Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Microtonal music

Websites off the top of my head

Join the tuning list on yahoo as well

and...

a discussion group + music + techniques

http://xenharmonic.ning.com/

good resource

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/

and I'll plug myself www.chrisvaisvil.com

and micro.soonlabel.com

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Mike <michael_kspr@...> wrote:

>
>
> I am interested in learning more about microtonal music include good
> programs to use for a beginner in the microtonal category. What resources
> would you recommend in terms of websites for composition? I would like to
> learn this style in order to combine with other styles. I write standard
> music on Finale such as classical, romantic era, serialism, and some
> minimalism. Harry Partch was a very interesting composer in terms of
> microtonal and tuning systems. What ways do you guys combine microtonal with
> standard notation?
>
>
>

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Hi Mike!

>I am interested in learning more about microtonal music include good
>programs to use for a beginner in the microtonal category. What
>resources would you recommend in terms of websites for composition? I
>would like to learn this style in order to combine with other styles.
>I write standard music on Finale such as classical, romantic era,
>serialism, and some minimalism. Harry Partch was a very interesting
>composer in terms of microtonal and tuning systems. What ways do you
>guys combine microtonal with standard notation?

Wow, lots of questions here, with many possible answers.

I don't think microtonality is a style in the way that jazz, funk,
and minimalism are styles. Microtonal scales can be used with any
style (and has been used with these three). Partch was an interesting
composer for his use of rhythm, lyrics and many other elements, of
which microtonality was one.

There are also MANY different forms of microtonality. The term
simply means 'anything other than 12-tone equal temperament' so you
can imagine it includes everything from historical keyboard
temperaments to crazy scales with hundreds of notes per octave, and
even scales without any octaves at all.

If you use Finale, there are folks here who can tell you how to
create microtonal accidental systems with it. Then you can
experiment and discover the scales that let you achieve your musical
goals. Then come back and share some of your music!

In particular, Rick McGowan, Torsten Anders, and Daniel Wolf are
people who know about Finale's microtonal capabilities. Rick has
a page up here:
http://azuma-asobi.com/FTS-HowTo/MicroOrchestra.html

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Mike,

I am interested in learning more about microtonal music include good
> programs to use for a beginner in the microtonal category. What resources
> would you recommend in terms of websites for composition? I would like to
> learn this style in order to combine with other styles. I write standard
> music on Finale such as classical, romantic era, serialism, and some
> minimalism. Harry Partch was a very interesting composer in terms of
> microtonal and tuning systems. What ways do you guys combine microtonal with
> standard notation?
>

Well I can give you a good tip.
If you care about composing / tuning things that sound "in tune" and good to
normal listeners, stay away from microtonality.
I'm serious :) Really.
And if you can't resist, use some (historical) temperament that's close to
12tet.

And if that won't do it for and you have a lot of time on your hands and
like math problems etc.
You can try 5-limit just intonation.
And in my opinion the best way to start there is to start by learning about
comma problems / comma pumps.
And practice comma pump solutions etc by retuning simple common practice
music.
And even that likely won't give you satisfactory results.

And all the other crazy microtonal things out there.. well if you like wild
out of tune sounds etc that don't sit well with the general public (rightly
so in my opinion) then any tuning goes and you're in the right place :)

Marcel

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Do not pass Go, do not collect 200$, go directly to:

http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/

and get Scala, "the" computer tuning tool. If you are on Mac,

http://www.nonoctave.com/

is "the" program. Don't be fooled by the goat, the program
is also "the" serious tool in this field.

Here is an excellent introduction to microtonal notation:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/mclaren-notation

Jacob Barton (on the xenharmonic ning) has written a script for using sagittal microtonal notation in Sibelius.

For those of us who use many microtonal tunings, large tunings, tunings without circles of fifths (or any single generator at all), non-octave tunings and so on, notation is a very big problem (unless you consider a sequencer piano/even roll and accompanying Scala files
as a score, which technically of course it very much is).

