Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Re: Meta Cross-Post: Marc Jones "Interview"

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J:L:
> Hoping that others won't mind that I've taken the liberty of
moving
> this topic to where it belongs, here on MMM, because it was OT
where
> it began on Meta. Glad to have Marc here.
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
> > On 2/21/02 9:38 AM, "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
> >
>
> J:L:
> > > I'd like to talk a bit about Marc Jones.
>
> MJ:
> > Oh great. Just when I was going to crawl into a cave for 10
years
> again.
> >
> > Interview eh?
>
> J:L:
> Glad I caught you before you went into seclusion. No caves for
you
> right now!
>
> ; )
>
> J:L:
> > > I'm very excited to hear about your upcoming CD!
>
> MJ:
> > CDsssssssssss. Well I suppose that would make it more
exciting to
> you
> > wouldn't it. Hope so. Before too long I'll have a website with
> ordering
> > information and project information and newsletter
subscriptions
> and updates
> > and announcements and all that good stuff.
>
> J:L:
> "CDsssssssssss" Gooooood!
> Let us know when you've got it up on the web.
>
> J:L:
> > > Can you tell us all about it?
>
> MJ:
> > It, them, sure, what do you want to know. All about it hm... In
> between
> > trying to revive some pop and progressive projects from the
80s and
> 90s,
> > well, I'm staying with this pseudo classical stuff for now. I
> might have
> > one of the rock albums done by May I don1t know.
> >
> > What then: guitar and midi stuff... microtonal piano sonatas,
the
> mostly
> > electric string quartet no. 2 will be on CD for the premiere in
> May, I'M
> > ALSO REMIXING NO. 1 HINT HINT, I'm also doing microtonal
acoustic
> string
> > quartets (you know, violins, viola, cello), possibly a few other
> types of
> > pieces. I figure I should keep prefacing with "microtonal" so I
> don't get
> > asked, of course microtonal, everything I do has meticulous
> consideration
> > for the pitch time and volume of every note.
> >
> > I also have some microtonal symphonies brewing too but
even though
> I have my
> > DSP specs down for mixing I'm not sure I have good enough
patches.
> Invite
> > to anyone... Send me some decent orchestral instrument
samples and
> I'll get
> > the symphonies done.
> >
> > Oh yeah and interspersed, I'm doing a lot of Beethoven stuff
in
> different
> > temperaments. Still not sure why. Maybe to show how
ductile the
> structures
> > are. Mozart maybe soon. Don't know.
>
> J:L:
> Wow - what an amazing range of styles! Had no idea.
> Yes - it can be tough to emulate an orchestra with samples.
> Always ends up sounding like "something else" - but I do enjoy
this
> kind of thing very much.
>
> J:L:
> > > Will these all be solo guitar?
>
> MJ:
> > I can't see myself doing solo guitar. Even quartets and such,
I
> always have
> > at least two layers per instrument. If I did solo guitar it would
> still
> > probably be double tracked.
>
> J:L:
> I think mastering a performance for CD allows one to open up
"other"
> levels of compositional languages. To me it has as much
integrity as
> playing it all live. It's the "studio as compositional instrument"
> that appeals to me. It can be acoustic or electronic - or both at
> once. That's the beauty of it.
>
> J:L:
> > > Or will they be ensemble pieces with a group of players?
>
> MJ:
> > That's a tricky question. Maybe you can figure out why. You
were
> on ST for
> > awhile hmm.
> >
> > Mostly me otherwise.
> >
> > Well then again, find me some people who actually want to
play my
> music with
> > me and then maybe I'll have a different answer. I'm open to it
but
> outside
> > of being cancelled on last minute for the microthon, I don't
know
> of a lot
> > of people who can do it, at least not in the neighborhood.
>
> J:L:
> To tell the truth, I find it exceedingly difficult to find musicians
> to collaborate with, because you say "microtones", and you get
that
> big - ; () ???????????????? What-The???? "Look". Then
they go
> running away.
>
> I do have one hard-core guy though, but he's a percussion
player.
> Don't have to worry about any arguing over tunings!
>
> : )
>
>
> J:L:
> > > Do you over-dub you guitar in recordings?
>
> MJ:
> > I don't know what you're asking. If anything I over and over
and
> over dub
> > my guitar... I do most of my stuff on an iMac. I only started
> really
> > getting to use my TX81z a couple months ago, after having it
> shuffled
> > between storage spaces for years. So I still have an old
serial Mac
> > outboard midi setup I'm trying to get some use out of. There
are
> always
> > microtones there, I could never think of it as obsolete. Umm
> especially
> > when I've never recorded with half of it.
>
> J:L:
> Interesting! But you know you can only play up to 768 tET with
the
> TX81Z! This'll be a severe limitation I'm imagining!
> All joking aside - I love the "Zs". Have got two of them.
>
>
> J:L:
> > > What is your style like?
>
>
> MJ:
> > Yes.
> > ...
