down
>> the line when defining JI, and in taking a legitimate and informed look at
>> what musical structure really is derived from the harmonic series, and what
>> isn't, or may not be, and such things.
>
>
> Dear Cameron,
>
> With all respect, and without going into an endless discussion about
> details.
> You're making a lot of assumptions beforehand about what JI is or isn't.
> And then after all these assumptions you come to the conclusion that JI
> isn't possible and the true structure of music etc.
>
> I say your assumptions that lead you to these beliefs are wrong.
> I think the right way to tackle JI is different.
>
> If we assume it the other way around, that JI is the way music works, then
> this leads to the logical conclusion that assumptions that lead to the
> conlcusion that JI doesn't work are wrong in themselves.
> To start off with wrong assumptions (and nothing is proven in this field,
> so to stick to preassumptions is stupid) will never lead to a solution,
> wether there is one or not.
> So this leaves us with a blanck sheet.
> I think the next best thing to try is with an open mind to retune existing
> music that sound musical to our ears in 12tet with a musical structure,
> melody lines etc etc, and then try to put this in JI to see if it's at all
> possible.
> And I'm finding that it is very very difficult to do so, but that after
> overcomming these difficulties it is indeed possible to put things that were
> percieved as impossible in perfect JI.
> And that the solution to putting things in JI indeed goes against some of
> the normal presumptions that for instance a fourth is allways 4/3.
> I say after much practical research (and I've explored many many JI
> options) that JI is possible and gives a very very deep insight into musical
> structure.
> Something unobtainable with any other method.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 6 Oct 2009, at 10:04 PM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
> > Music in this sense is culture and education dependent. Nothing like
> > the universal, or "natural" music - which will be accepted > everywhere
> > by everybody and understood in the same way - doesn't exist. Or > maybe
> > exists but then we must travel back on the time axis and return > 50000
> > years to prehistory, and use only drums and percussions, and very
> > simple complementary rhythms...
> >
> I don't think the same. I see it the other way around.Chordal > progressions
> for instance have an understandable structure, I think to everybody > in the
> world.
>
There are music cultures in the world which don't use chord structures and harmonic progressions (modal or functional) of Western music culture. So they will not understand. Try to play them Bach or Schonberg, they will not understand what it's about. They will not recognize major or minor scales. So how do you think they can understand and recognize difference between 12 ET and JI?

For us Westerners is also difficult to understand fully the quality of the music art from different cultures. We must study it, learn it by analysing and listening, get used to it. Then we can not only understand it, but also enjoy it.

> And natural ability of the brain. One that can be enhanced by > training, but
> natural ability nontheless.
>
What's "natural ability of the brain"? A state and level we are born with? Almost everything intelectual and emotional we must learn since the childhood, nothing comes "naturally".

Daniel Forro

🔗aum <aum@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗aum <aum@...>

As far as I know, gamelan, African kalimbas, etc. are not mistuned JI. Their tuning have not evolved form JI to mistuned JI nor is evolving from mistuned JI to pure JI. Their tuning is not close to JI in practical nor conceptual sense (if you don't mean that every interval can be approximated by some ratio and therefore every interval is JI). Their tuning is not based on our harmony-consonance-dissonance concept. It is not based on mathematical concept, it is very individual, personal and sometimes even secret art.
Similarly Indian music which probably have underlying JI background due to drone but the consonance of fixed tones is not its the basic principle. Tone variation and bending is most important. The tuning is again something very personal. The mathematical theory of Indian tuning in our sense was created probably in 19. century under the European influence.
Similarly the music of east Asia. Tone variation is often important not the fixed frequency. (Maybe Daniel with his Japanese experience will be more specific here)
Milan

Marcel de Velde wrote:
>> I totally agree with Daniel. Music of many parts of the world is not
>> based on the harmony in our sense. And more, the concept of tuning is
>> often totally different from our one.
>>
>> >
> I agree with what you say.
> But I don't agree with that this would mean their music isn't (mistuned) JI
> like western music.
> Infact their music is often much closer to JI in actual practice I think,
> like western music used to be many centuries ago.
> I love the 27/25 JI stepsize for instance, seems to be much used in other
> cultures. (or atleast aproximations (colorings) of this)
> Also the 27/20 fourth.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

I have been experimenting with the idea of scales that are near enough to JI to confuse the ear, but not quite JI. Though I love JI some of the apparent limitations of its use make me wonder if research in it is going in circles due to too many restrictions created by insisting on strictly obeying a "perfect" form of JI.

It all makes me wonder why so many people insist on having perfect IE 3/2 5/2 6/2....harmonic series. Is something close like 47/32 66/27 97/32 (approximating the above scale, for example)...really that evil?! I've made several pieces with near-JI type denominator setups and found they preserve most of the harmony and add color: many friends I've blindly tested them with say they can't tell they are more out of tune.

Plus there are many, many more "virtually perfect" chords possible when you give yourself, say, 5 cents slack in making "perfect" intervals. Plus, again, doing so adds tonal color.

So much of pure-JI has been so well covered by experts that I, for one, believe a good chunk of the future of music is in making scales where all possible intervals are "near perfect"...rather than making some 80-85% of intervals perfect (as things like diatonic JI does).

Thoughts?

________________________________
From: cameron <misterbobro@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 12:00:29 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: The impossible has been done! Beethoven in Just Intonation.

Hopefully it is clear why I insist on the distinguishing between spectra and "JI". As most here know, I'm a very big fan of "JI"- but which JI? :-P

The scheme of any particular JI, well, scheme, is not written into physics. And when there is a strong indication, it is not abstract, but instrument and culture specific. My new Erhu loves the 11th partial, and so do I. :-)

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Sorry,

I go back to my message that apparently went into a well....

I see no advantage to JI with all of the inherent complexity that seems to
go with it compared to using a reasonable EDO approximation.