There is very little written about composing microtonal music. Most of the world's music is microtonal of course, but belongs mostly to oral traditions and rote learning. You must try out different ideas and hear how they work. Perhaps most importantly, you need feedback out in the physical world, not the internet.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <michael_kspr@...> wrote:
>
> I am interested in learning more about microtonal music include good programs to use for a beginner in the microtonal category. What resources would you recommend in terms of websites for composition? I would like to learn this style in order to combine with other styles. I write standard music on Finale such as classical, romantic era, serialism, and some minimalism. Harry Partch was a very interesting composer in terms of microtonal and tuning systems. What ways do you guys combine microtonal with standard notation?
>

🔗markallanbarnes <mark.barnes3@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I am interested in learning more about microtonal music include good
> > programs to use for a beginner in the microtonal category. What resources
> > would you recommend in terms of websites for composition? I would like to
> > learn this style in order to combine with other styles. I write standard
> > music on Finale such as classical, romantic era, serialism, and some
> > minimalism. Harry Partch was a very interesting composer in terms of
> > microtonal and tuning systems. What ways do you guys combine microtonal with
> > standard notation?
> >
>
> Well I can give you a good tip.
> If you care about composing / tuning things that sound "in tune" and good to
> normal listeners, stay away from microtonality.
> I'm serious :) Really.

My experience is that to most "normal" listeners where I live (Southern England, United Kingdom) Quarter Comma Meantone sounds much more in tune than 12 note equal temperament, as long as don't use the 4 major chords it is not intended for. Similarly, just intonation sounds more in tune to most "normal" listeners here than 12 note equal temperament as long as you play in the key it is intended for. I also find I can often get away with playing the 4 forbidden major chords of Quarter Comma Meantone during songs, even though they sound dodgy to "normal" listeners if played in isolation. (And in Pythagorean intonation I can even get away with chords that use the "wolf fifth".).

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Mark,

> My experience is that to most "normal" listeners where I live (Southern
> England, United Kingdom) Quarter Comma Meantone sounds much more in tune
> than 12 note equal temperament, as long as don't use the 4 major chords it
> is not intended for.

For some music it will, but for other music it will be worse than 12tet
(atleast to my ears and understanding of tunings)
You give an example with the 4 major chords allready, but I think there are
many more chords etc that'll do the trick.
And it's hard even to know if a piece will work or not beforehand as normal
music theory is very inadequate for this purpose.
You can simply say it's a piece written in C major and then expect it to
work.

But agreed, with (conservative) meantones, if you know what you're doing
it'll sound better than 12tet most of the time, and not very offensive at
the times it sounds worse than 12tet.

Similarly, just intonation sounds more in tune to most "normal" listeners
> here than 12 note equal temperament as long as you play in the key it is
> intended for.

I must strongly dissagree with this.
By far most pieces written in a certain key will not work at all with any
fixed 12 tone just intonation tuning.
Normal listeners ears will absolutely go "eww that note sounds way out of
tune" very often when you do this.
Take as an example the drei equale I've been working on. Simple piece in
d-minor people would say.
Well not if you're trying to put it in JI.
And I've seen the JI problems in 95% of very simple pieces written in a
single key.

I also find I can often get away with playing the 4 forbidden major chords
> of Quarter Comma Meantone during songs, even though they sound dodgy to
> "normal" listeners if played in isolation. (And in Pythagorean intonation I
> can even get away with chords that use the "wolf fifth".).

I've done a few listening tests with friends which also involved
pythagorean, and (to my ears aswell) they allways found pythagorean worse
than 12tet.
And I was testing optimal pythagorean that never has a wolf (by shifting the
root apropriately).

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Marcel>" Well I can give you a good tip. If you care about composing / tuning things that sound "in tune"
and good to
normal listeners, stay away from microtonality. I'm serious :) Really."