> > BAAAAAAAAA ...seriously. People have said my piano stuff
sounds
> like Rick
> > Wakeman and my guitar stuff sounds like Steve Howe.
> >
> > A lot of it is sort of classically inflected jazz rock fusion.
> It's a
> > sortof middle of the road thing, it's not really pop or
classically
> geared
> > so it winds up being a little bit pleasant to just about anyone.
>
> J:L:
> This and the above gives me a good idea, and thanks for it.
>
> J:L:
> > > Is you music acoustic or electric guitar oriented?
>
> MJ:
> > Not all my music is guitar oriented. I suppose mostly
electric.
> Those two
> > words just keep popping up side by side don't they.
>
> J:L:
> They just go hand in hand - eh?
>
> ; )
>
> J:L:
> > > I've read some of your fascinating posts about your fret-
boards
> and
> > > such, but never was clear about if they are acoustic or
electric
> > > guitars.
>
> MJ:
> > I'm in the process of chopping up an acoustic to accept my
> interchangeable
> > boards (see below). Other than that, I'm currently only using
> electric.
>
> J:L:
> May I ask if you are a "Voodoo Child"?
> (You like Strat-tone single coil pickups?)
>
> ; )
>
> J:L:
> > > When you fret guitars with large ET frettings, say above 31,
do
> you
> > > use a subset from the ET, or do you somehow use *all* of
the
> > > increments of the ET?
>
>
> MJ:
> > All. As I said, up to 217 with playability of each note.
> Including 323 and
> > 559 which were harder to handle but seemed to work with no
buzz.
>
> J:L:
> Simply one of the most amazing things I've heard - I mean
read, but
> desire greatly to hear.
> Are you able to keep the neck at regular scale with all these
frets?
>
> MJ:
> > I haven't actually "fretted" a guitar in some time. I have a
> guitar ready
> > to accept interchangeable fretboards. I use plywood. I start
with
> the
> > smooth surface and rout an ellipticylindrical cavity in
between. I
> leave a
> > small space on the surface about the same size of a fret, or
that
> is, the
> > same proportion of fret-space to space-in-between. In a
Polish
> way, I
> > seemed to have discovered a way to yield the desired result:
a
> smooth
> > fretting surface with each note distinguishable with no
change in
> timbre.
> > It suffices to contrast: the 22 bass I made Fred had buzzes in
a
> few places
> > whereas I've never had a problem with a board.
> >
> > The boards attach to the neck by a bolt around the octave
and a
> little
> > makeshift support around the nut. Compared to what
anyone would
> have to pay
> > to get a microtonal guitar done "professionally", if you're the
> kind of
> > enthusiast who wants to try any and every temperament you
can on
> guitar...?
> >
> > A friend of Steven DiMarzio quoted me $2000 to calibrate his
> machine to make
> > me a 19 back in the day, and then I should try to make as
many
> guitars as
> > possible because it wouldn't happen again. So they'd be like
$5000
> apiece.
> > I've heard up to $1000 for luthiers.
> >
> > Um piece of plywood cut up and oh by the way I HAVE TO
rout boards
> double
> > sided or they warp. So... Just by the board space, minus my
labor
> time
> > obviously, it's hard work but it comes down to about umm 6
> temperaments for
> > a dollar. (I forget not everyone does it this way so I wonder
why
> people
> > have never tried more than a temperament or two.)
> >
> > But of late I've thought of making certain scale boards.
>
> J:L:
> Thanks for this description. It gives me a great window into the
kind
> of craftsmanship that you possess - something I can really
respect
> (since I tinker with wood and tools on occasion).
>
> J:L:
> > > I've found your statements about how certain frettings affect
the
> > > timbre of the instrument. Can you speak about this a bit?
>
> MJ:
> > Arf.
> >
> > Sit UBU sit...
> >
> > Wait you've FOUND THEM? Oh thank god I thought I'd lost
them for
> good. You
> > found them...? Interesting?
> >
> > EVERY fretting affects the timbre of the instrument. No two
> temperaments
> > sound quite the same on the same guitar. If you know how
to pinch a
> > harmonic, it's related to that. The different fret positions
> excite certain
> > frequencies while dampening others. It sort of teases and
encodes
> each note
> > you have a fret for into the sound of every note, so that no
matter
> where
> > you go melodically, it sounds contiguous. Filling in the rest
of
> the
> > waveform from this is a unique recursive structure of
something
> along the
> > line of formants, almost the same thing as a vocal pattern,
which
> gives each
> > temperament its own recognizable "voice".
>
> J:L:
> Makes perfect sense, now that you explain it. This is
something that
> is not usually found on a synth - to be sure!
>
>
> J:L:
> > > Any advice you could give to a novice about how to learn
how to
> > > navigate a large ET on a guitar, when they may be coming
from the
> > > familiar language of a 12 tET fretting?
>
> MJ:
> > Plenty of advice. Plenty of markings. Enough so you can find
your
> way
> > around quickly.
>
> J:L:
> Ah - the "secret" is revealed.
>
>
> J:L:
> > > Do you ever play fretless? Seems to be becoming very
popular these
> > > days.
>
> MJ:
> > Well, not smooth, no. I did at times in the early 1990s. But
my
> > interchangeable boards are all carved in, there's nothing
built
> up. So in a
> > sense, I always play fretless, only sort of scalloped. It makes
a
> lot more
> > sense to start with a flat surface so your fretting areas are
> flush. I've
> > thought of routing metal. Might be heavy but it might have
some
> interesting
> > effects on the timbre.
>
> J:L:
> At what point of 2/1 puree (high ets), do you find it to
> become "fretless-like"?
>
> J:L:
> > > Do you like distortion, chorus or reverb effects on guitar, or
do
> you
> > > feel that effects can obscure the sound of the tuning?
Haverstick
> > > does some amazing stuff with distort-o micro-guitars on
occasion.
>
> MJ:
> > For the most part, I like keeping the guitar sounds clean
because I
> wind up
> > layering them and the combinations are interesting enough.
> Anything I'm
> > used to, 17, 19 whatever yeah crank it up. The only real
"effect"
> I tend to
> > use is a normal recording overdrive, that is, playing loud
enough
> so the
> > input device peaks. Otherwise, all the usual guitar effects I
like
> applying
> > to 41, moreso 43.
>
> J:L:
> Fascinating. And makes sense.
>
> J:L:
> > > Do you like nylon strings or metal?
>
> MJ:
> > I used to like playing nylon strings. I haven't yet gotten
around
> to having
> > a microtonal interchangeable acoustic. On the list of things
to do
> now that
> > I have some domestic stability for the first time in about 10
> years. That
> > an an interchangeable 12 string. I used to have a 12-string
19-
> tone, metal
> > frets. SHINGGGGG...
>
> J:L:
> Now you're talking! I love the 12 string - like the Towner variety.
> Would be cool to hear this indeed!
>
>
> J:L:
> > > Do you ever use MOS (Myhills Property) - 2 step size
tunings as a
> way
> > > of subsetting from large number ETs?
>
> MJ:
> > If you're talking about two-size-interval scales, sure, all the
> time. My
> > markings are mostly extended diatonic scales, with a hint of
where
> harmonics
> > are so I don't have to carry a manual around just to play an
> infrequently
> > accessed temperament.
>
> J:L:
> I like them too, although for me it is usually a keyboard
> consideration.
>
> J:L:
> > > What are some of your favorite prime number ETs -
especially the
> > > lower number ones?
>
>
> MJ:
> > Favorite PRIMES? Is this a trick question? If it is, the answer
> is 31.
> >
> > Well I like everything I have... Primes, let's see. I go back a
> long way
> > with 19. Of course 31. I really thought a lot more people
would
> be into
> > 29. Seems not so. I don't suppose too many people have
made the
> guitar. I
> > think the discovery is all in the timbre. I can usually hack the
> midi with
> > no affection in the timbre, but for something like 23 I think I'd
> really
> > have to build the board one day.
> >
> > I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit
> esoteric
> > at this point. 41 and 43 I could play for hours. Actually when I
> first
> > heard your music I thought you might like 41. I like listening
to
> things in
> > 59. 61 has really good 5th limit separation for sketching...
> >
> > I could go on. You called over 31 "high" though. Hmm.
> >
> > Should I anticipate you might want to know non-primes as
well...?
> It's a
> > sort of puzzle to make 15 work but rewarding when you do.
Of
> course I like
> > 22 but it gets me lazy. 26 I don't use as much as I should. I
> have a basic
> > logic grid for 27 that you'll hear in a lot of my work, especially
> my first
> > piano sonata. I used to use 34 a lot for pop sketches. I think
39
> is a
> > good trade off between sketching 5th limit stuff and really stiff
> 17 3rd
> > limit.
> >
> > You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies, but you
know
> what, the
> > guitar is a magical thing. Either the tuning is good, or if the
> tuning is
> > bad it makes for a very interesting timbre. 45 is kind of like
19
> with its
> > own distortion built in.
> >
> > That should be enough to stir your paint for now. I also use a
few
> > geometric and algebraic temperaments as writing filters.
>
> J:L:
> Thanks for all this. Very interesting. Yes - I do like 41, and
> somehow my ears tend to favor the "Positive EDOs/
Meantones", with the
> wide fifth. So many treasures there.
>
> J:L:
> > > Do you like 17 ET?
>
> MJ:
> > Yes, very much. As anything else, a fully fretted metal fret 17
> has a
> > fitting timbre which makes it a lot easier to work with than
> theorize about.
>
> J:L:
> I also dig 17. I'd like to try this on a gitter someday. I've tried
> my hand at making some stainless-steel moveable frets,
which work
> rather well - like a sitar sort of, but the guitar is ratty, so I
> don't do much with it really, although it is a future plan to
improve
> upon this prototype.
>
> MJ:
> > Anything else, feel free to onslaught again.
> >
> > Marc
>
> Thanks for enduring all my questions - appreciate it greatly,
>
> Jacky