I believe you Marcel will believe otherwise - I ask why would that be so if
the JI intervals being used are not pure?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> > So much of pure-JI has been so well covered by experts that I, for one,
> > believe a good chunk of the future of music is in making scales where all
> > possible intervals are "near perfect"...rather than making some 80-85% of
> > intervals perfect (as things like diatonic JI does).
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Well, I belief that music theory is best based on JI, and that there's
> inherent logic in JI etc.
> If you start with different tuning as a basis it will get you nowhere
> further than current music theory.
> Small difference in tuning, all the difference in the conclusions you can
> draw from it.
> But this would only be relevant if you share my belief about music beeing
> perfect and having it's basis in JI.
>
> As for all the experts having covered everything before, I disagree.
> The comma problem had not been solved yet.
> After solving this the whole world of JI lies open and unexplored.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> I go back to my message that apparently went into a well....
>
> I see no advantage to JI with all of the inherent complexity that seems to
> go with it compared to using a reasonable EDO approximation.
>
> I believe you Marcel will believe otherwise - I ask why would that be so if
> the JI intervals being used are not pure?
>

The JI intervals I use are pure.
Lets say you have a major chord of 1/1 4/3 5/3 2/1
Or even make it a 1/1 4/3 5/4 2/1 3/1 chord to make it very clear this is a
major chord with an added 9/8 whole to to the 4/3.
Now step from 2/1 to 5/2
1/1 4/3 5/3 2/1 3/1
1/1 4/3 5/3 9/4 3/1
1/1 4/3 5/3 5/2 3/1
What's unpure about this?
Nothing.
You say it's impure because there's a 27/20 dissonant fourth between 5/3 and
9/4
I say it should be there, it is correct, in tune. It says the structure of
the music.
Now the difficulty lies in correctly identifying when there's an actual 4/3
fourth or when it's not really a normal fourth but a structure like the 4/3
5/3 9/4 in my example above.When correctly identifying this chord, not a
normal minor triad, all of a sudden all the comma problems dissapear.
And all of a sudden you can put any common practice classical music in JI,
and everything works out.
Just the fact that everything works out, and that four quints of which one
is an inversion of the dissonant fourth gives 5/4 instead of 81/64 is a big
suggestion in the direction that music has JI as it's basis.
It's amazing to see how very complex music works out perfectly in JI, this
can't be a coincidence.

The advantage of JI is that it's the only system where everything is in
tune.
And it's the only system that can work as the basis of a perfect music
theory.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"The advantage of JI is that it's the only system where everything is in
tune."

Even on wikipedia's JI page it says (concerning diatonic JI):

Then we obtain this scale:
Note
C
D
E
F
G
A
B
C
Ratio1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
Cents0 204 386 498 702 884 1088 1200
Step T t s T t T s
Cent step204 182 112 204 182 204 112
The major thirds are correct, and two minor thirds are right, but D-F is not.************************************

So it seems obvious to me...pure JI can only maintain perfect purity of some intervals AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER INTERVALS and some chords will sound bad in JI (in fact, at times worse than even in 12TET).
**********************************************************

The other issue I see often somewhat ignored in JI is fairly closely spaced notes. Note in the above JI scale 2/(15/8) = 1.0666666666 and (4/3)/(3/2) = 1.0666664. Also note the ratio of maximum harmonic entropy is at at 1.05 (not too far away from 1.06)! Shouldn't they be aiming for something more like 1.08 or 1.09 separation between those notes to deal with this obvious psycho-acoustic beating issue (even if it mean sacrificing a tad of "purity"?

Hence there are beating/dissonance issues with playing those notes (E and F or B and C) together which explains why, in PRACTICE, you will very rarely hear chords like B C F or E F A (in that order) held for any decent length of time in music unless you missed a good deal of music theory classes and/or are in hell. :-D
True those nastily beating intervals are used in classical music (IE Marcel, you are right, I also agree JI "IS" very good for re-creating classical music and perhaps more so than things like mean-tone) but is matching/"polishing" historic music theory more important than obeying modern psychoacoustics for composers seeking to make new music?
I seriously doubt it...

So my view is while JI is ideal for already-made music (including the "classics"), the future involved a certain degree of temperament for psychoacoustic reasons.

Anyone care to challenge this? I'm eager to hear the responses. :-)

________________________________
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 5:08:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] JI vs. temperament: have we gone too far?

The advantage of JI is that it's the only system where everything is in
tune.
And it's the only system that can work as the basis of a perfect music
theory.

Marcel
www.develde. net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Even on wikipedia's JI page it says (concerning diatonic JI):
>
> Then we obtain this scale:
> Note
> C
> D
> E
> F
> G
> A
> B
> C
> Ratio1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
> Cents0 204 386 498 702 884 1088 1200
> Step T t s T t T s
> Cent step204 182 112 204 182 204 112
> The major thirds are correct, and two minor thirds are right, but D-F is
> not.************************************
>
> So it seems obvious to me...pure JI can only maintain perfect purity of
> some intervals AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER INTERVALS and some chords will sound
> bad in JI (in fact, at times worse than even in 12TET).
> **********************************************************
>

No I don't agree to this at all.
The above scale contains 3 major chords of 1/1 5/4 3/2 and 2 minor chords of
1/1 6/5 3/2
It also contains a dissonant fourth of 27/20.
To use this dissonant fourth of 27/20 in inversion in a major chord as a
fifth or a minor chord as a fifth is not right, very very out of tune.
To use this dissonant fourth in chords for which there are no names to
differentiate them from other chords can be correct.
But JI is not in any way limited to a 12 tone scale.
JI is not a practical thing for a keyboard instrument like a piano for
instance.
To make a major chord on the 9/8 like 9/8 45/32 27/16 you don't find the
27/16 and 45/32 in the above scale for example.

As another example.
You can use this dissonant fourth in the above scale like for instance this:
1/1 4/3 5/3
9/8 4/3 5/3
9/8 3/2 15/8
5/4 3/2 2/1
4/3 5/3 2/1

now the D F A looks a lot like a normal minor triad, but it isn't!
it's fundamental bass is actually 4/3 (and can be 5/3), not 9/8
it's an inversion of a 1/1 5/4 27/16 chord (with the 1/1 on F)
Try to use this progression musically and it will agree with what I just
said.

