Popular microtonal music

Interesting comments on making "accessible" microtonal music. If a person such as Prince, Steve Vai, Elton John etc decided to integrate non 12 tone systems into their music, it would probably be a big boost to the visibility and viability of the "movement," if you will. American culture runs on titillation and novelty, to a large degree, so a popular musician who used another tuning would probably get folks interested...but to what degree is another matter. After 20 years of making CD's, doing shows, etc, I'm thinking that even when folks are interested, and think it's a cool concept, there's a big gap between digging microtonal music, and actually taking the time and effort to learn or study non 12 tone music. I've had many people over the years who genuinely like my music, but none of them have went out and got a 19 tone axe yet. A common theme I hear is "Well, I have enough trouble with 12 tones," and that's the end of it. It's a big deal to actually attempt to learn another tuning system, let alone several.

Both Catler and I have done what could be called "accessible" music, rock/blues oriented stuff, and we've had favorable reviews in mags such as Guitar Player, Downbeat, and others...it hasn't translated yet into large CD sales, or other artists getting on board in any significant manner. But, for some reason I still feel optimistic, and am convinced that, with the right spark, things can change. For me, current "pop" music is in a dreadful state, very corporate in most ways, with very little imagination or depth of feeling...so, that means it's ready for a change in another direction...and it can happen....best from sunny Denver...Hstick
www.microstick.net

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1

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

To be fair, Steve Vai has used microtonal scales in his music.
Check out the album Sex & Religion. I think there are others.

-Carl

At 09:36 AM 3/17/2010, Neil wrote:
> Interesting comments on making "accessible" microtonal music. If a
>person such as Prince, Steve Vai, Elton John etc decided to integrate
>non 12 tone systems into their music, it would probably be a big boost
>to the visibility and viability of the "movement," if you will.
>American culture runs on titillation and novelty, to a large degree,
>so a popular musician who used another tuning would probably get folks
>interested...but to what degree is another matter. After 20 years of
>making CD's, doing shows, etc, I'm thinking that even when folks are
>interested, and think it's a cool concept, there's a big gap between
>digging microtonal music, and actually taking the time and effort to
>learn or study non 12 tone music. I've had many people over the years
>who genuinely like my music, but none of them have went out and got a
>19 tone axe yet. A common theme I hear is "Well, I have enough trouble
>with 12 tones," and that's the end of it. It's a big deal to actually
>attempt to learn another tuning system, let alone several.
> Both Catler and I have done what could be called "accessible"
>music, rock/blues oriented stuff, and we've had favorable reviews in
>mags such as Guitar Player, Downbeat, and others...it hasn't
>translated yet into large CD sales, or other artists getting on board
>in any significant manner. But, for some reason I still feel
>optimistic, and am convinced that, with the right spark, things can
>change. For me, current "pop" music is in a dreadful state, very
>corporate in most ways, with very little imagination or depth of
>feeling...so, that means it's ready for a change in another
>direction...and it can happen....best from sunny Denver...Hstick
>www.microstick.net

>"To be fair, Steve Vai has used microtonal scales in his music.
Check out the album Sex & Religion. I think there are others."

He did use it for a short part of the song "Down Deep Into The Pain" off the album "Sex and Religion". The sad thing is in all the bios I find about him and that song he refers to it as things like "divine dissonance", but never really seems to mention it as being able to be used as a form of order rather than just disorder and stops at " But I don’t think you’ll ever hear Metallica jamming on the Xavian
scale."-Vai. And this is coming from a huge fan of Steve Vai...his song Touching Tongues is about the most imaginative song I've heard and I just wish he'd tried to do something like that with micro-tones and his solos on the album Fire Garden Suite are simply unbelievable both in speed/technique and emotion...beats Van Halen the death IMVHO.

________________________________
From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, March 17, 2010 1:06:05 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Popular microtonal music

To be fair, Steve Vai has used microtonal scales in his music.
Check out the album Sex & Religion. I think there are others.

-Carl

At 09:36 AM 3/17/2010, Neil wrote:
> Interesting comments on making "accessible" microtonal music. If a
>person such as Prince, Steve Vai, Elton John etc decided to integrate
>non 12 tone systems into their music, it would probably be a big boost
>to the visibility and viability of the "movement," if you will.
>American culture runs on titillation and novelty, to a large degree,
>so a popular musician who used another tuning would probably get folks
>interested. ..but to what degree is another matter. After 20 years of
>making CD's, doing shows, etc, I'm thinking that even when folks are
>interested, and think it's a cool concept, there's a big gap between
>digging microtonal music, and actually taking the time and effort to
>learn or study non 12 tone music. I've had many people over the years
>who genuinely like my music, but none of them have went out and got a
>19 tone axe yet. A common theme I hear is "Well, I have enough trouble
>with 12 tones," and that's the end of it. It's a big deal to actually
>attempt to learn another tuning system, let alone several.
> Both Catler and I have done what could be called "accessible"
>music, rock/blues oriented stuff, and we've had favorable reviews in
>mags such as Guitar Player, Downbeat, and others...it hasn't
>translated yet into large CD sales, or other artists getting on board
>in any significant manner. But, for some reason I still feel
>optimistic, and am convinced that, with the right spark, things can
>change. For me, current "pop" music is in a dreadful state, very
>corporate in most ways, with very little imagination or depth of
>feeling...so, that means it's ready for a change in another
>direction.. .and it can happen....best from sunny Denver...Hstick
>www.microstick. net

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

>"If a person such as Prince, Steve Vai, Elton John etc decided to
integrate non 12 tone systems into their music, it would probably be a
big boost to the visibility and viability of the "movement,"
Indeed...at least if they could influence other musicians to try it. I think Steve Vai and Prince are quite good...but know fairly few people who have also "made it big" who use them as influences for how/why they compose or set up their equipment...sadly they fall into the bin of "semi-popular musicians". People like Joe Satriani (also highly experimental at times) and Pat Metheny have similar "problems", IMVHO...they have a select few musicians who praise and follow them almost religiously, but that's it and those few are unlikely to get "huge" enough to have major influence or bring mass-spread public awareness.

>"I've had many people over the years who genuinely like my music, but
none of them have went out and got a 19 tone axe yet. A common theme I
hear is "Well, I have enough trouble with 12 tones,"

I see a huge potential for things like guitar pedals designed to re-tune notes to micro-tonal scales. This shouldn't be too hard to do with 7-tone scales...all you have to do is tell the pedal what key you are in and it reassigns notes by number in the scale IE the root tone of D (from 12TET) and overtones would be multiplied by the second note of the new scale of the frequency of D.

A real limit on micro-tonality is that the most popular acoustic instruments (IE fretted guitars, trumpets, saxophones...) come with pre-set notes and changing them often requires purchasing another instrument and re-learning the new "fingering" for said instrument. Getting an external device to do the retuning before amplification would be a huge stride toward easy accessibility of micro-tonal scales, IMVHO.

---------------------------------------------------
Another way to make composing micro-tonal music more accessible that comes to my mind is to concentrate on making scales where virtually all combinations of dyads sound fairly consonant. That way
A) Any chord in the traditional 7-tone diatonic scale has a near-equivalent that can be played more or less the same way using said-above "retuning pedal".
B) As a plus, chords and melodic progressions that were considered "illegal" or at least "too odd for live use" under standard types of 12TET theory become possible.

This would help refute the old "12 tones is hard enough" argument by letting musicians take advantage of virtually all their old knowledge and gain some easy options they never had before. I guess you could say that's why I've been so obsessed lately with 7-tone scales with
1) virtually all dyads, especially the minor 2nd and 7th ones, sounding pure enough to be used as non-neighboring tones thus becoming available for virtually any type of chord and
2) mirrored intervals (ALA Cameron's idea)
I'm working on proving the validity of such a scale in a new song I'm writing for a competition loaded with 7-note chords and even 9-tone chords (if you don't count notes harmonizing several octaves up/down IE C4 and C7) and I found easier to compose than songs in 12TET while (when needed) it matches traditional 7-note diatonic interval classes decently and doesn't seem to leave you "missing out on the mood of a certain 7-tone Western tone".
-------------------------------------
>"Both Catler and I have done what could be called "accessible" music,
rock/blues oriented stuff, and we've had favorable reviews in mags such
as Guitar Player, Downbeat, and others...it hasn't translated yet into
large CD sales, or other artists getting on board in any significant
manner."