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
> J:L: Hoping that others won't mind that I've taken the liberty of moving this
> topic to where it belongs, here on MMM, because it was OT where it began on
> Meta. Glad to have Marc here.
>

MJ: Yeah I'm finally getting into writing again.

> --- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote: On 2/21/02
> 9:38 AM, "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
>
>
>>> J:L: I'd like to talk a bit about Marc Jones.
>>>
>> MJ: Oh great. Just when I was going to crawl into a cave for 10 years again.
>>
>> Interview eh?
>>
> J:L: Glad I caught you before you went into seclusion. No caves for you right
> now!
>
> ; )
>

MJ: Nah seriously I need to get out and start writing again.

>>> J:L: I'm very excited to hear about your upcoming CD!
>>>
>> MJ: CDsssssssssss. Well I suppose that would make it more exciting to you
>> wouldn't it. Hope so. Before too long I'll have a website with ordering
>> information and project information and newsletter subscriptions and updates
>> and announcements and all that good stuff.
>
> J:L: "CDsssssssssss" Gooooood! Let us know when you've got it up on the web.
>

MJ: I will do.

>>> J:L: Can you tell us all about it?
>>>
>> MJ: It, them, sure, what do you want to know. All about it hm... In between
>> trying to revive some pop and progressive projects from the 80s and 90s,
>> well, I'm staying with this pseudo classical stuff for now. I might have one
>> of the rock albums done by May I don1t know.
>>
>> What then: guitar and midi stuff... microtonal piano sonatas, the mostly
>> electric string quartet no. 2 will be on CD for the premiere in May, I'M ALSO
>> REMIXING NO. 1 HINT HINT, I'm also doing microtonal acoustic string quartets
>> (you know, violins, viola, cello), possibly a few other types of pieces. I
>> figure I should keep prefacing with "microtonal" so I don't get asked, of
>> course microtonal, everything I do has meticulous consideration for the pitch
>> time and volume of every note.
>>
>> I also have some microtonal symphonies brewing too but even though I have my
>> DSP specs down for mixing I'm not sure I have good enough patches. Invite to
>> anyone... Send me some decent orchestral instrument samples and I'll get the
>> symphonies done.
>>
>> Oh yeah and interspersed, I'm doing a lot of Beethoven stuff in different
>> temperaments. Still not sure why. Maybe to show how ductile the structures
>> are. Mozart maybe soon. Don't know.
>>
> J:L: Wow - what an amazing range of styles! Had no idea. Yes - it can be tough
> to emulate an orchestra with samples. Always ends up sounding like "something
> else" - but I do enjoy this kind of thing very much.
>

MJ: Why thank you. I'll see what I can do.

>>> J:L: Will these all be solo guitar?
>>
>> MJ: I can't see myself doing solo guitar. Even quartets and such, I always
>> have at least two layers per instrument. If I did solo guitar it would still
>> probably be double tracked.
>
> J:L: I think mastering a performance for CD allows one to open up "other"
> levels of compositional languages. To me it has as much integrity as playing
> it all live. It's the "studio as compositional instrument" that appeals to me.
> It can be acoustic or electronic - or both at once. That's the beauty of it.
>

MJ: I want to hear it again...