>
> The other issue I see often somewhat ignored in JI is fairly closely spaced
> notes. Note in the above JI scale 2/(15/8) = 1.0666666666 and (4/3)/(3/2) =
> 1.0666664. Also note the ratio of maximum harmonic entropy is at at 1.05
> (not too far away from 1.06)! Shouldn't they be aiming for something more
> like 1.08 or 1.09 separation between those notes to deal with this obvious
> psycho-acoustic beating issue (even if it mean sacrificing a tad of
> "purity"?
>
> Hence there are beating/dissonance issues with playing those notes (E and F
> or B and C) together which explains why, in PRACTICE, you will very rarely
> hear chords like B C F or E F A (in that order) held for any decent length
> of time in music unless you missed a good deal of music theory classes
> and/or are in hell. :-D
> True those nastily beating intervals are used in classical music (IE
> Marcel, you are right, I also agree JI "IS" very good for re-creating
> classical music and perhaps more so than things like mean-tone) but is
> matching/"polishing" historic music theory more important than obeying
> modern psychoacoustics for composers seeking to make new music?
> I seriously doubt it...
>
> So my view is while JI is ideal for already-made music (including the
> "classics"), the future involved a certain degree of temperament for
> psychoacoustic reasons.
>
> Anyone care to challenge this? I'm eager to hear the responses. :-)
>

JI is ideal for making truly new music.
But I personally belief that I must first understand normal music well
enough to invent new music.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Marcel,

Perhaps I don't understand. From my simplistic point of view it looks like
the comma is being buried in the mistuned 4th.

What I think is your solution is understanding how the **great *a
cappella *contrapuntal
choral pieces of the Renaissance was performed, in practice, at the time.
The reason I say this is because I would think at that time in history, with
vocal music, JI was as much in practice as it ever would be.

I must say that when you said Lassus composed his piece wrong I was mightly
turned off. I think the statement is absurd. However, it is totally proper
to ask how did the performers interpret his score. My meager understanding
of psycho acoustics and education suggest that the performers would
naturally gravitate to pure intervals. And as a result put to practice at
least a first approximation of JI.

Perhaps Charles can put a recording of Palestrina or Lassus into the
evaluation copy of Melodyne DNA and find if indeed mis-tuned 4ths are
present or not as a place to start to answer the question I pose.

Sincerely,

Chris

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris,

Marcel,
>
> Perhaps I don't understand. From my simplistic point of view it looks like
> the comma is being buried in the mistuned 4th.
>

I don't see it as a comma beeing burried but yes this is the most apparent
difference between classical JI and my soltuion.
But you will actually find thesame thing in everything which has a 9/8 whole
tone on a 3/2 fifth.
It's all simply the consequence of the 27/16 interval (wether the 1/1 of the
27/16 is played or not)
1/1 6/5 27/16 is actually thesame thing. Just not an interval there that
lies close to 4/3.
1/1 6/5 27/16 or 1/1 6/5 3/2 27/16 etc is widely accepted I assume. I hope
thesame will happen for 1/1 5/4 3/2 27/16 and JI will have it's golden age.
I think in some very special circumstances there are even chords with an
81/64. Have not found any yet, but looks possible. (not as an alternative
major chord or anything, please don't misunderstand me)

>
> What I think is your solution is understanding how the **great *a
> cappella *contrapuntal
> choral pieces of the Renaissance was performed, in practice, at the time.
> The reason I say this is because I would think at that time in history,
> with
> vocal music, JI was as much in practice as it ever would be.
>
Yes with a great choir I think so.
Although I'm not aware of how precise a choir actually sings.
And it depends on the composition too probably how singable the melodies are
for the choir.

>
> I must say that when you said Lassus composed his piece wrong I was mightly
> turned off. I think the statement is absurd. However, it is totally proper
> to ask how did the performers interpret his score. My meager understanding
> of psycho acoustics and education suggest that the performers would
> naturally gravitate to pure intervals. And as a result put to practice at
> least a first approximation of JI.
>

Ah yes I'm ashamed of this statement I did back then.
I did retract it.
However, the transcription of the Lassus piece was actually wrong.
Someone put a major chord where Lassus wrote a minor chord (though this was
a true 1/1 6/5 3/2 minor chord, not much difference tuning wise or for my
solution)

However, I do still think the whole piece is a bit messy :)
It doesn't have as nice a structure as the Beethoven piece for instance.
And I also think it's possible to write bad sounding music, though this is
just as apparent listening to it in 12tet as it is in JI.

Btw I'll soon tune the entire Lassus piece to JI.
It's a comma hell, I expect many many dissonant fourths.
I've tried it twice before and horribly failed. So much that even I wouldn't
dare post it (that's saying a lot as I usually have atleast a day where I
belief something I just did is in tune, before reality sets in and my ear
finally tells me all is not as right as I thought before haha)

>
> Perhaps Charles can put a recording of Palestrina or Lassus into the
> evaluation copy of Melodyne DNA and find if indeed mis-tuned 4ths are
> present or not as a place to start to answer the question I pose.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chris
>
Yes this would be very very interesting to see.I expect they will indeed
show up.
Though in the beginning of the Lassus piece the dissonant fourths are placed
in such a way that I suspect the averige choir will not sing them correctly
but do some sort of adaptive JI (reacting to their error with a correction
afterwards)
But in many places and pieces I think the dissonant fourth will be correctly
sung. All it needs it clear melodies that lead to this dissonant fourth,
most music will contain these dissonant fourths flowing from singable
natural melodies.
I am curious if melodyne has a good enough resolution to show the 20 cents
difference clearly and if choir music is easy enough to analyse in this way.
Thinking about it more...
It would be a godsend if melodyne can do this kind of analysis correctly!
Keeping my fingers crossed.
It sure is an exciting time for tuning in many ways :)

Kind regards,

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

I've asked Charles on the tuning list. He just posted a message taliking about seeing 5 cents of difference in tuning for another subject.