And you both do very well...but, sadly, often it's the corporate networking and look....and not the quality of composition....that drives influence in the musical world. How many kids don't know of Robert Johnson yet listen to rock (as a derivative of blues) plenty?....
The sad fact is blues doesn't have the sort of traction harder rock and pop rock does so far as popularity and social influence nowadays. Heck neither does punk or some of my personal favorite genres like liquid drum and bass and deep house.

Bridging the gap would likely mean getting someone like Carrie Underwood or Beyonce to sing in micro-tones or Nickelback to use them. You know...the kind of crappy groups we complain about when we say things like " current "pop" music is in a dreadful state, very corporate in most ways". Eventually the major labels are going to die (heck, we're already down to 3 from 5)...but the one thing they have is that even people who hate them have excellent marketing awareness of them and to be realistic, I think making micro-tonal music more widespread will have to involve broadcasting through them.

Say Ibanez came up with a pedal that translated tones to micro-tones (ALA the "micro-tone pedal" described above) or E-bow came up with a similar product. And that produce actually would not output/send-to-the-amplifier 12TET, only micro-tonal scales. And then said guitar company asked a major artist if he/she would use the guitar in gigs in exchange for pay as an advertiser. Then the artist would use the pedal, perhaps confused by it at first, but over time be likely to get used to the idea, like the sound, and finally pop the question back to the manufacturer "why don't you make more of these?!" and start composing with micro-tonal tools by choice. That sort of thing, IMVHO, is when the revolution will truly begin.

-Michael

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

I had an acoustic guitar modified to be 19edo ... sometime after I heard
your music ... does that count? :-)

Jay

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:36 -0600, Neil Haverstick wrote:
>
>
> interested...but to what degree is another matter. After 20 years of
> making CD's, doing shows, etc, I'm thinking that even when folks are
> interested, and think it's a cool concept, there's a big gap between
> digging microtonal music, and actually taking the time and effort to
> learn or study non 12 tone music. I've had many people over the years
> who genuinely like my music, but none of them have went out and got a
> 19 tone axe yet. A common theme I hear is "Well, I have enough trouble
> with 12 tones," and that's the end of it. It's a big deal to actually
> attempt to learn another tuning system, let alone several.
>

>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jay Rinkel <jrinkel@...> wrote:
>
> I had an acoustic guitar modified to be 19edo ... sometime after I
> heard your music ... does that count? :-)
>

This is sure one way it works - people hear music they like and want to produce such music themselves.

But here is an observation that I made: I have heard to quite a lot of microtonal music in "popular" styles, jazz, metal, techno and others, and much of it is really good - one point is just that in many cases I hardly notice the pieces are microtonal. The differences are often very subtle - and, in particular, often the microtonality does not appear to be an essential property of the piece, hence there is not a big "urge" to microtonality, so to say.

I imagine something like how well-temperament and later 12-tone equal temperament was propagated - to which an important factor may have been the existence of a corpus of really great music (from Bach to the viennese classics) that really _required_ the new tunings with their possibilities to modulate anywhere.

Anyway, I see no better way to promote microtonality than just going on trying to make "great" microtonal music , whatever "great" means...
--
Hans Straub

It's my personal belief that the nature of microtonality isn't obvious to listeners with no musical skill of their own. And in my experience of playing microtonal music to people (which is limited and anecdotal but still), they're way more concerned that the example is "not the genre [they] usually listen to", and most of the time comment on this BEFORE they comment on the tuning, if they comment on the tuning at all.

IF this observation of mine applies to the majority of people, then I am guessing that the subtlety of microtonal pop music would be lost on them. People DO note "wow, that has a slightly different and interesting feel" when they hear microtones, but really how is it any better than 12-tet to them?

But I agree with everybody in the thread so far, that microtonality could do a lot more, and more people could be involved. There are likely to be many more of us thinking the same thing. I think about that goal almost every day... Because I love using mad tunings and as a composer I'm so much MORE inspired all the time.

The goal I follow is a little different. First we admit there are definitely some people who will not be interested in microtonal music, either because of apathy or dislike. But look at those of us who have gathered online, and at gigs, concerts and symposiums, who all love this stuff. There are people out there whose lives will be changed when they hear the new harmony and melody we use on a day to day basis. My dream is to see (and help) microtonality expand so that those people get in on the fun also, such that there would be enough of us to change definitions and ideas about music, even if we don't escape the 12-tet bubble completely, we can improve music for the better.

(I believe another good goal, which can be achieved directly as a result of the first, is for microtonality to be accepted by the music world so that one could actually be "qualified" in its practice. I'm not aware of any piece of paper, at least in my country, which could qualify a person as a professional musician based on microtonal capability alone, which I find ignorant. It's not terribly important, but it's fishy that one must prove their proficiency at 12-tet to be considered an authority on music.)

What is currently being done to achieve these goals... Many of us are making music and sharing ideas online, because it is our passion. We've got microtonalists on record labels, some using new distribution methods like the internet, we've got individualists and people who play new tunings in groups. Composing and sharing music is key... the more that is available, the more people COULD in possibility find something here they love. But as well as availability, accessible music needs to be easy to find in the mess of avant garde pieces and academic demonstrations. A website with a huge list of microtonal music, readibly available for purchase/download, split by genre or style, would be a help if we had it. Untwelve bring events to their local area, such as the upcoming 60x60 event, which is spreading the joy. Split Notes is in its baby stages of making free, downloadable albums of microtonal music in popular styles available to the online crowd.

Thngs are happening... we're just all waiting for the critical point where there's enough microtonalists to actually make the world sit up and take note. Bring it on.. :)

Sean Archibald

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jay Rinkel <jrinkel@> wrote:
> >
> > I had an acoustic guitar modified to be 19edo ... sometime after I
> > heard your music ... does that count? :-)
> >
>
> This is sure one way it works - people hear music they like and want to produce such music themselves.
>
> But here is an observation that I made: I have heard to quite a lot of microtonal music in "popular" styles, jazz, metal, techno and others, and much of it is really good - one point is just that in many cases I hardly notice the pieces are microtonal. The differences are often very subtle - and, in particular, often the microtonality does not appear to be an essential property of the piece, hence there is not a big "urge" to microtonality, so to say.
>
> I imagine something like how well-temperament and later 12-tone equal temperament was propagated - to which an important factor may have been the existence of a corpus of really great music (from Bach to the viennese classics) that really _required_ the new tunings with their possibilities to modulate anywhere.
>
> Anyway, I see no better way to promote microtonality than just going on trying to make "great" microtonal music , whatever "great" means...
> --
> Hans Straub
>

Here's an article that's going around the internets today:
http://dyske.com/paper/778

I don't necessarily agree with it on all points, but think it
is definitely on the right track. Almost all the microtonal
music I've heard is instrumental music. Partch is a notable
exception.

FWIW, I did feel Neil's group, on their Acoustic Stick album,
achieved mastery of 'popular forms that average people might
enjoy yet clearly the tuning is different'. It's one of the
few lbums I can think of that hits you in the face with
microtonality yet is completely compelling to listen to.

Catler's latest effort, Willie McBlind, also manages to sound
noticeably different tuning-wise, and in fact does have lyrics.
Pretty campy stuff, and fun, but the campiness does limit the
appeal somewhat. Also I don't care for Meredith's voice, and
think it limits the appeal. It was a better fit in Birdhouse.
Also the tracks have pretty uniform forte dynamics, which tires
the ear after a while.