Mark>"Quarter Comma Meantone sounds much more in tune than 12 note equal
temperament, as long as don't use the 4 major chords it is not intended
for. Similarly, just intonation sounds more in tune to most "normal"
listeners here than 12 note equal temperament as long as you play in the key it is intended for."

Agreed. One thing I've found about micro-tonality is that standard notation works fine when all notes are, say, within 15 cents or so of JI-perfect intervals.
On the other hand IMVHO, where it starts to get really interesting is when you are dealing with notes over 15 cents away from 12TET and yet the combination of notes/dyads causes them to "feel" normal and put each other into what feels like a familiar context. And, in such cases, standard notation can be very deceiving as something my look very off key in standard notation, but indeed be on-key relative to, say, the last tone (which is likely also fairly far off key and perhaps transitions from a tone before that which is fairly "on key" relative to 12TET). Hence tones can "warp" over frequency space and trying to analyze how well they follow the "straight line" of 12TET can make things more, and not less, confusing.

Personal experience in micro-tonality tells me I can only trust a combination of math and tuning by ear. If I use all math and try to force fitting to a framework (standard notation or otherwise), I often find myself creating scales that sound like what they are; tense and trying to be/imitate something they are not. The only real "frameworks" I recommend following to some extent all the time are periodicity and critical band (the two main psycho-acoustic principles) and, on a more personal note, mirroring of tones (though that terminology is not widely accepted and is an experimental venture of mine).
An example with periodicity: any scale with a dyad interval with a fractional representation over about 18 IE x/18 or a numerator over 27 is likely to begin to sound sour. An example with critical band: any two tones closer than the interval 13/12 are likely to sound sour...unless they are so close (IE under 10 cents apart) that they seem to blend into a single tone. In part you can numerically analyze scales to see if they fit such conditions (diatonic JI has mostly dyads that fit in x/12 format and just one interval, the minor second, that is closer than 13/12).

Whether my scales or others combine historic theories properly or fit JI very strictly is not of high relevance to good scales through my experience...what is, instead, is making scales you can actually just sit down and play without having to strain your mind to find the right math to make smooth-sounding chords and little to worry about concerning things like "correct notation". The best scales, IMVHO, are simply the easiest and most flexible to just pick up and play, the ones that resolve tonal conflicts themselves without the need for lots of theory on top to "find the right/sweet chords".

_,_._,___

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

The question was about microtonal COMPOSITION, not re-tuning.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
> > My experience is that to most "normal" listeners where I live (Southern
> > England, United Kingdom) Quarter Comma Meantone sounds much more in tune
> > than 12 note equal temperament, as long as don't use the 4 major chords it
> > is not intended for.
>
>
> For some music it will, but for other music it will be worse than 12tet
> (atleast to my ears and understanding of tunings)
> You give an example with the 4 major chords allready, but I think there are
> many more chords etc that'll do the trick.
> And it's hard even to know if a piece will work or not beforehand as normal
> music theory is very inadequate for this purpose.
> You can simply say it's a piece written in C major and then expect it to
> work.
>
> But agreed, with (conservative) meantones, if you know what you're doing
> it'll sound better than 12tet most of the time, and not very offensive at
> the times it sounds worse than 12tet.
>
> Similarly, just intonation sounds more in tune to most "normal" listeners
> > here than 12 note equal temperament as long as you play in the key it is
> > intended for.
>
>
> I must strongly dissagree with this.
> By far most pieces written in a certain key will not work at all with any
> fixed 12 tone just intonation tuning.
> Normal listeners ears will absolutely go "eww that note sounds way out of
> tune" very often when you do this.
> Take as an example the drei equale I've been working on. Simple piece in
> d-minor people would say.
> Well not if you're trying to put it in JI.
> And I've seen the JI problems in 95% of very simple pieces written in a
> single key.
>
>
> I also find I can often get away with playing the 4 forbidden major chords
> > of Quarter Comma Meantone during songs, even though they sound dodgy to
> > "normal" listeners if played in isolation. (And in Pythagorean intonation I
> > can even get away with chords that use the "wolf fifth".).
>
>
> I've done a few listening tests with friends which also involved
> pythagorean, and (to my ears aswell) they allways found pythagorean worse
> than 12tet.
> And I was testing optimal pythagorean that never has a wolf (by shifting the
> root apropriately).
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameroon,
>
> The question was about microtonal COMPOSITION, not re-tuning.
> >
>
> Yes and in these styles:
> "I write standard music on Finale such as classical, romantic era,
> serialism, and some minimalism."
>
> Now if you want to write such music (which isn't noise art where >wild
> tunings may have a function) it's almost equal to retuning music.