> J:L: To me it has as much integrity as playing it all live.

MJ: I want to hear it again...

> J:L: To me it has as much integrity as playing it all live.

MJ: Like I said I finalized my DSP specs so I can get a decent mix that
actually sounds like it was different objects having played in the same room
to begin with. Well I didn't really say that. But I just did. Personally
I'd usually rather hear studio recordings than live music. I'd much rather
hear someone in a comfortable professional atmosphere crafting and sculpting
and layering and mixing, than a public appearance.

With few exceptions.

I have to admit when I finally finally finally saw Kiss, it wasn't just the
100db sound blowdrying my hair. It was a feeling of wait, there's no vinyl,
there's no sampling rate. I'm actually hearing their actual voices and
music with no media in between me and them.

But then a couple months later I saw the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra try
to play Beethoven's 9th Symphony. The HEE HAW that came out of the back
five First Violins by starting early almost had me walk out. All the first
violins looked like they were off in a daydream of sitting first chair
someday. The second violins were very smooth though. The First Oboe was
seasoned and about 70 years old, could have played with London Philharmonic.
I would have loved to suffer through them playing the 5th Symphony just to
hear that five second adagio solo oboe...! The soprano was pleasing. The
clarinets sounded worse than midi. NO volume fluctuation from note to note
or otherwise. And of all things, I should have kept going when I saw the
notice in the paper for the BASS-BARITONE singing the low part. He was
horrible. Every time I've said this in the last four years I've thought
about it carefully and every time I say it the same way: I WOULD HAVE
SOUNDED BETTER SINGING IT FROM THE BALCONY! But they played the whole
second movement with *all* the repeats... Good overall endurance.

That, to me, was a waste of money though. I would have much preferred a
high school orchestra where at least everyone was on the same playing level.
I would have even preferred listening to the PORTSMOUTH SINFONIA and taking
them SERIOUSLY!!!!! I'd much rather have paid that money to get some decent
recordings that would last me for years. And such is my writing quest.
I've never really thought in terms of my music being played live, just
trying to make it so it would fit into someone else's record collection.
I'd much rather entertain people with little or no budget for music. I'm
actually looking to charge as little as I can for my music since I'm doing
it all myself start to finish.

>>> J:L: Or will they be ensemble pieces with a group of players?
>>>
>> MJ: That's a tricky question. Maybe you can figure out why. You were on ST
>> for awhile hmm.
>>
>> Mostly me otherwise.
>>
>> Well then again, find me some people who actually want to play my music with
>> me and then maybe I'll have a different answer. I'm open to it but outside
>> of being cancelled on last minute for the microthon, I don't know of a lot of
>> people who can do it, at least not in the neighborhood.
>>
> J:L: To tell the truth, I find it exceedingly difficult to find musicians to
> collaborate with, because you say "microtones", and you get that big - ; ()
> ???????????????? What-The???? "Look". Then they go running away.
>

MJ: My favorite responses:

"I tried all the quartertones. I couldn't find any I liked."

"Well first I tried 11. AAAAGH. Then I tried 13!! UUUGH! I couldn't
IMAGINE taking even ONE more step in either direction! 14? 10?! No way."

"How can you take something that's purely MUSICAL, translate it into
something that's purely MATHEMATICAL, then CHANGE it, and expect it to
translate BACK into MUSIC?!?!?!?!?"

"It's the devil right."
"No, it's alternative tunings."
"Huh?"
"You know, like Jimmy Page would sometimes..."
"...oh it's the devil right."

> J:L: I do have one hard-core guy though, but he's a percussion player. Don't
> have to worry about any arguing over tunings!
>
> : )
>

MJ: Well the thing with drummers is, it really doesn't take them rebuilding
their instruments to find the quantum scale and the inbetween values. If
they want to play in an off beat proportion, it's right there.