-Carl

Sean wrote:

>It's my personal belief that the nature of microtonality isn't obvious
>to listeners with no musical skill of their own. And in my experience
>of playing microtonal music to people (which is limited and anecdotal
>but still), they're way more concerned that the example is "not the
>genre [they] usually listen to", and most of the time comment on this
>BEFORE they comment on the tuning, if they comment on the tuning at all.
>
>IF this observation of mine applies to the majority of people, then I
>am guessing that the subtlety of microtonal pop music would be lost on
>them. People DO note "wow, that has a slightly different and
>interesting feel" when they hear microtones, but really how is it any
>better than 12-tet to them?
>
>But I agree with everybody in the thread so far, that microtonality
>could do a lot more, and more people could be involved. There are
>likely to be many more of us thinking the same thing. I think about
>that goal almost every day... Because I love using mad tunings and as
>a composer I'm so much MORE inspired all the time.
>
>The goal I follow is a little different. First we admit there are
>definitely some people who will not be interested in microtonal music,
>either because of apathy or dislike. But look at those of us who have
>gathered online, and at gigs, concerts and symposiums, who all love
>this stuff. There are people out there whose lives will be changed
>when they hear the new harmony and melody we use on a day to day
>basis. My dream is to see (and help) microtonality expand so that
>those people get in on the fun also, such that there would be enough
>of us to change definitions and ideas about music, even if we don't
>escape the 12-tet bubble completely, we can improve music for the better.
>
>(I believe another good goal, which can be achieved directly as a
>result of the first, is for microtonality to be accepted by the music
>world so that one could actually be "qualified" in its practice. I'm
>not aware of any piece of paper, at least in my country, which could
>qualify a person as a professional musician based on microtonal
>capability alone, which I find ignorant. It's not terribly important,
>but it's fishy that one must prove their proficiency at 12-tet to be
>considered an authority on music.)
>
>What is currently being done to achieve these goals... Many of us are
>making music and sharing ideas online, because it is our passion.
>We've got microtonalists on record labels, some using new distribution
>methods like the internet, we've got individualists and people who
>play new tunings in groups. Composing and sharing music is key... the
>more that is available, the more people COULD in possibility find
>something here they love. But as well as availability, accessible
>music needs to be easy to find in the mess of avant garde pieces and
>academic demonstrations. A website with a huge list of microtonal
>music, readibly available for purchase/download, split by genre or
>style, would be a help if we had it. Untwelve bring events to their
>local area, such as the upcoming 60x60 event, which is spreading the
>joy. Split Notes is in its baby stages of making free, downloadable
>albums of microtonal music in popular styles available to the online crowd.
>
>Thngs are happening... we're just all waiting for the critical point
>where there's enough microtonalists to actually make the world sit up
>and take note. Bring it on.. :)
>
>Sean Archibald

Let's include Elaine Walker as a vocalist as well?

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Here's an article that's going around the internets today:
> http://dyske.com/paper/778
>
> I don't necessarily agree with it on all points, but think it
> is definitely on the right track. Almost all the microtonal
> music I've heard is instrumental music. Partch is a notable
> exception.
>
>
> -Carl
>
>

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

Indeed! And there are others. Wasn't attempting a complete
list. But the vast majority of explicitly microtonal music
is instrumental. -C.

At 11:23 AM 3/19/2010, Chris wrote:
>
>Let's include Elaine Walker as a vocalist as well?
>
>On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> Here's an article that's going around the internets today:
>> http://dyske.com/paper/778
>>
>> I don't necessarily agree with it on all points, but think it
>> is definitely on the right track. Almost all the microtonal
>> music I've heard is instrumental music. Partch is a notable
>> exception.
>>
>>
>> -Carl
>

It is interesting, Carl, that you bring up the "instrumental music" thing. I've been using my 19edo and LucyTuned guitars to accompany my vocal / singing in the styles that I'm used to writing in. Like you, most microtonal stuff I'm familiar with is also instrumental. I assumed part of that was so the vocals didn't "get in the way" of hearing those awesome microtonal chords, or some reason like that.

Quoting "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>:

> Here's an article that's going around the internets today:
> http://dyske.com/paper/778
>
> I don't necessarily agree with it on all points, but think it
> is definitely on the right track. Almost all the microtonal
> music I've heard is instrumental music. Partch is a notable
> exception.
>

I think it has to do with the fact that vocals are hard.
You have to have something to say, and a good voice. Most
keyboard players (and computer jocks) can't sing for some
reason. The instrument sort of prevents one from being a
frontman anyway. Even Yes had a frontman who didn't really
play an instrument. It's a big job. Besides, the whole
point of the xenharmonic approach to microtonality is the
harmony part. One wouldn't expect a vocalist to do much in
the way of microtones over a regular band, that they don't
do already anyway. So really we have to reach critical mass
with players of polyphonic instruments first, then get
vocalists to sing along. That's my view anyhow.

-Carl

At 12:09 PM 3/19/2010, Jay wrote:
>It is interesting, Carl, that you bring up the "instrumental music"
>thing. I've been using my 19edo and LucyTuned guitars to accompany my
>vocal / singing in the styles that I'm used to writing in. Like you,
>most microtonal stuff I'm familiar with is also instrumental. I
>assumed part of that was so the vocals didn't "get in the way" of
>hearing those awesome microtonal chords, or some reason like that.

Ok , Carl, this statement is new to me.

Would I be correct in thinking people here are advocating popularizing
microtonal (pretend italics) harmony?

Chris

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Besides, the whole
>
> point of the xenharmonic approach to microtonality is the
> harmony part. One wouldn't expect a vocalist to do much in
> the way of microtones over a regular band, that they don't
> do already anyway. So really we have to reach critical mass
> with players of polyphonic instruments first, then get
> vocalists to sing along. That's my view anyhow.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Chris wrote:

>Ok, Carl, this statement is new to me.

Which statement?

>Would I be correct in thinking people here are advocating popularizing
>microtonal (pretend italics) harmony?

I don't think people here are advocating any one thing in
particular. There is a very wide range of interests here.

-Carl

I see the quote didn't make it, sorry.

This statement

Besides, the whole
point of the xenharmonic approach to microtonality is the
harmony part.

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> >Ok, Carl, this statement is new to me.
>
> Which statement?
>
>
> >Would I be correct in thinking people here are advocating popularizing
> >microtonal (pretend italics) harmony?
>
> I don't think people here are advocating any one thing in
> particular. There is a very wide range of interests here.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Chris wrote:

>I see the quote didn't make it, sorry.

You just quoted the whole message and replied on top.

>This statement
>
>Besides, the whole point of the xenharmonic approach to
>microtonality is the harmony part.

It isn't called xen*harmonic* for nothing! It should be
fair to say the approach is to use consonant chords to
harmonize melodies. The chords usually involve extended JI
identities.

-Carl

Just out of curiosity: what is it about microtonality that people think would make pop music better? More popular? ???

Jon wrote:
>Just out of curiosity: what is it about microtonality that people
>think would make pop music better? More popular? ???

It could certainly use the help. In fact, though complaining about
vapid pop is ingrained in the microtonal community, and to some extent
all 'serious' music communities, the sad truth is that we don't even
have this bogie man any more. Now it is simply the case that music as
a whole is unpopular. In fact I would say it is, for the first time
in the history of Western culture, conceivable -- not at all likely,
mind you, but conceivable -- that music disappears. Fortunately
guitars are still cheaper than iPods in Botswana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx4cRw6TIIg

(link via Dante via facebook)

-Carl

OMG, I love that quote! LOL.
Rick

On 3/19/2010 1:02 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Fortunately
> guitars are still cheaper than iPods in Botswana:
>

Carl,

On 3/19/2010 1:02 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Now it is simply the case that music as
> a whole is unpopular.

Hmmm... Can you provide some concrete evidence of that assertion. I find it a bit hard to believe. I mean really, music as a whole? Unpopular?

Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity: what is it about microtonality that people think would make pop music better? More popular? ???
>
From Robert. Many Western musicians find it difficult to imagine any other tuning system but 24tet. Many of the Just, mean-tone (including 31tet) and Pythagorean etc tunings sound only marginally different from 12tet. This sound difference is so marginal to the ears of some Western musicians that they say "Who cares? Close enough is good enough. I think I'll stick to 12tet". But these same musicians recognise that Middle Eastern music does sound significantly different and can achieve enormous popularity.
Even though I personally prefer using the harmonics of the 6th octave I don't have any problems with 24tet which is capable of achieving strikingly different sounds as compared to 12tet.
The fact that many Middle Eastern musicians don't actually play in true 24tet doesn't really mean anything because many Western string players and singers don't actually play or sing in true 12tet.
The fuzzy nature of 12tet perception can quite easily evolve into a fuzzy 24tet perception.