Chris.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 01:55:37
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MMM] JI vs. temperament: have we gone too far?

Hi Chris,

Marcel,
>
> Perhaps I don't understand. From my simplistic point of view it looks like
> the comma is being buried in the mistuned 4th.
>

Kind regards,

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>

On 7 Oct 2009, at 8:55 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> Ah yes I'm ashamed of this statement I did back then.
> I did retract it.
> However, the transcription of the Lassus piece was actually wrong.
> Someone put a major chord where Lassus wrote a minor chord (though > this was
> a true 1/1 6/5 3/2 minor chord, not much difference tuning wise or > for my
> solution)
>
> However, I do still think the whole piece is a bit messy :)
> It doesn't have as nice a structure as the Beethoven piece for > instance.
> And I also think it's possible to write bad sounding music, though > this is
> just as apparent listening to it in 12tet as it is in JI.
>
> Btw I'll soon tune the entire Lassus piece to JI.
> It's a comma hell, I expect many many dissonant fourths.
> I've tried it twice before and horribly failed. So much that even I > wouldn't
> dare post it (that's saying a lot as I usually have atleast a day > where I
> belief something I just did is in tune, before reality sets in and > my ear
> finally tells me all is not as right as I thought before haha)
>
>
Try some Italian chromatic madrigal, Marenzio, Gesualdo... or Ars subtilior chromatic pieces, like Solage's Fumeaux fume. That's a challenge, there you can find real problems to solve.
> > Perhaps Charles can put a recording of Palestrina or Lassus into the
> > evaluation copy of Melodyne DNA and find if indeed mis-tuned 4ths > are
> > present or not as a place to start to answer the question I pose.
>

Don't tell me Melodyne can analyse polyphonic or chordal music! That would be a long awaited revolution, because conversion of polyphonic music to MIDI will be possible.

Daniel Forro

> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> Yes this would be very very interesting to see.I expect they will > indeed
> show up.
> Though in the beginning of the Lassus piece the dissonant fourths > are placed
> in such a way that I suspect the averige choir will not sing them > correctly
> but do some sort of adaptive JI (reacting to their error with a > correction
> afterwards)
> But in many places and pieces I think the dissonant fourth will be > correctly
> sung. All it needs it clear melodies that lead to this dissonant > fourth,
> most music will contain these dissonant fourths flowing from singable
> natural melodies.
> I am curious if melodyne has a good enough resolution to show the > 20 cents
> difference clearly and if choir music is easy enough to analyse in > this way.
> Thinking about it more...
> It would be a godsend if melodyne can do this kind of analysis > correctly!
> Keeping my fingers crossed.
> It sure is an exciting time for tuning in many ways :)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Try some Italian chromatic madrigal, Marenzio, Gesualdo... or Ars
> subtilior chromatic pieces, like Solage's Fumeaux fume. That's a
> challenge, there you can find real problems to solve.
>

I'm strugling enough allready with chromatic parts in the beethoven piece.
Still can't confirm every note (not even related to my comma solution)

> > > Perhaps Charles can put a recording of Palestrina or Lassus into the
> > > evaluation copy of Melodyne DNA and find if indeed mis-tuned 4ths
> > are
> > > present or not as a place to start to answer the question I pose.
> >
>
> Don't tell me Melodyne can analyse polyphonic or chordal music! That
> would be a long awaited revolution, because conversion of polyphonic
> music to MIDI will be possible.
>
> Daniel Forro
>

Yes melodyne can.
I haven't tried melodyne myself but have tried another program aimed at
specifically converting polyphonic audio to midi
http://www.intelliscore.net/
It made a complete mess of things.
The website doesn't promice perfect results, but I found the results
completely useless.
Perhaps with guitar music it does better. Melodyne uses it in their
examples.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> The JI intervals I use are pure.
> Lets say you have a major chord of 1/1 4/3 5/3 2/1
> Or even make it a 1/1 4/3 5/4 2/1 3/1 chord to make it very clear this is a
> major chord with an added 9/8 whole to to the 4/3.
> Now step from 2/1 to 5/2
> 1/1 4/3 5/3 2/1 3/1
> 1/1 4/3 5/3 9/4 3/1
> 1/1 4/3 5/3 5/2 3/1
> What's unpure about this?
> Nothing.
> You say it's impure because there's a 27/20 dissonant fourth between 5/3 and
> 9/4

I wouldn't say that at all. In fact, I think this has been discussed
before quite a bit on these lists. You'll no doubt remember the C Eb+
G Bb+ D F+ A C+ example I posted in every other thread a year or so
ago. The two outer C's are in an 81/20 ratio.

Comma augmented intervals like that and the fourth above you mentioned
are excitingly citric and dissonant when used in certain places.
Sometimes it takes my ear a second to adjust, whereas at first I'm
like "OH GOD THAT FOURTH IS OUT OF TUNE." But I don't think anyone was
debating the usefulness of those intervals. Otherwise chords like C E
G A D would be impossible to tune. However, played by themselves, they
are noticeably more dissonant and don't blend as well, which is an
observation worth noting.

> Now the difficulty lies in correctly identifying when there's an actual 4/3
> fourth or when it's not really a normal fourth but a structure like the 4/3
> 5/3 9/4 in my example above.When correctly identifying this chord, not a
> normal minor triad, all of a sudden all the comma problems dissapear.
> And all of a sudden you can put any common practice classical music in JI,
> and everything works out.
> Just the fact that everything works out, and that four quints of which one
> is an inversion of the dissonant fourth gives 5/4 instead of 81/64 is a big
> suggestion in the direction that music has JI as it's basis.
> It's amazing to see how very complex music works out perfectly in JI, this
> can't be a coincidence.

I think the method you've put forward here holds a lot of promise. I
think that chords like 27:32:40 would work very rarely, but perhaps
they do have their place. That being said, let's see this extended to
the 11-limit, shall we? Perhaps the blues would be a good place to
start looking.

Let's get 11-limit and higher versions of Debussy compositions and
I'll be happy.