>
>>> J:L: Do you over-dub you guitar in recordings?
>>>
>> MJ: I don't know what you're asking. If anything I over and over and over
dub
>> my guitar... I do most of my stuff on an iMac. I only started really getting
>> to use my TX81z a couple months ago, after having it shuffled between storage
>> spaces for years. So I still have an old serial Mac outboard midi setup I'm
>> trying to get some use out of. There are always microtones there, I could
>> never think of it as obsolete. Umm especially when I've never recorded with
>> half of it.
>>
> J:L: Interesting! But you know you can only play up to 768 tET with the TX81Z!
> This'll be a severe limitation I'm imagining! All joking aside - I love the
> "Zs". Have got two of them.
>

MJ: Well you know what. I was screaming to high hell about the 768 and
1200 grids. And you know what... If you're REALLY going to indulge in a
TEMPERAMENT, and not just a couple notes, you really do get some good
separation. Like I said, I get up to the 27 39 46 41 43 50 45 33 level on a
pretty constant basis, and I compared the values between those and 12 17 19
22 29 31 26... And outside of a few notes that were really really close to
each other anyway, I'd say maybe 98% of the notes of every temperament had
their own unique ID number. Those things are actually VERY good for getting
your hands dirty with low two digit temperaments.

>>> J:L: What is your style like?
>>>
>>
>> MJ: Yes. ... BAAAAAAAAA ...seriously. People have said my piano stuff sounds
>> like Rick Wakeman and my guitar stuff sounds like Steve Howe.
>>
>> A lot of it is sort of classically inflected jazz rock fusion. It's a sortof
>> middle of the road thing, it's not really pop or classically geared so it
>> winds up being a little bit pleasant to just about anyone.
>>
> J:L: This and the above gives me a good idea, and thanks for it.
>

MJ: Oh? :) And what's that...

>>> J:L: Is you music acoustic or electric guitar oriented?
>>>
>> MJ: Not all my music is guitar oriented. I suppose mostly electric. Those
>> two words just keep popping up side by side don't they.
>>
> J:L: They just go hand in hand - eh?
>
> ; )
>

MJ: Ouch. Yeah. You know what is TOTALLY SAD... I ALWAYS miss the most
obvious joke or implication. "Mostly Electric". You know, after playing
that piece on Nov 11 2000, it took me until I think Feb 2 2002 to realize,
Mostly Electric, although I'd intended it to mean three electric instruments
with an acoustic violin, it PERFECTLY describes the fact that I'm playing
one part and the computer is playing three. Ehh. Joke's on me.

>>> J:L: I've read some of your fascinating posts about your fret- boards and
>>> such, but never was clear about if they are acoustic or electric guitars.
>>>
>> MJ: I'm in the process of chopping up an acoustic to accept my
interchangeable
>> boards (see below). Other than that, I'm currently only using electric.
>>
> J:L: May I ask if you are a "Voodoo Child"? (You like Strat-tone single coil
> pickups?)
>
> ; )
>

MJ: HMMMM. Yes that would be my main means of operation.

>>> J:L: When you fret guitars with large ET frettings, say above 31, do you use
a
>>> subset from the ET, or do you somehow use *all* of the increments of the ET?
>>>
>>
>> MJ: All. As I said, up to 217 with playability of each note. Including 323
>> and 559 which were harder to handle but seemed to work with no buzz.
>>
> J:L: Simply one of the most amazing things I've heard - I mean read, but
> desire greatly to hear. Are you able to keep the neck at regular scale with
> all these frets?
>

MJ: Sure. Well like I said in the page on Monz' site, after awhile I only
fret up to the octave. Then only to the fifth.

>> MJ: I haven't actually "fretted" a guitar in some time. I have a guitar
>> ready to accept interchangeable fretboards. I use plywood. I start with the
>> smooth surface and rout an ellipticylindrical cavity in between. I leave a
>> small space on the surface about the same size of a fret, or that is, the
>> same proportion of fret-space to space-in-between. In a Polish way, I seemed
>> to have discovered a way to yield the desired result: a smooth fretting
>> surface with each note distinguishable with no change in timbre. It suffices
>> to contrast: the 22 bass I made Fred had buzzes in a few places whereas I've
>> never had a problem with a board.
>>
>> The boards attach to the neck by a bolt around the octave and a little
>> makeshift support around the nut. Compared to what anyone would have to pay
>> to get a microtonal guitar done "professionally", if you're the kind of
>> enthusiast who wants to try any and every temperament you can on guitar...?
>>
>> A friend of Steven DiMarzio quoted me $2000 to calibrate his machine to make
>> me a 19 back in the day, and then I should try to make as many guitars as
>> possible because it wouldn't happen again. So they'd be like $5000 apiece.
>> I've heard up to $1000 for luthiers.
>>
>> Um piece of plywood cut up and oh by the way I HAVE TO rout boards double
>> sided or they warp. So... Just by the board space, minus my labor time
>> obviously, it's hard work but it comes down to about umm 6 temperaments for a
>> dollar. (I forget not everyone does it this way so I wonder why people have
>> never tried more than a temperament or two.)
>>
>> But of late I've thought of making certain scale boards.
>>
> J:L: Thanks for this description. It gives me a great window into the kind of
> craftsmanship that you possess - something I can really respect (since I
> tinker with wood and tools on occasion).
>

MJ: Hyuk. Thanks. Yknow I never thought about it much.