At 01:11 PM 3/19/2010, you wrote:
>Carl,
>
>On 3/19/2010 1:02 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> Now it is simply the case that music as
>> a whole is unpopular.
>
>Hmmm... Can you provide some concrete evidence of that assertion. I find
>it a bit hard to believe. I mean really, music as a whole? Unpopular?
>
> Rick

It's common knowledge that revenue from recorded music has
dropped like a stone in the past decade. I can only quickly find
http://76.74.24.142/D5664E44-B9F7-69E0-5ABD-B605F2EB6EF2.pdf
which shows 2008 revenue almost USD$2B below 2007 revenue.
Partly the recession, perhaps. Ah, also here
http://76.74.24.142/8EF388DA-8FD3-7A4E-C208-CDF1ADE8B179.pdf

Live performance is the new revenue stream, but hasn't made up the
difference yet. I have a friend who does music management (now his
own business but prior for various companies like Live Nation) and
we have kept in touch over the years as this has been going down.

Churches used to be a good place to get involved with music, but
the ones we've checked out have had miserable excuses for music
programs. The decline of christianity is probably a factor
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/09/us.religion.less.christian/

We all hear that music programs keep getting cut from public
schools. Anybody have any info on that?

In my personal sphere, and it may be because I'm getting older,
but I don't know of anyone who actively buys music and listens
to it, and several of the musicians/bands I know are on hiatus.
I also can't think of a home stereo without a bigscreen TV
attached, outside of Berkeley.

When I grew up we all had stereo systems in our bedrooms, which
we poured over in extended listening sessions. I understand the
computer is the new listening zone, but I can't help but feel
it's a poor substitute (browsing online while listening?).
Perhaps I'll learn more when my kids get to be teens.

On the classical side, I know that the nation's orchestras have
been hurting too. Maybe Jon can give us a datapoint.

I also know that there is currently no explosive genre, like
indie rock and jam bands were a few years ago. Perhaps it's
just the recession, and we'll see something equivalent when
this is over (indie and jam bands rose into position 2003-2006,
after the last recession).

-Carl

I can't help but wonder which would do more good: refret
this guitar to 22/oct

http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Fender-Deluxe-Players-Stratocaster-Electric-Guitar?sku=511597

or this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6BiwajDrYA

-Carl

At 01:08 PM 3/19/2010, you wrote:
>OMG, I love that quote! LOL.
> Rick
>
>On 3/19/2010 1:02 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> Fortunately
>> guitars are still cheaper than iPods in Botswana:
>>
>

And, myspace had a very promising music presence, but myspace
died and music doesn't seem to have much place on facebook.

-Carl

Personally I'd go for the strat.

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> I can't help but wonder which would do more good: refret
> this guitar to 22/oct
>
>
> http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Fender-Deluxe-Players-Stratocaster-Electric-Guitar?sku=511597
>
> or this one
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6BiwajDrYA
>
> -Carl
>
>
> At 01:08 PM 3/19/2010, you wrote:
> >OMG, I love that quote! LOL.
> > Rick
> >
> >On 3/19/2010 1:02 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> Fortunately
> >> guitars are still cheaper than iPods in Botswana:
> >>
> >
>
>
>

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

Hey Carl,

OK, sorry everyone, if this is off topic for this list... :-)

> It's common knowledge that revenue from recorded music has
> dropped like a stone in the past decade.

Oh. I wouldn't use data like that to try proving that music isn't popular anymore. It's more like: it's easier and cheaper to download for free and there's a well-known consumer backlash against CD pricing strategies. Kids, once the big market, have learned to tap it for free.

> Live performance is the new revenue stream, but hasn't made up the difference yet.

It never will catch up or make up the diff. The "big band" era is over, and recording is the new media.

> We all hear that music programs keep getting cut from public
> schools. Anybody have any info on that?
> Yeah, in my kids' district a few years back (they're all grown up now), the parents paid for the music program, and they still do. Music programs are not cut because music is unpopular, they are cut because they are one of the "least painful" things to cut when the state is taking a nose-dive and people no longer want to pay for kids' educations. Same with art programs, but do we say that "art is not popular". Every kid draws pictures! Popularity of a field has nothing to do with what gets cut in schools when there's a budget crisis. It's the perceived utility as "education". On the other hand, among people who *want* their kids to be educated, music education is *extremely* popular because music is thought to foster brain development, blah blah, and people who "want the best for their kids" are definitely shelling out for private lessons.

> In my personal sphere, and it may be because I'm getting older,
> but I don't know of anyone who actively buys music and listens
> to it, and several of the musicians/bands I know are on hiatus.
> I buy, and listen. But I'm an old geezer now. In the past 10 years, I buy almost all used CDs, and a smattering of MP3 online through Amazon and CD Baby. I almost never buy new CDs because in part I know that the money isn't really going to the band anyway. If it was well known and fixed up so that bands got 50% of the cover price, I'd be buying all my music new and supporting the musicians.

OK, my kids: mostly downloading who knows what, but they do buy some music. They definitely are listening, all the time.

> I also can't think of a home stereo without a bigscreen TV
> attached, outside of Berkeley.
> I have one, in San Jose! ;-) Well, I take that back. It has a little-screen TV because: my beautiful stereo amp died last year and I had to replace it, so I replaced it with an all-in-one system that plays DVD and CD and has 5 speakers and a subwoofer. Because of that, it has a little-screen TV attached to it. Unfortunate, but the fact was: the pretty decent all-in-one was cheaper than just replacing the amp.

> When I grew up we all had stereo systems in our bedrooms, which
> we poured over in extended listening sessions. I understand the
> computer is the new listening zone, but I can't help but feel
> it's a poor substitute (browsing online while listening?).
> Yes, same when I was growing up. Both of my kids listen on laptops. Either with headphones or just through the laptop speakers. Constant music, though. It's always going. Oh, and my daughter plays double bass in the local college orchestra (without being parentally forced to do so).

> Perhaps I'll learn more when my kids get to be teens.
> Heh heh. Yup. :-)

> On the classical side, I know that the nation's orchestras have been hurting too.

Absolutely: the big band era is over. It's too expensive to have orchestras be a medium for ordinary listeners on their night out. Clubs, opera, orchestra, etc. Ensemble size dropped pretty obviously since the demise of the big bands of the 40s... Also, aside: Personally, I don't go to symphony concerts because I can't stand loud audiences coughing if I seriously want to listen to the music; and they don't play a lot of what I personally want to hear live, because they have to play to the biggest audience. (I want to hear "maximalist" orchestral music written well after 1900, at least, and may be a few "rare gems" of the old schools thrown in for seasoning oncein a while. That's not the kind of programming we see at the local symphonies.) I do, however, spend a lot of money each year to attend live opera, chamber music, and early music, mostly in small venues. (Yes! Opera in small venues: I've been a season subscriber to Pocket Opera for maybe 15 years. It's a way of life.)

> I also know that there is currently no explosive genre, like
> indie rock and jam bands were a few years ago.

Totally true. I can agree with that...

This is a low period culturally for music making and a bit for music consumption, for a variety of reasons. But saying music isn't popular is a bit much. Go down the street in any city and ask each person, "do you ever listen to music"? I'd bet you get 75% "yes", at least, no matter where you are.

What you really mean, I think, is that paying for music is less popular than it once was. And that may be true, by all indications.

Rick

To be honest, I'm not interested in improving pop music, for example to make it better or more popular (though it would certainly be at least a little better). I'm interested in CHOICE, and variety, because I like some pop music too! But it all sounds the same, and it doesn't have the buzz that microtones allow for.

I fear that if most people were into microtonal music it would be commercialised and all the original innovators will be written out of history. That would be one bad consequence. (There would probably be lots of good consequences though).

Sean

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity: what is it about microtonality that people think would make pop music better? More popular? ???
>

Rick wrote:
>> It's common knowledge that revenue from recorded music has
>> dropped like a stone in the past decade.
>
>Oh. I wouldn't use data like that to try proving that music isn't
>popular anymore. It's more like: it's easier and cheaper to download for
>free and there's a well-known consumer backlash against CD pricing
>strategies. Kids, once the big market, have learned to tap it for free.