> The advantage of JI is that it's the only system where everything is in
> tune.
> And it's the only system that can work as the basis of a perfect music
> theory.

Now, I wouldn't go that far. All that you're saying is that you're
unwilling to explore the tonal and sonic possibilities of deliberately
mistuning intervals. One such interval that I enjoy hearing mistuned
quite a bit is the octave. Sharper octaves are pretty nice.

-Mike

🔗Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Otherwise chords like C E
> G A D would be impossible to tune. However, played by themselves, they
> are noticeably more dissonant and don't blend as well, which is an
> observation worth noting.
>

Yes indeed.

>
>
> > Now the difficulty lies in correctly identifying when there's an actual
> 4/3
> > fourth or when it's not really a normal fourth but a structure like the
> 4/3
> > 5/3 9/4 in my example above.When correctly identifying this chord, not a
> > normal minor triad, all of a sudden all the comma problems dissapear.
> > And all of a sudden you can put any common practice classical music in
> JI,
> > and everything works out.
> > Just the fact that everything works out, and that four quints of which
> one
> > is an inversion of the dissonant fourth gives 5/4 instead of 81/64 is a
> big
> > suggestion in the direction that music has JI as it's basis.
> > It's amazing to see how very complex music works out perfectly in JI,
> this
> > can't be a coincidence.
>
> I think the method you've put forward here holds a lot of promise.
>

Thank you! :)

> I
> think that chords like 27:32:40 would work very rarely, but perhaps
> they do have their place.
>

Well, what I'm finding is that they're used a lot in common practice music.
I mean truly a LOT :)
I remember people saying that 95% of common practice classical music can't
be tuned to JI
Well this now translates to me that 95% of common practice classical music
has the dissonant 4th in such a way as to give a comma problem if it's tuned
to 4/3.
And probably half of the remaining 5% still has the dissonant 4th but merely
in a way that when wrongly tuned to 4/3 it doesn't give a comma problem.

That being said, let's see this extended to
> the 11-limit, shall we? Perhaps the blues would be a good place to
> start looking.
>
> Let's get 11-limit and higher versions of Debussy compositions and
> I'll be happy.
>

I'd love to, but right now haven't yet even found the 7th harmonic in common
practice music.
And rennaisance and baroque music is allready more than difficult enough.
I will stay with old fairly simple music and once I can tune this correctly
and can developed working tuning models and theory from this I will attempt
more chromatic music etc.
Right now it seems fairly undoable to me.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Most of the Tuning list is dedicated to temperaments which are meant to do precisely as you describe- years (decades?) of work. If it were condensed, edited and printed, it would still make a weighty tome.

"Pure JI" has far less theory dedicated to it.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> I have been experimenting with the idea of scales that are near >enough to JI to confuse the ear, but not quite JI. Though I love JI >some of the apparent limitations of its use make me wonder if >research in it is going in circles due to too many restrictions >created by insisting on strictly obeying a "perfect" form of JI.
>
> It all makes me wonder why so many people insist on having >perfect IE 3/2 5/2 6/2....harmonic series. Is something close like >47/32 66/27 97/32 (approximating the above scale, for >example)...really that evil?! I've made several pieces with near-JI >type denominator setups and found they preserve most of the harmony >and add color: many friends I've blindly tested them with say they >can't tell they are more out of tune.
>
> Plus there are many, many more "virtually perfect" chords possible when you give yourself, say, 5 cents slack in making "perfect" intervals. Plus, again, doing so adds tonal color.
>
> So much of pure-JI has been so well covered by experts that I, >for one, believe a good chunk of the future of music is in making >scales where all possible intervals are "near perfect"...rather than >making some 80-85% of intervals perfect (as things like diatonic JI >does).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: cameron <misterbobro@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 12:00:29 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: The impossible has been done! Beethoven in Just Intonation.
>
>
> Hopefully it is clear why I insist on the distinguishing between spectra and "JI". As most here know, I'm a very big fan of "JI"- but which JI? :-P
>
> The scheme of any particular JI, well, scheme, is not written into physics. And when there is a strong indication, it is not abstract, but instrument and culture specific. My new Erhu loves the 11th partial, and so do I. :-)
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"Most of the Tuning list is dedicated to temperaments which are meant to
do precisely as you describe- years (decades?) of work. If it were
condensed, edited and printed, it would still make a weighty tome."
Agreed, it is a whole lot of material.

The bizarre thing (at least so far as I've been able to see) is that most of the temperaments discussed (IE 1/4 comma mean-tone) only appear to aim at solving one problem (making all intervals near-perfect instead of some intervals more perfect at the expense of others) but fail miserably at the second (avoiding the beating issue between "half-steps").
-----------------------------------------------
I'll agree the premise for what makes JI works seems much simpler: as I understand it the goal is to make as many intervals as possible conform to harmonic series segments and to minimize the "odd limit" (a way to judge how far you are from the idea/beginning of the series) to make a scale with many perfectly clear chords.
A big performance issue for me is JI is that getting all notes to match seems to necessitate using "adaptive JI" (otherwise you just swap purity of some intervals for others), which sounds both a bit shaky and unsteady to me (because it adapts/shifts notes slightly) and still presents the issue of having a sour minor second (the half step issue again).

The other thing is...lately I've noticed the tuning list has been hugely biased toward only discussing either JI, listing of tuning instruments/software, or the use of scales in already-composed music IE the "classics".
While there's nothing wrong with that I think it's become a bit of a monopoly of those topics: I've heard very little about new scales even the slightest bit outside JI (including even "tempered" JI) lately at all. Stuff like Jacques Dudon's experimental scales rarely surface anymore.
----------------------------------------
So here's a good (I hope) tempered scales question: do you know of any scales in composition that have come up in the past on this or the tuning list which you believe solve both problems fairly well.

________________________________
From: cameron <misterbobro@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 7, 2009 2:22:49 AM
Subject: [MMM] Re: JI vs. temperament: have we gone too far?