What about the original poster's mention of Partch (11-limit JI)? IIIRC he also mentioned Ives (quartertones and more) on the xenharmonic ning. Anyway what you say is not simply not true. "Wild tunings" not only have a place in even very romantic downright "mainstream" music: they can be much better than 12-tET for a myriad of feelings, including "pretty" and downright "sentimental" as well as beautiful, scary, whatever.

> Furthermore, I have the belief that if you write tonal, harmonic >music.
> You're best off practicing first by retuning existing music (even >if that's
> your own music if it's any good).

And it is my belief that this approach not only pretty much guarantees a dead-end for microtonal music creation, it also reflects a deep non-understanding of music as an action, not a "thing".

>
> I'm also of the belief that once existing music can be tuned properly and
> acceptable to the average listener, this would be the best thing for
> microtonality as a whole.
>
> Marcel
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Anyway what you say is not simply not true. "Wild tunings" not only have a
> place in even very romantic downright "mainstream" music: they can be much
> better than 12-tET for a myriad of feelings, including "pretty" and
> downright "sentimental" as well as beautiful, scary, whatever.
>

Well I think that what I said is true regardless of your statement of them
not beeing true :)

Wild tunings for common practice music. I'm yet to hear a single piece tuned
in a wild tuning that doesn't sound completely out of tune to me (unless the
sounds are severely masking the tuning used).
And I'm not alone here. There's a reason these wild tunings are not accepted
by the general public for common practice music.
There's something fundamentally wrong with tuning common practice music that
way in my opinion.

> > Furthermore, I have the belief that if you write tonal, harmonic >music.
> > You're best off practicing first by retuning existing music (even >if
> that's
> > your own music if it's any good).
>
> And it is my belief that this approach not only pretty much guarantees a
> dead-end for microtonal music creation, it also reflects a deep
> non-understanding of music as an action, not a "thing".
>

Well my belief is the opposite.

I see music both as an action, and as a deeper mathematical "thing" where
harmony has a function / language of it's own.
And this language is I think very much tuning related, ratios between
vibrating strings etc.
Infact I think tuning is at the root of how functional harmony (and melody)
works.

And I think that if this language is better understood. And it becomes
possible to tune common practice music in JI in a manner that is true to
that language and in a manner that is accepted by the general publics ears.
That this would be the best thing for microtonality ever.
I also see this as a good starting ground to explore new harmonies and
resulting tunings.
But right now wild tunings are too poorly understood to be used for common
practice music like things I think.

I also think that I have a right to air my opinions without people like you
becomming all mad at me and making general statements that I'm wrong etc.
You're free to air your opinions, please let me be free to air mine too.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> "Wild tunings" not only have a place in even very romantic downright
> "mainstream" music: they can be much better than 12-tET for a myriad of
> feelings, including "pretty" and downright "sentimental" as well as
> beautiful, scary, whatever.
>

Btw one more thing I forgot to mention.
I'm not just words about tuning common practice music, I'm putting money on
it :)

If you truly belief the things you say above, and can make them come true...
The you may win �100,-

As you probably allready know I've written out a (re)tuning competition on
the tuning list.
If you can tune Beethoven's Drei Equale no1, in your (wild?) tuning of
choice better than me and the other contestants (of which there are very
few) then you can win by popular vote on the tuning list and prove your
point and take my money. How does that sound? :)
You can make it as sad and pretty and beautifull as you want. Though it'll
be popular vote that'll decide if others agree offcourse.
I personally don't give you any chance at all of winning this, but if what
you say were true this would be a good opportunity to prove your point.