Those numbers include legal downloads. Actually I think illegal
downloads of music aren't that great, but I don't have any data
to support this at the moment.

>> We all hear that music programs keep getting cut from public
>> schools. Anybody have any info on that?
>
>Yeah, in my kids' district a few years back (they're all grown up now),
>the parents paid for the music program, and they still do. Music
>programs are not cut because music is unpopular, they are cut because
>they are one of the "least painful" things to cut when the state is
>taking a nose-dive and people no longer want to pay for kids'
>educations. Same with art programs, but do we say that "art is not
>popular". Every kid draws pictures! Popularity of a field has nothing to
>do with what gets cut in schools when there's a budget crisis.

Sure it does - the least popular field will get cut first. By the
way, which school district? We're looking at houses in Cambrian
at the moment. I saw the Leigh marching band last year, and they
convinced me that Leigh and schools feeding into it must be OK.

>I buy, and listen. But I'm an old geezer now. In the past 10 years, I
>buy almost all used CDs, and a smattering of MP3 online through Amazon
>and CD Baby. I almost never buy new CDs because in part I know that the
>money isn't really going to the band anyway. If it was well known and
>fixed up so that bands got 50% of the cover price, I'd be buying all my
>music new and supporting the musicians.

I buy, but I don't listen!

>> I also can't think of a home stereo without a bigscreen TV
>> attached, outside of Berkeley.
>
>I have one, in San Jose! ;-) Well, I take that back. It has a
>little-screen TV because: my beautiful stereo amp died last year and I
>had to replace it, so I replaced it with an all-in-one system that plays
>DVD and CD and has 5 speakers and a subwoofer.

You see, can't even buy stereos any more! ;)

>Because of that, it has a little-screen TV attached to it.

Bzz... play again soon. :)

>Yes, same when I was growing up. Both of my kids listen on laptops.
>Either with headphones or just through the laptop speakers.

D'oh!

>Oh, and my daughter plays double bass in the local college orchestra
>(without being parentally forced to do so).

Hooray!

>I do, however, spend a lot
>of money each year to attend live opera, chamber music, and early music,
>mostly in small venues. (Yes! Opera in small venues: I've been a season
>subscriber to Pocket Opera for maybe 15 years. It's a way of life.)

We went to the SJ opera a couple years ago. Opera isn't my thing,
but it was nice to see the local company. There's one in Los Gatos
too, which I've been meaning to get to. I still do calperfs in
Berkeley for chamber music, except just got the coming season program
in the mail, and it sucks. First year ever I'm not interested in a
single show.

>This is a low period culturally for music making and a bit for music
>consumption, for a variety of reasons. But saying music isn't popular is
>a bit much. Go down the street in any city and ask each person, "do you
>ever listen to music"? I'd bet you get 75% "yes", at least, no matter
>where you are.
>
>What you really mean, I think, is that paying for music is less popular
>than it once was. And that may be true, by all indications.

I'm going to stick to being a grinch and say that people are
spending less money on music (which is a significant measure of
its importance and popularity in our culture), less time singing
on Sundays (or any other day), fewer people know how to play an
instrument or read music, musicians are making less money, and
there isn't even a big pop or rap star currently (were Christina
Aguilera and 50-cent the last?). These trends may be temporary
but I think they are significant.

-Carl

For what its worth my daughter relies on youtube and strips the video to throw the music onto her ipod. Been doiing that for over a year. But then the half of the cds she used to buy was about 3 months.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Lady gaga who actually writes her own songs is big now if you want to call it that. and she has classical piano training if I remember correctly

But my daughter and her myriad friends tend to listen ultra simplified covers posted by amateurs on youtube. They are looking for sincerity as far as I can tell.

Perhaps the public will get more involved making their own music like before radio. Guitar center here is never empty.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

At 02:55 PM 3/19/2010, you wrote:
>For what its worth my daughter relies on youtube and strips the video
>to throw the music onto her ipod.

I was going to mention that, if I want to find a piece of music,
I go to youtube. There is no equivalent repository of music.

Now, this is partly just because music files are smaller, so the
equivalent service (napster) came first, and they killed it, and
only then figured out how stupid killing it was, so by the time
the network could handle video they (mostly) let it go.

But I like to speculate that it's also to do with the dominance
of vision in our culture.

Now back to your regularly scheduled... video program

-Carl

Rick wrote:
>This is a low period culturally for music making and a bit for music
>consumption, for a variety of reasons. But saying music isn't popular is
>a bit much. Go down the street in any city and ask each person, "do you
>ever listen to music"? I'd bet you get 75% "yes", at least, no matter
>where you are.

Hi Rick, I think culture is thin at the moment, but otherwise music making must be INCREASING. It's so easy to make music on the family PC, and the reality is that the current teen/young adult generation have 0 qualm about downloading the software to do it. When most people have the hardware already at home, and the software is effectively free, an explosion is going to happen. At least one genre (grime) would not be here without this cultural change. It's easy to do and learn, and everybody's sharing their music with each other.

Carl wrote:
>I'm going to stick to being a grinch and say that people are
>spending less money on music (which is a significant measure of
>its importance and popularity in our culture)

I don't really buy that, Carl. I for one do not need to buy music. As a test, for a month I listened to only freely available, creative-commons or otherwise music, and nothing commercial. It's easily done, because everybody and their monkey are releasing music for free. Yes it's a bit of a movement.

Today I don't have to buy a whole lot of music like I did as a kid, because I love many creative commons artists who share it with the world for free. I do the same, and that's why none of my released microtonal music will cost you a penny.

Carl,

> Those numbers include legal downloads. Actually I think illegal
> downloads of music aren't that great, but I don't have any data
> to support this at the moment.
> Probably not, but people also share widely, I think.... I have no data either.

> Sure it does - the least popular field will get cut first.

Nope. The arts get cut first, every single time. I've been around school districts now, as a parent, for >20 years, and the wife's a sub in Cupertino. It's always art/music that goes first. Music because it's usually more expensive, then all other art. Then they bump up class sizes, and get rid of teachers. The *last* thing they would ever do, no matter how tight the budget, is get rid of an athletic program. And in my book athletics are much less "educational" than anything else they teach in school. (When I was in K-12 school, you were already expected to know the rules of all the team games we played, and I *never* in 13 years had any lecture or any explanation about any rules of any sport. If it was actually "education" and not just "running around to blow off steam", you'd think they would actually teach something. I still couldn't tell you 2 sentences about the rules or object of American football; and everything I know about golf I learned on my own. :-) )

> By the
> way, which school district? We're looking at houses in Cambrian
> at the moment.

Our elementary district is Moreland. It's OK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moreland_School_District They seem to at least (still) have a music program of sorts, which used to be funded by parents, but you'd have to investigate the extent these days. (OK, I apologize to others for the obscure local references...)

> You see, can't even buy stereos any more! ;)
> Right. At least not a decent "home stereo" in the same kind of size/price bracket they used to have!

>
> We went to the SJ opera a couple years ago. Opera isn't my thing, but it was nice to see the local company.
> I subscribed to Opera San Jose in pretty decent balcony seats for >5 years, then... I dunno... It's fairly expensive as opera tends to be, but I wanted to support it, so... I liked the shows and wanted to continue supporting local opera, but my wife didn't like the resident company singers much. Then, their last season was entirely the super-popular operas we've seen many times in several productions, so we just bagged it. Went for a bit more early music instead.

>
> I'm going to stick to being a grinch and say that people are
> spending less money on music (which is a significant measure of
> its importance and popularity in our culture), less time singing
> on Sundays (or any other day), fewer people know how to play an
> instrument or read music, musicians are making less money, and
> there isn't even a big pop or rap star currently (were Christina
> Aguilera and 50-cent the last?). These trends may be temporary
> but I think they are significant.
> I'll grant all of those points. I think they're part of a lot of other stuff that's going on with technology, distribution, and literacy, education, etc, that are changing the media fabric and interests of the culture as a whole. Books are on the decline as well. (Heck, fewer people can *read* apparently, if you judge by how well they seem to think and act in the political sphere!) But this doesn't mean that "music is unpopular" or "books are unpopular". In America as a whole, I'd agree that crinolines are unpopular. Music is still popular.