>>> J:L: I've found your statements about how certain frettings affect the
>>> timbre of the instrument. Can you speak about this a bit?
>>>
>> MJ: EVERY fretting affects the timbre of the instrument. No two temperaments
>> sound quite the same on the same guitar. If you know how to pinch a
>> harmonic, it's related to that. The different fret positions excite certain
>> frequencies while dampening others. It sort of teases and encodes each note
>> you have a fret for into the sound of every note, so that no matter where you
>> go melodically, it sounds contiguous. Filling in the rest of the waveform
>> from this is a unique recursive structure of something along the line of
>> formants, almost the same thing as a vocal pattern, which gives each
>> temperament its own recognizable "voice".
>>
> J:L: Makes perfect sense, now that you explain it. This is something that is
> not usually found on a synth - to be sure!
>

MJ: I've otherwise considered sampling some of the microtonal fretboards,
and then grafting the sound onto a piano or violin for a QuickTime patch.
Either that or just simulating the actual goosebump pattern and tacking it
on as a sort of resonance proportionator. We'll see. But as far as
synthesizing?! NO WAY. When you start thinking about the actual duration
of the partial formants or whatever they are, I would think maybe craft the
overriding spikes for the lowest note on the piano or even lower, so that
when it scales properly, the crunch of higher notes will be a lot more
accurate.

>>> J:L: Any advice you could give to a novice about how to learn how to
>>> navigate a large ET on a guitar, when they may be coming from the familiar
>>> language of a 12 tET fretting?
>>>
>> MJ: Plenty of advice. Plenty of markings. Enough so you can find your way
>> around quickly.
>
> J:L: Ah - the "secret" is revealed.
>

MJ: Okay example. The primary markings on my 31 board are like this.
The octave has four dots across.
The fourth and fifth have three dots.
The major second and minor seventh have two dots.
The rest of the notes in the 12 scale have one dot.
The rest of the notes in the 19 scale have a "^" or "v", depending on
whether it's a quintal or quartal interval. Actually I have a lot of boards
where the one dots and higher are actually triangles with quartal quintal
orientation.

And so it goes through all nested diatonic scales. Makes it very easy to
tell them apart. Plus I've always "seen" colors around temperaments, and I
finally realized that one family of colors was actually a rainbow spread
over the size of certain fifths.

>>> J:L: Do you ever play fretless? Seems to be becoming very popular these
days.
>>>
>> MJ: Well, not smooth, no. I did at times in the early 1990s. But my
>> interchangeable boards are all carved in, there's nothing built up. So in a
>> sense, I always play fretless, only sort of scalloped. It makes a lot more
>> sense to start with a flat surface so your fretting areas are flush. I've
>> thought of routing metal. Might be heavy but it might have some interesting
>> effects on the timbre.
>
> J:L: At what point of 2/1 puree (high ets), do you find it to become
> "fretless-like"?
>

MJ: I'm posting a lot lately. I wrote a whole bit around this. All the
people working with me in the early 1990s agreed that the 217 board was
still very individual notes but the 323 was starting to smear.

We had a joke, "THE TURNING POINT IS 244", because of the intersection of
different fields suggesting that the turning point is between 240 and 248.

Again, there's not just fretted and fretless. Sliding up and down a 27
sounds like running along a fence with a stick, but 29 sounds like a slide.
Then 41 sounds like a really deep slide but 43 sounds like either a slight
delay or two guitars.

We called it the "mercy" levels, since after finding so much todo with
additive synergy in temperaments, we applied the so called "perfect"
numbers, gotten from Mersenne primes. MERSEnne synergY. And it seemed a
bit merciful that there was qualitative relief to be found in the abyss.

>>> J:L: Do you like distortion, chorus or reverb effects on guitar, or do you
>>> feel that effects can obscure the sound of the tuning? Haverstick does some
>>> amazing stuff with distort-o micro-guitars on occasion.
>>
>> MJ: For the most part, I like keeping the guitar sounds clean because I wind
>> up layering them and the combinations are interesting enough. Anything I'm
>> used to, 17, 19 whatever yeah crank it up. The only real "effect" I tend to
>> use is a normal recording overdrive, that is, playing loud enough so the
>> input device peaks. Otherwise, all the usual guitar effects I like applying
>> to 41, moreso 43.
>
> J:L: Fascinating. And makes sense.
>

MJ: Well also remember I discovered that each temperament, even on the same
guitar, has its own timbre. So it's like they each have their own effect.