"Pure JI" has far less theory dedicated to it.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@ yahoogroups. com, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
>
> I have been experimenting with the idea of scales that are near >enough to JI to confuse the ear, but not quite JI. Though I love JI >some of the apparent limitations of its use make me wonder if >research in it is going in circles due to too many restrictions >created by insisting on strictly obeying a "perfect" form of JI.
>
> It all makes me wonder why so many people insist on having >perfect IE 3/2 5/2 6/2....harmonic series. Is something close like >47/32 66/27 97/32 (approximating the above scale, for >example)... really that evil?! I've made several pieces with near-JI >type denominator setups and found they preserve most of the harmony >and add color: many friends I've blindly tested them with say they >can't tell they are more out of tune.
>
> Plus there are many, many more "virtually perfect" chords possible when you give yourself, say, 5 cents slack in making "perfect" intervals. Plus, again, doing so adds tonal color.
>
> So much of pure-JI has been so well covered by experts that I, >for one, believe a good chunk of the future of music is in making >scales where all possible intervals are "near perfect"...rather than >making some 80-85% of intervals perfect (as things like diatonic JI >does).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: cameron <misterbobro@ ...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Tue, October 6, 2009 12:00:29 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: The impossible has been done! Beethoven in Just Intonation.
>
>
> Hopefully it is clear why I insist on the distinguishing between spectra and "JI". As most here know, I'm a very big fan of "JI"- but which JI? :-P
>
> The scheme of any particular JI, well, scheme, is not written into physics. And when there is a strong indication, it is not abstract, but instrument and culture specific. My new Erhu loves the 11th partial, and so do I. :-)
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

🔗touchedchuckk <BadMuthaHubbard@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> Think about it. 5:1, where 1 is the fundamental, is commonly found in nature. 5:4, where 1 is the fundamental, is NOT. Just Intonation uses 5:4 in close voicing, that is, a 1 to 1.25 proportion with 1 as the fundamental. The proportion of 5:4 is found in the harmonic series- but not against the 1. The 5:4 interval of JI is a USAGE, an application, an interpretation, of a natural phenomenon, it is not a natural phenomenon in and of itself.

Nonsense. Your question contradicts itself. You are asking where can
we find 1:1.25 in nature, where the "fundamental" is 1? 1:1.25 is the
same thing as 4:5, so you're really asking where can we find 4:5 in
nature where the "fundamental" is 4. But the entire concept of a
fundamental is psychoacoustic in nature. If I play you an isolated
1:1.25 ratio, you will hear 0.25 popping out as the perceptual
fundamental. And if you CHOOSE to instead think of the "4" in the
above example as being the "root", that reflects a cognitive decision
and nothing necessarily fundamental about physics.

If you want to think about a 1:2:3:4:5 pentad as being "found in
nature" because it is an acoustically lowpassed version of the full
harmonic series, then you could think of a 4:5 dyad as an acoustically
bandpassed version of the full harmonic series. It certainly does
occur in nature, for the same reasons that you will hear a flute
player be able to hit a major third multiphonic. Any cave or whatever
with a hole in the ceiling in which wind is blowing over it might just
happen to hit it at the perfectly right speed to emphasize 4 and 5,
and nothing else. I'm pretty sure we've all heard this phenomenon
happen before on windy days.

Your statements about "the spectra" being more fundamental than JI
really mean that all of the JI intervals that are /1 are more
significant than the rest. I see no reason to place any preternatural
emphasis on the "fundamental" of the series. I did agree, however,
with the concept that "spectra" don't necessarily have to be perfectly
harmonic, and that two different spectra don't necessarily have to
coincide anywhere.

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Think about it. 5:1, where 1 is the fundamental, is commonly found in nature. 5:4, where 1 is the fundamental, is NOT. Just Intonation uses 5:4 in close voicing, that is, a 1 to 1.25 proportion with 1 as the fundamental. The proportion of 5:4 is found in the harmonic series- but not against the 1. The 5:4 interval of JI is a USAGE, an application, an interpretation, of a natural phenomenon, it is not a natural phenomenon in and of itself.
>
> Nonsense. Your question contradicts itself. You are asking where can
> we find 1:1.25 in nature, where the "fundamental" is 1? 1:1.25 is the
> same thing as 4:5, so you're really asking where can we find 4:5 in
> nature where the "fundamental" is 4. But the entire concept of a
> fundamental is psychoacoustic in nature. If I play you an isolated
> 1:1.25 ratio, you will hear 0.25 popping out as the perceptual
> fundamental. And if you CHOOSE to instead think of the "4" in the
> above example as being the "root", that reflects a cognitive decision
> and nothing necessarily fundamental about physics.
>
> If you want to think about a 1:2:3:4:5 pentad as being "found in
> nature" because it is an acoustically lowpassed version of the full
> harmonic series, then you could think of a 4:5 dyad as an acoustically
> bandpassed version of the full harmonic series. It certainly does
> occur in nature, for the same reasons that you will hear a flute
> player be able to hit a major third multiphonic. Any cave or whatever
> with a hole in the ceiling in which wind is blowing over it might just
> happen to hit it at the perfectly right speed to emphasize 4 and 5,
> and nothing else. I'm pretty sure we've all heard this phenomenon
> happen before on windy days.
>
> Your statements about "the spectra" being more fundamental than JI
> really mean that all of the JI intervals that are /1 are more
> significant than the rest. I see no reason to place any preternatural
> emphasis on the "fundamental" of the series. I did agree, however,
> with the concept that "spectra" don't necessarily have to be perfectly
> harmonic, and that two different spectra don't necessarily have to
> coincide anywhere.
>

Your statement "I see no reason to place any preternatural
emphasis on the "fundamental" of the series" is a typical
internet-sophistry strawman. It should be clear- if you'd actually think about what I wrote- that what I'm trying to do is cut the "preternatural" stuff off from the very first step.

No, a 100 Hz harmonic tone does NOT have a partial at 125 Hz, that is a simple fact, not "nonsense". Why does this matter? Because in order to avoid "preternatural", you must look at what's actually going on in actual spectra, NOT the just "numbers" of the thing. The naturally occurring octave-transposed root position major triad is not "1:2:3:4:5", it is found at partials 4:5:6, by the way.