Rick

So far, Sean's appropriately non-answer comes closest, but no one really answered the question, one that pops up every so often on these lists.

I don't think, given the state that music occupies (at least in Western culture these days), that there is anything that microtonality could offer popular music that would put a song/genre over the top. Microtonality, as evidenced in melodic styles, has been in use in African and Middle-Eastern pop musics, and that aspect has never crossed over into Western pop. People aren't interested in complex harmonic progressions, and that is pretty much it.

I think it is going to stay a niche item. I have no problem with that. I think it is sad that English has become a de facto language as well, but it is what it is. 12-tet, simple-rhythm, simple-harmony pop is here to stay.

And for most of what pop needs to do, it doesn't really have to change.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "sevishmusic" <sevish@...> wrote:
>
> To be honest, I'm not interested in improving pop music, for example to make it better or more popular (though it would certainly be at least a little better). I'm interested in CHOICE, and variety, because I like some pop music too! But it all sounds the same, and it doesn't have the buzz that microtones allow for.
>
> I fear that if most people were into microtonal music it would be commercialised and all the original innovators will be written out of history. That would be one bad consequence. (There would probably be lots of good consequences though).
>
> Sean
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiosity: what is it about microtonality that people think would make pop music better? More popular? ???
> >
>

Jon>"Microtonality, as evidenced in melodic styles, has been in use in
African and Middle-Eastern pop musics, and that aspect has never
crossed over into Western pop. People aren't interested in complex
harmonic progressions, and that is pretty much it."

Complex harmonic progressions, eh? I wonder why there "has" to be this ideas that micro-tonal is always going to be more complex to learn or play than Western theory. Take the harmonic series harmonics number 6-12......use that and every possible chord is (at least so far as periodicity) in-tune.
Not to mention I've found some of Wilson's MOS scales (particularly the 6-tone ones as used by Marcus Satellite) and use of Ptolemy's Homalon ratios to make scales actually come across to me as easier to play/use than 12TET and "less complex" theory-wise. And if I plug 7-tone diatonic JI into Scala's chord analyzer and those scales I often get MORE (and not less) chords possible with such scales and less chances to stumble out of key.

I don't think people aren't interested in micro-tonal because of it's "complex harmonic progressions"...but rather because of the misconception that micro-tonality makes music harder to learn and play. Heck, half the reason I got into this (and recommend others do as well) is the use micro-tonal scales to find short-cuts around harmony/chord problems they face in 12TET.
The problem, I swear, is 98% of micro-tonal music I hear end up either sounding like or trying to be a show of academic complexity and knowledge...neither of which are typically feelings people look for in music they want to hear minus, say, the occasional modern classical or experimental jazz music fan.

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

Michael,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Complex harmonic progressions, eh? I wonder why there "has" to be this ideas that micro-tonal is always going to be more complex to learn or play than Western theory.

This is mostly a problem of inadequate communication on my part. I was not advocating or implying that microtonality is, a priori, more complex, or needs to be so. What I meant to communicate, and failed completely, was that mainstream pop music has been on a line towards simpler and simpler harmonic usage. (Obviously, this is just my observation, and is open to discussion).

If one tracks (for instance) the harmonic setting of melodies from the days of Tin Pan Alley, through the era of the Great American Songbook, through the era of big band jazz, one sees a gradually increasing complexity in the harmonic language. There are few songs that become iconic anymore that come even close to the harmonies in Gershwin, Cole Porter, etc. Dating from the late 50s to 60s, rock and roll (as influenced by blues and other roots music) ended up hewing much closer to very simplified chord progressions.

I'm making no judgments here at all, believe me. If one looks at most pop music today (and I definitely am thinking 'pop'ular), the harmonic languages are hardly complex. With that in mind, just what benefit would there be to duplicating fewer-chord, less-complex harmonic progressions with newer tuning schemes? Would JI folk be an indelible improvement?

I'm still looking for just what it is that proponents of utilizing microtonality in pop music are after - just what part of pop does anyone think they can improve?

I just saw Sade on TV doing a new tune from a new album, after... how many years? I swear to gods, outside of a slightly altered rhythmic feel, it was nearly indistinguishable from her past work. What part of the broad listening public does anyone reasonably thing has discerning enough ears to not only recognize improvements in tunings, but flock to them in opposition to 12tet?

> The problem, I swear, is 98% of micro-tonal music I hear end up either sounding like or trying to be a show of academic complexity and knowledge...neither of which are typically feelings people look for in music they want to hear minus, say, the occasional modern classical or experimental jazz music fan.

Well, that kind of comes at my question from the opposite side of the coin: you are talking about this music from the standpoint of a creator. If *you* the composer/performer ends up spending time making music with non12tet infrastructure, and you succeed at doing it in a straight-forward, non-complex way, what exactly do you think is going to come across to the eventual listners of said music that makes it significantly different to them?

If I *really* put on my "Less Verbose" underwear, I have to ask:

"What's the point?"

Jon>"What I meant to communicate, and failed completely, was that mainstream
pop music has been on a line towards simpler and simpler harmonic
usage. (Obviously, this is just my observation, and is open to
discussion)."
When you say it that way...it makes sense. Hip-hop in particular is incredibly simple harmonically a whole lot of the time along with country and pop rock. Come to think of it, those genres (IMVHO) often lean toward timbre, rhythm, and effects complexities and tricks. To give due credit, a good few pop songs do creative things with rhythm and production...they just happen to miss creativity in the melodic and harmonic songwriting.

>"With that in mind, just what benefit would there be to duplicating
fewer-chord, less-complex harmonic progressions with newer tuning
schemes? Would JI folk be an indelible improvement?"
In many ways, no. Actually I'm not so much for tuning schemes that simply improve the purity of chords that are already there, more for tuning schemes that give distinctively new flavors to existing chords, and most for tuning schemes that make impossible chords and never-heard-before intervals within the average listener's toleration so far as resolved-ness/"consonance".

>"I'm still looking for just what it is that proponents of utilizing
microtonality in pop music are after - just what part of pop does
anyone think they can improve?"
At the very least, use tuning to skew the mood of simple harmonic usage to purify and/or "im-purify" chords to fit the intended mood of the song for. Then again, I've heard rumors even major labels already do this (although only very slightly) by, say, rounding 12TET to the nearest 41TET tone.
At the most
A) Enable new chords that provide completely new moods and more ways to modulate between keys
B) Provide slightly different moods for old chords IE the super-particular chords of 22TET
C) Make it possible to layer more different types of melodies and chords without sounding out of key, thus providing a more intense tonal experience. Musicians use octaves (and 5ths (IE C5 G5 C6) a lot to elaborate on a single tone (esp. in, say, arpeggios in trance) because they are almost always legal/consonant together...but what about a scale that would allow you to treat special 2nds, somewhere in between a major and minor 2nd, 3rds, etc....in the same way?

>"If *you* the composer/performer ends up spending time making music with
non-12-tet infrastructure, and you succeed at doing it in a
straight-forward, non-complex way, what exactly do you think is going
to come across to the eventual listners of said music that makes it
significantly different to them?"
Completely new interval classes, completely new chords. I aim for the same response people get when they hear a new dance songs and say "wow that sound is cool" and admire a brand new digitally-created timbre.

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

> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:36 -0600, Neil Haverstick wrote:
> >
> >
> > interested...but to what degree is another matter. After 20 years of
> > making CD's, doing shows, etc, I'm thinking that even when folks are
> > interested, and think it's a cool concept, there's a big gap between
> > digging microtonal music, and actually taking the time and effort to
> > learn or study non 12 tone music. I've had many people over the years
> > who genuinely like my music, but none of them have went out and got a
> > 19 tone axe yet. A common theme I hear is "Well, I have enough trouble
> > with 12 tones," and that's the end of it. It's a big deal to actually
> > attempt to learn another tuning system, let alone several.
> >
>
> >
>
Might it be more accessable for musicians if we suggested instruments that are easier to play than 12 note equal temperament instruments instead of harder?

7 note, 5 note and 10 note equal temperaments are all easier on guitar than 12 note is. 5 and 10 note have the advantage that when tuning the guitar to itself you don't have to remember which pairs of string has the odd interval and scales and chords are much easier to play because there is always the same pitch difference between adjacent strings.