>>> J:L: Do you like nylon strings or metal?
>>>
>> MJ: I used to like playing nylon strings. I haven't yet gotten around to
>> having a microtonal interchangeable acoustic. On the list of things to do
now
>> that I have some domestic stability for the first time in about 10 years.
>> That an an interchangeable 12 string. I used to have a 12-string 19- tone,
>> metal frets. SHINGGGGG...
>
> J:L: Now you're talking! I love the 12 string - like the Towner variety. Would
> be cool to hear this indeed!
>

MJ: Yes, now I'm talking. I'm communicating. I'm telling people what I
do. Finally.

>>> J:L: Do you ever use MOS (Myhills Property) - 2 step size tunings as a way
>>> of subsetting from large number ETs?
>>
>> MJ: If you're talking about two-size-interval scales, sure, all the time. My
>> markings are mostly extended diatonic scales, with a hint of where harmonics
>> are so I don't have to carry a manual around just to play an infrequently
>> accessed temperament.
>
> J:L: I like them too, although for me it is usually a keyboard consideration.
>

MJ: Actually this is what the fretboard markings are based on, I suppose
you could say. One is a symptom of the other.

>>> J:L: What are some of your favorite prime number ETs - especially the lower
>>> number ones?
>>
>>
>> MJ: Favorite PRIMES? Is this a trick question? If it is, the answer is 31.
>>
>> Well I like everything I have... Primes, let's see. I go back a long way
>> with 19. Of course 31. I really thought a lot more people would be into 29.
>> Seems not so. I don't suppose too many people have made the guitar. I think
>> the discovery is all in the timbre. I can usually hack the midi with no
>> affection in the timbre, but for something like 23 I think I'd really have to
>> build the board one day.
>>
>> I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit esoteric at
>> this point. 41 and 43 I could play for hours. Actually when I first heard
>> your music I thought you might like 41. I like listening to things in 59.
>> 61 has really good 5th limit separation for sketching...
>>
>> I could go on. You called over 31 "high" though. Hmm.
>>
>> Should I anticipate you might want to know non-primes as well...? It's a
>> sort of puzzle to make 15 work but rewarding when you do. Of course I like
>> 22 but it gets me lazy. 26 I don't use as much as I should. I have a basic
>> logic grid for 27 that you'll hear in a lot of my work, especially my first
>> piano sonata. I used to use 34 a lot for pop sketches. I think 39 is a good
>> trade off between sketching 5th limit stuff and really stiff 17 3rd limit.
>>
>> You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies, but you know what, the
>> guitar is a magical thing. Either the tuning is good, or if the tuning is
>> bad it makes for a very interesting timbre. 45 is kind of like 19 with its
>> own distortion built in.
>>
>> That should be enough to stir your paint for now. I also use a few geometric
>> and algebraic temperaments as writing filters.
>>
> J:L: Thanks for all this. Very interesting. Yes - I do like 41, and somehow my
> ears tend to favor the "Positive EDOs/ Meantones", with the wide fifth. So
> many treasures there.
>

MJ: AH HA. I KNEW IT.

>>> J:L: Do you like 17 ET?
>>>
>> MJ: Yes, very much. As anything else, a fully fretted metal fret 17 has a
>> fitting timbre which makes it a lot easier to work with than theorize about.
>>
> J:L: I also dig 17. I'd like to try this on a gitter someday. I've tried my
> hand at making some stainless-steel moveable frets, which work rather well -
> like a sitar sort of, but the guitar is ratty, so I don't do much with it
> really, although it is a future plan to improve upon this prototype.
>

MJ: Like I said the fretting gives you a timbre that's conducive to the
temperament. So as off as most timbres are, you can use the pythagorean
major third in 17 ON A GUITAR, with no problem. (Psst, you can also use it
in 22 if you're care - ful.)

> Thanks for enduring all my questions - appreciate it greatly,
>
> Jacky
>

Enduring? Umm I'm at a point in my life where interest from other people
would be considered valuable. So. Ask away if you want.

Marc

Re: Meta Cross-Post: Marc Jones "Interview"

🔗orphonsoul <tuning@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>