Why is Marcel happy with an interval like 27/20 but not 7/4? For "natural" reasons? Give me a break. The whole damn comma "problem" comes from a manmade source, tuning/moving by pure fifths.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> Your statement "I see no reason to place any preternatural
> emphasis on the "fundamental" of the series" is a typical
> internet-sophistry strawman. It should be clear- if you'd actually think about what I wrote- that what I'm trying to do is cut the "preternatural" stuff off from the very first step.

Hi Cameron, and thanks for keeping a civil tone right from the very beginning.

> No, a 100 Hz harmonic tone does NOT have a partial at 125 Hz, that is a simple fact, not "nonsense". Why does this matter? Because in order to avoid "preternatural", you must look at what's actually going on in actual spectra, NOT the just "numbers" of the thing.

A 100 Hz "harmonic tone" doesn't have a partial at 125 Hz because of
what a bunch of human beings have defined the phrase "harmonic tone"
specifically to mean. If instead we had a tone with partials 100 Hz,
125 Hz, 150 Hz, and so on, we wouldn't SAY it was a 100 Hz
"inharmonic" tone with a second partial at 125 Hz and so on. We would
say that it was (and hear it as) a 25 Hz tone. Furthermore, if you
took 100, 200, 300, 400, etc... Hz tones and slowly compressed the
entire harmonic series, by the time you got to 100, 150, 200, 250, etc
you would no longer be hearing it as a compressed 100 Hz harmonic
series, but as a 50 Hz harmonic series, with a nice little phantom
fundamental thrown in there, courtesy of your brain. Determining where
the exact "cutoff" lies is a matter of psychoacoustics and reflects
nothing really fundamental about physics.

>The naturally occurring octave-transposed root position major triad is not "1:2:3:4:5", it is found at partials 4:5:6, by the way.

Gee, thanks for the insight. That wasn't quite my point with the
1:2:3:4:5 example.

> Why is Marcel happy with an interval like 27/20 but not 7/4? For "natural" reasons? Give me a break. The whole damn comma "problem" comes from a manmade source, tuning/moving by pure fifths.

I'm not Marcel. I've argued with him at length about 7-limit ratios
and beyond. I wish he didn't think that way. I guess it's the same
thing as asking what sounds better -- a JI major 7th chord or 4:5:6:7?
I think it's a useless question.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Mike,

I'm not Marcel. I've argued with him at length about 7-limit ratios
> and beyond. I wish he didn't think that way. I guess it's the same
> thing as asking what sounds better -- a JI major 7th chord or 4:5:6:7?
> I think it's a useless question.
>

Yes I'm sorry about the 7-limit.
I think for instance 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4 is a beautifull chord.
Much much nicer than 1/1 5/4 3/2 16/9 or 1/1 5/4 3/2 9/5
But I simply have no idea how to use 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4 in common practice
music.
I have never come across it when retuning pieces (tried many times 7-limit
intervals (and higher limit) though).
Perhaps musical structure as we know it in common practice music is 5-limit
and 3 dimensional. Perhaps I'll run across the 7th harmonic all of a sudden
in common practice music when I least expect it.
But untill I have a way more thorough theory of tuning I'm simply afraid to
experiment with the 7th in personal compositions for instance as I'd have no
idea what I'm doing.

As for the 1.25 etc
This is an endless agrument about wether one can only call a ratio natural
if it occurs against the natural fundamental tone.
I've allready said I hold a different defenition to natural than the
defenition by Cameron.
Sorry to you and cameron that a discussion that started with my use of the
word natural I no longer see a reason to participate in.
To me for instance 3/2 is natural. But if someone thinks only 3/1 is natural
then I'm ok with different people holding different meanings to the word
natural :)

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
> As for the 1.25 etc
> This is an endless agrument about wether one can only call a ratio >natural
> if it occurs against the natural fundamental tone.
> I've allready said I hold a different defenition to natural than the
> defenition by Cameron.
> Sorry to you and cameron that a discussion that started with my use >of the
> word natural I no longer see a reason to participate in.
> To me for instance 3/2 is natural. But if someone thinks only 3/1 is natural
> then I'm ok with different people holding different meanings to the word
> natural :)
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net

You and Mike are battling a straw man, and both are refusing to make the first step of actually understanding.

I wouldn't care except for this: years ago I found a text, from about 100 years ago IIRC, in which the author "corrected" "mistakes" in the compositions of Bach according the "laws of nature", even invoking the name of God in the process. V-I, of course, being the Word of God. (This text was in the Musikhochshule in Graz, I lost my photocopy of the material in moving and haven't been able to find the source).

It should not be necessary for me to explain what I think are the sociopolitical implications of this kind of thing. This is the kind of path Marcel is on, as far as I can tell, and I feel no obligation whatsoever to be "civil" about it.

It is vital to distinguish between what actually is directly found in nature (the literal presence of which in music would be examples of physical mimesis), and what are actually interpretations, regardless of how natural or inevitable those interpretations may feel for psychoacoustic or cultural reasons.

An example would be this: given octave equivalence (already an interpretation according to some) and triads (most certainly a cultural interpretation, though a "naturally justifiable" one, like many others), the "natural" major triad in "close postion" would not 4:5:6. According to the harmonic series and the bulk of harmonic timbres, the "natural" audible weight lends more support to 2:3:5.
Of course we could disagree about this, and that is the point: we can disagree about this. As soon as we leave the most literal measurement of nature, we are well open to interpretation.

As far as trying to foist off structures based on 3:2 modulo 2, and transposing 5:4/6:5 along with it to boot, as some kind of natural law of musical structure, talk about nonsense.

Another example. A filtering-the-harmonic-series approach could give us a "one-two-five7" of,(in block chords, octave equivalence):

1:1, 5:4, 3:2
9:8, 11:8, 13:8
3:2, 7:4, 9:2, 11:8

More directly "natural" than a ii of 9:8, 27:20, 27:16 and so on, as neither 3-mod-2 nor transpositions of 5:4/6:5 are involved, nor are there modulations or commas.