The chords for 7 note equal temperament guitar are basicly the same shapes as for 12 note equal temperament.

5 and 7 note equal temperaments make it almost physically impossible to play notes that clash with each other.

Instruments like soprano ukelele and mandolin can be very difficult to play chords on because the frets are so close together when tuned to 12 note equal temperament. 5, 7 and 10 note equal temperament make them easier.

Unlike some just intonations and meantone temperaments, 7 and 10 note equal temperament provide some intervals that are very close to half way in between the notes of 12 note equal temperament, allowing normally unheard of sounds.

Nonetheless, you still have passable approximations to perfect fourth and fifths, allowing I IV V based chord sequences to be transfered, meaning you can still play many popular tunes in the new temperaments. (And Heavy Metal style power chords)

The main disadvantage seems to me that there is no distinction between major and minor chords, but you can change between sustained fourths or seconds and normal triads to give a similar feel.

You can play blues riffs, a lot of Chuck Berry and anything by Status Quo in 7 note equal temperament.

5 and 10 note equal temperament both give a passable imitation of the Gamelan scale known as Slendro, but with 10 note equal temperament you can also play a tempered Thata Bhairaw, such as used in Miserlou by Dick Dale (The theme used in the film Pulp Fiction).

I've been experimenting with instruments with exchangeable fingerboards, using a lyre guitar style design. This means that the equivalent of the neck can be removed entirely without loosening the strings. It means the neck can be made thinner (since it takes none of the force of the strings) and can changed easily and quickly, but also means that the joint of the neck to body does not need to be bulky or get in the way. These instruments should be cheaper to produce and easier to repair than conventional instruments. You can also removed the neck entirely and play bottle neck so it looks like you're playing pure air.

Another idea I am think of persuing is fixed fingerboard microtonic ukeleles in 5, 7 or 10 note equal temperament (as mentionned above). These should be just as cheap as a normal ukelele, but easier to play and have less problem with fret buzz, giving a nicer tone.

Mark Banes>"Might it be more accessable for musicians if we suggested instruments
that are easier to play than 12 note equal temperament instruments
instead of harder?"
Completely agree with you there. This is especially an issue/problem with trying to convince people to play 19+TET scales, the thought that pops up in people's mind of the finger arrangements needed is much like the cartoon sketch of Neil on http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vcGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29t and it intimidates a lot of people.

>"The chords for 7 note equal temperament guitar are basicly the same shapes as for 12 note equal temperament."
That does seem to be a logical way to introduce micro-tonal. Or, perhaps even better yet, use double-tetrachord based scales that merge near 12TET such as 18:20:22:24:27:30:33:36 (which often sound more consonant than 7TET and often as good or better than typical 7-note modes of 12TET). The best ones I've found so far are based on Ptolemy's "Homalon" ratios.

>"5 and 7 note equal temperaments make it almost physically impossible to play notes that clash with each other."
I'll agree somewhat. 5TET I'd say is neither consonant nor dissonant...but does indeed avoid the hard dissonance possible by a not-so-trained composer in 12TET. The downside to 5TET is there are several pentatonic scales under 12TET that can do the same thing IE "no sour chords possible" and do so with more consonance...although I agree "no possible clashing notes" is a good goal toward which to build scales through which we should all try to use to introduce micro-tonal to the general public.

>"The main disadvantage seems to me that there is no distinction between
major and minor chords, but you can change between sustained fourths or
seconds and normal triads to give a similar feel."
Again, my suggestion would be switch to things like tetrachord-based scales that merge near 7TET.

>"Another idea I am think of persuing is fixed fingerboard microtonic
ukeleles in 5, 7 or 10 note equal temperament (as mentionned above)."
I will say one thing (again)...anything TET is easier to make instruments for than non-equal temperament scales. However it's not like non-TET-based instruments are impossible to make...I believe Kraig Grady has designed quite a few, for example.

-Michael

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

Michael,

Good stuff in your responses. I usually get *no* content back when I question the motives of 'popularizing microtonality'.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> When you say it that way...it makes sense. Hip-hop in particular is incredibly simple harmonically a whole lot of the time along with country and pop rock. Come to think of it, those genres (IMVHO) often lean toward timbre, rhythm, and effects complexities and tricks. To give due credit, a good few pop songs do creative things with rhythm and production...they just happen to miss creativity in the melodic and harmonic songwriting.

Well, that was pretty much my point. Western pop music has evolved to devalue harmony to a large extent, and melody to a secondary extent. Rhythm and lyrics are what primarily drive most pop music today, and certainly (maybe obviously) dance music.

> In many ways, no. Actually I'm not so much for tuning schemes that simply improve the purity of chords that are already there, more for tuning schemes that give distinctively new flavors to existing chords, and most for tuning schemes that make impossible chords and never-heard-before intervals within the average listener's toleration so far as resolved-ness/"consonance".

That's a great idea, but my observation is that people don't really want anything new, or at least profoundly new.

> At the very least, use tuning to skew the mood of simple harmonic usage to purify and/or "im-purify" chords to fit the intended mood of the song for.

Not a bad idea.

> At the most
> A) Enable new chords that provide completely new moods and more ways to modulate between keys
> B) Provide slightly different moods for old chords IE the super-particular chords of 22TET
> C) Make it possible to layer more different types of melodies and chords without sounding out of key, thus providing a more intense tonal experience.

See, I just don't see the audience for pop music caring enough, or being sophisticated enough, or discerning enough to notice these elements. People just don't listen to music that intently.

But I could be wrong.

> Completely new interval classes, completely new chords. I aim for the same response people get when they hear a new dance songs and say "wow that sound is cool" and admire a brand new digitally-created timbre.

I'll just let you have that one. I've always had a particular hatred for the "that sound is cool" mode of thinking, because once the sound is out of vogue, the logic would follow that it isn't worth listening to anymore. I think of some of the music from the 70s and 80s and how people slam it for how cheezy the synths sound (or the drum sound, etc). I don't advocate going through all the trouble of utilizing new tuning schema just to have it turned into a "flavor of the month".

Thanks for all your thoughts. I need to find time to listen to some of your music to see how you'd like to make these moves. I don't mean to come off as a wet blanket, I just don't have a lot of faith in the ears of the masses.

Cheers,
Jon

I like this idea. We are so focused on 12 that we forget how much
music uses only the 7 notes of a single diatonic key. There's no
reason scales like 7-ET can't hold interesting music. It's also
worth thinking about unequal scales of 5-10 notes, though on guitar
ETs are most natural.

-Carl

Mark wrote:

>Might it be more accessable for musicians if we suggested instruments
>that are easier to play than 12 note equal temperament instruments
>instead of harder?
>
>7 note, 5 note and 10 note equal temperaments are all easier on guitar
>than 12 note is. 5 and 10 note have the advantage that when tuning the
>guitar to itself you don't have to remember which pairs of string has
>the odd interval and scales and chords are much easier to play because
> there is always the same pitch difference between adjacent strings.
>
>The chords for 7 note equal temperament guitar are basicly the same
>shapes as for 12 note equal temperament.
>
>5 and 7 note equal temperaments make it almost physically impossible
>to play notes that clash with each other.
>
>Instruments like soprano ukelele and mandolin can be very difficult to
>play chords on because the frets are so close together when tuned to
>12 note equal temperament. 5, 7 and 10 note equal temperament make them easier.
>
>Unlike some just intonations and meantone temperaments, 7 and 10 note
>equal temperament provide some intervals that are very close to half
>way in between the notes of 12 note equal temperament, allowing
>normally unheard of sounds.
>
>Nonetheless, you still have passable approximations to perfect fourth
>and fifths, allowing I IV V based chord sequences to be transfered,
>meaning you can still play many popular tunes in the new temperaments.
>(And Heavy Metal style power chords)
>
>The main disadvantage seems to me that there is no distinction between
>major and minor chords, but you can change between sustained fourths
>or seconds and normal triads to give a similar feel.
>
>You can play blues riffs, a lot of Chuck Berry and anything by Status
>Quo in 7 note equal temperament.
>
>5 and 10 note equal temperament both give a passable imitation of the
>Gamelan scale known as Slendro, but with 10 note equal temperament you
>can also play a tempered Thata Bhairaw, such as used in Miserlou by
>Dick Dale (The theme used in the film Pulp Fiction).
>
>I've been experimenting with instruments with exchangeable
>fingerboards, using a lyre guitar style design. This means that the
>equivalent of the neck can be removed entirely without loosening the
>strings. It means the neck can be made thinner (since it takes none of
>the force of the strings) and can changed easily and quickly, but also
>means that the joint of the neck to body does not need to be bulky or
>get in the way. These instruments should be cheaper to produce and
>easier to repair than conventional instruments. You can also removed
>the neck entirely and play bottle neck so it looks like you're playing
>pure air.
>
>Another idea I am think of persuing is fixed fingerboard microtonic
>ukeleles in 5, 7 or 10 note equal temperament (as mentionned above).
>These should be just as cheap as a normal ukelele, but easier to play
>and have less problem with fret buzz, giving a nicer tone.
>

Jon>"Good stuff in your responses. I usually get *no* content back when I question the motives of 'popularizing microtonality' ."
You're welcome...and thank you for having the same attitude; I too often have problems with blank (or blatantly negative) comments back on the "micro-tonal popularity" issue.