Both versions sound wonderful. Both can claim quite direct derivation from the harmonic series, but neither can claim to be "law of music from nature".

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Dear Cameron,

As far as trying to foist off structures based on 3:2 modulo 2, and
> transposing 5:4/6:5 along with it to boot, as some kind of natural law of
> musical structure, talk about nonsense.
>
> Another example. A filtering-the-harmonic-series approach could give us a
> "one-two-five7" of,(in block chords, octave equivalence):
>
> 1:1, 5:4, 3:2
> 9:8, 11:8, 13:8
> 3:2, 7:4, 9:2, 11:8
>
> More directly "natural" than a ii of 9:8, 27:20, 27:16 and so on, as
> neither 3-mod-2 nor transpositions of 5:4/6:5 are involved, nor are there
> modulations or commas.
>
> Both versions sound wonderful. Both can claim quite direct derivation from
> the harmonic series, but neither can claim to be "law of music from nature".
>

Somewhere you fell over my use of the word natural.
I'm sorry this happened and I said before I'm ok with you having a different
defenition, but apparently you're not ok with me having a different
defenition.
As for you examples above of what you think is natural in music I won't go
into debate which would not lead to much but will point out the following.
Are you aware that I offered a $20 prize to anybody who can produce a better
sounding drei equali than mine (in a fair comparison, see my original post)
I say take your own personal ideas of naturalness to something we can hear
and retune the drei equali according to your theories and then let us all
compare.
If you're right you even win $20.

Kind regards,

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
> Somewhere you fell over my use of the word natural.
> I'm sorry this happened and I said before I'm ok with you having a >different
> defenition, but apparently you're not ok with me having a different
> defenition.

No, I'm not okay with you having an exclusive definition ("the one perfect way"). I may be a dope-smoking hippy but my tolerance stops at many intolerances.

> As for you examples above of what you think is natural in music I >won't go
> into debate which would not lead to much but will point out the >following.
> Are you aware that I offered a $20 prize to anybody who can produce >a better
> sounding drei equali than mine (in a fair comparison, see my >original post)
> I say take your own personal ideas of naturalness to something we >can hear
> and retune the drei equali according to your theories and then let >us all
> compare.
> If you're right you even win $20.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net

You have not understood my posts. There are MANY "answers", all of them "(un)natural".

Choosing the most direct mimesis of the harmonic series for Drei Equali chords would sound like science fiction. Maybe very groovy, but certainly far from what Beethoven had in mind! And it would be a foolish, or deliberatly sci-fi, thing to do, for the music of Beethoven assumes all kinds of cultural things which are NOT direct mimesis of nature, but are interpretations/usages thereof mixed with very culture-specific stuff.

Your "challenge" is meaningless. Even if it had any bearing here, to be honest I'd have a hard time making the time for a such a dull piece of music.

But Ravel's Pavane is looking pretty tempting, I'm up for comparing interpretations of that one!

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> No, I'm not okay with you having an exclusive definition ("the one perfect
> way"). I may be a dope-smoking hippy but my tolerance stops at many
> intolerances.
>
>
Well this is what my starting point is.
That music is perfect and music is JI in it's basis and there are strict
rules for melody / harmony, harmonic progression / fundamental bass like
things etc.
It's not that far off from normal music theory, only tried to be perfect
mathematically in tuning matters.

> > As for you examples above of what you think is natural in music I >won't
> go
> > into debate which would not lead to much but will point out the
> >following.
> > Are you aware that I offered a $20 prize to anybody who can produce >a
> better
> > sounding drei equali than mine (in a fair comparison, see my >original
> post)
> > I say take your own personal ideas of naturalness to something we >can
> hear
> > and retune the drei equali according to your theories and then let >us
> all
> > compare.
> > If you're right you even win $20.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Marcel
> > www.develde.net
>
> You have not understood my posts. There are MANY "answers", all of them
> "(un)natural".
>
> Choosing the most direct mimesis of the harmonic series for Drei Equali
> chords would sound like science fiction. Maybe very groovy, but certainly
> far from what Beethoven had in mind! And it would be a foolish, or
> deliberatly sci-fi, thing to do, for the music of Beethoven assumes all
> kinds of cultural things which are NOT direct mimesis of nature, but are
> interpretations/usages thereof mixed with very culture-specific stuff.
>
>
Well that's my point.
My version sounds both natural and in tune to me.
It's something I can let listen to friends and family and say this is
microtonal music and they'll say "hey I didn't even notice it at first but
now you mention it it does sound very tight", or something like that.

Your "challenge" is meaningless. Even if it had any bearing here, to be
> honest I'd have a hard time making the time for a such a dull piece of
> music.
>
>
Oef saying dull piece of music hurts my feelings.
I think it's gorgeous and exceptionally well written.
But tastes differ, to each his own.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Well as I said before, I think putting the commas onto the 4ths (and 2nds and 7ths) would be a fine approach in plenty of music. For one thing, it is a demonstration of a non-belief in the "Absolute Truth of Inversions", and because I don't buy into strict inversional identities, I think it is good to defy them. (this is related to the fact that structure and sense is derived from scalar/modal factors as well as relationship to/in spectra)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay. Well, to me this is a crazy and unmusical definition, so it is not
> > likely we're ever going to agree! If Beethoven is "perfect", then I'm going
> > to have to put on some leopardskin underpants and do a pubcrawl in honor of
> > imperfection. :-)
> >
>
> Ok lets agree to disagree then.
> But if you ever change opinion and put on the leopardskin etc please do take
> pictures ;-)
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Well that's my point.
> > > My version sounds both natural and in tune to me.
> >
> > And neither of those, to me. :-) Sounds good to me, though!
> >
>
> Ok glad to hear that it sounds atleast good to you :)
> I think my method can make all common practice music sound good in the same
> way.
> Hope this warrants it's use for some people who do not wish to temper and
> prefer my method over comma shifting melodies or comma drifting music.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>