>"Well, that was pretty much my point. Western pop music has evolved to
devalue harmony to a large extent, and melody to a secondary extent.
Rhythm and lyrics are what primarily drive most pop music today, and
certainly (maybe obviously) dance music."
I would agree for the most part...only I'd say timbre and rhythm are the main drivers in dance music rather than "just" rhythm and often vocals only take a second-handed role.

Me>> In many ways, no. Actually I'm not so much for tuning schemes that
simply improve the purity of chords that are already there, more for
tuning schemes that give distinctively new flavors to existing chords,
and most for tuning schemes that make impossible chords and
never-heard- before intervals within the average listener's toleration
so far as resolved-ness/ "consonance" .
Jon>"That's a great idea, but my observation is that people don't really want anything new, or at least profoundly new."..."I just don't see the audience for pop music caring enough, or
being sophisticated enough, or discerning enough to notice these
elements. People just don't listen to music that intently."

I think it has to do more with confidence of music than anything else...and the problem being that people are taught to view only certain intervals in 12TET as the "gold standard" for confidence when, in reality and musical-psychology&physiology there are many other. A very obvious form of confidence derived from 12TET is a root, octave, and sometimes also a 5th tone in an arpeggio with very driven phasing/timing...and as such it's used extensively in just about all genres of popular music (everything from bluegrass arpeggios to dance arpeggios to choral harmonies to ways to design synth sounds using waveforms on different octaves and beyond).
I believe people want things new, but also want things to be very easy to follow...and it turns out the mind has more ability to "follow" complex changes in things like rhythm and timbre (the most obvious timbre modification's being a filter).
Far as melody and harmony, seems the most obvious way to go to get confidence and resolvedness is to base everything on either a common motif or things that form chords when played against that motif...and most pop songs are formed by turning on-and-off various melodic lines that match with a single motif, sometimes not-playing the motif but playing two lines that match with it so you can "feel/predict the motif without hearing it"...particularly for chorus and breakdown sections of songs. To me it's a very limited formula and virtually a "pop standard", but one that can be stretched to at least a good few more options via micro-tonality.

Case in point: whenever someone DOES come up with a truly new melodic or harmonic technique...people don't just remember it for a few months but for 10+ years. Easy examples: Way Out West uses huge deep 5+ note jazz chords extensively and B'z (the Japanese selling equivalent of the Beatles) twist all sorts of weird melodic lines and in-between-key modulations around their infectiously catchy melodic themes. Both are some of the very few relatively new groups regarded as classics for 10+ years. It seems deeper melodies and harmonies play a huge role in making bands/groups "classic". Obviously also older groups like the Byrds and the Beatles often did all sorts of avant-garde things with melody and harmony as well...on top of the usual pop staple of great lyrics.
I'm pretty convinced most people would love to see more "classic" groups show up, that they could talk about for years on end. And since so many (if not most) of the "surprising but somehow easy to follow" combinations in 12TET have been found already...where better to go to find new ones than micro-tonal where, say, even swapping a 10/9 interval with a 12/11 in an old classic melody can completely warp the feel yet maintain a similar sense of composure/confidence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me> At the very least, use tuning to skew the mood of simple harmonic
usage to purify and/or "im-purify" chords to fit the intended mood of
the song for.
Jon>Not a bad idea.
More notes...what I was referring to hear is things like different forms of meantone that exchange purity/im-purity of some chords for others but "average" about the same level of purity overall. One amusing test IMVHO is to select a mean-tone scale that bends a classic pop song so the chords that represent its mood most are stressed more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I've always had a particular hatred for the "that sound is cool" mode
of thinking, because once the sound is out of vogue, the logic would
follow that it isn't worth listening to anymore. I think of some of the
music from the 70s and 80s and how people slam it for how cheezy the
synths sound (or the drum sound, etc)"
Hmm...I didn't mean it that way IE "cheezy synths = bad" or that by "creative timbre" I meant "more advanced sounds". In fact, back in the real pop world, some people gravitate toward things like 80's music...that's why we have all these 80's music stations here in 2010 (lol). It's more like the whole art of having timbre help define a song...in the right context "cheesy" can be a plus (Lord knows how many people love hip hop songs with cheesy analog-synth bleeps) in the same way well-timed dissonance can be a plus to provide contrast to music.
So, at least to me, one sound's being cool doesn't by any means make something that doesn't follow it's ethics uncool: a huge evolving smooth ethereal pad sound loaded with effects need not make a cheesy bleep sound with only a well-timed amplitude modulation on it obsolete. In fact one easy example is Way Out West's latest album...their old albums are chock-full of extremely technically advanced sounds and effects while their latest is kind of an ode to the Pet Shop Boys with purposefully simple 70's and 80's-esque sounds...and that album has done just as well as the rest.

>"Thanks for all your thoughts. I need to find time to listen to some of
your music to see how you'd like to make these moves. I don't mean to
come off as a wet blanket, I just don't have a lot of faith in the ears
of the masses."
Try http://www.traxinspace.com/song/40893 for starters so far as an example of an "easy-to-follow/confident but fairly surprising/long-term-memorable song.
The first melody is in standard 7-tones 12TET, all the others are micro-tonal (up to 9 tones per scale)...I strategically changed timbres in such a way as to trick listeners into thinking it was all "in-tune" even when it switches out of 12TET...and you'll hear some chords and moods that are IMVHO fairly impossible to re-create in 12TET. Oddly enough, I haven't got one complaint this one is "out of tune" yet... And that's an old song too...my new ones (just recently started composing again) use a new scale that is fairly near 12TET that has many many more and more easily accessible harmonic combinations than the scales I used in writing the above song, "Sutrated". I'll also post my new songs when they are done...my standards now are a good deal higher than when I wrote "Sutrated".

-Michael

_,_._,___

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

Hey,

Dang, it's late at the end of a long week. I'm definitely keeping this post to mull over, thanks again for the depth of thought and content. I'll be sure to check out the music you put at the end. However, one thing:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Case in point: whenever someone DOES come up with a truly new melodic or harmonic technique...people don't just remember it for a few months but for 10+ years. Easy examples: Way Out West uses huge deep 5+ note jazz chords extensively and B'z (the Japanese selling equivalent of the Beatles) twist all sorts of weird melodic lines and in-between-key modulations around their infectiously catchy melodic themes. Both are some of the very few relatively new groups regarded as classics for 10+ years.

Aargh. Two bands that you label as "classics" that I haven't even heard of! My gods, could I feel anymore like an old fart or what?? :)

I'll definitely look up these, WOW sounds very intriguing to me.

Be well,
Jon

Carl Lumma wrote:
> I like this idea. We are so focused on 12 that we forget how much
> music uses only the 7 notes of a single diatonic key. There's no
> reason scales like 7-ET can't hold interesting music. It's also
> worth thinking about unequal scales of 5-10 notes, though on guitar
> ETs are most natural.
> > -Carl

There is (at least) one unequal scale that would work very nicely on guitar: Blackwood's decatonic scale.