Details of the competition at www.develde.net

Marcel

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 28 Mar 2010, at 5:56 PM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> I see music both as an action, and as a deeper mathematical "thing" > where
> harmony has a function / language of it's own.
>

Harmony is only one of elements which make some styles of Western music. Don't forget there's a lot of music which doesn't need this element and still we can call it music.

> And this language is I think very much tuning related, ratios between
> vibrating strings etc.
>

This is obvious that chords are built from tones, and tones are part of some tuning system. But this is general statement, you can make any chords and their relations and progressions in any tuning system.

> Infact I think tuning is at the root of how functional harmony (and > melody)
> works.
>

Nonsense. Functional harmony is based on the chord relations inside the tonality, on the polarity of Subdominant - Tonic - Dominant and relative (or less relative) chords, on the steady process, oscillation between consonance/dissonance, relax/tension... Concrete tuning is not so important for this, of course it must be some system which has 12 tones in octave.

And for the melody the most important element are intervals and their directions. This is what makes the result. You can create totally different sounding melodies from one and the same scale, just by clever using of intervals.

> And I think that if this language is better understood. And it becomes
> possible to tune common practice music in JI in a manner that is > true to
> that language and in a manner that is accepted by the general > publics ears.
> That this would be the best thing for microtonality ever.
>
That's only yours very limited attitude and approach to microtonality which has nothing to do with the creation of really new, innovative microtonal music.

Besides in my opinion it's not important at all if so called "general public" accepts such music or not. It's not problem of that music, but only problem of so called "general public".
> I also think that I have a right to air my opinions without people > like you
> becomming all mad at me and making general statements that I'm > wrong etc.
> You're free to air your opinions, please let me be free to air mine > too.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
Everybody has the right to have some opinions, but if you publish them you have to count with the fact the other people can criticize them, compare them with their own, and they even have full right to say you are wrong. It doesn't mean that a person who said it became mad. You are oversensitive.

Daniel Forro

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Harmony is only one of elements which make some styles of Western
> music. Don't forget there's a lot of music which doesn't need this
> element and still we can call it music.
>

I think harmony is omnipresent in how we hear.
And I think melody comes from harmony, even if there's just one monophonic
melody playing.
And I'm not alone in thinking along these lines.

This is obvious that chords are built from tones, and tones are part
> of some tuning system. But this is general statement, you can make
> any chords and their relations and progressions in any tuning system.
>

While beeing "in tune"? Not so in my opinion.
I've explained some of my thoughts on this in my posts on permutations of
the harmonic series.

> Infact I think tuning is at the root of how functional harmony (and
> > melody)
> > works.
> >
>
> Nonsense. Functional harmony is based on the chord relations inside
> the tonality, on the polarity of Subdominant - Tonic - Dominant and
> relative (or less relative) chords, on the steady process,
> oscillation between consonance/dissonance, relax/tension... Concrete
> tuning is not so important for this, of course it must be some system
> which has 12 tones in octave.
>

Ah but I think there's a reason why for instance the dominant 7th can
resolve so nicely to the tonic major etc.
But too long a story to go into this deeply now.

Besides in my opinion it's not important at all if so called "general
> public" accepts such music or not. It's not problem of that music,
> but only problem of so called "general public".
>

That's like everybody is crazy except you :)
No but not kidding I can respect that opinion.
I just hold a different one.

> > I also think that I have a right to air my opinions without people
> > like you
> > becomming all mad at me and making general statements that I'm
> > wrong etc.
> > You're free to air your opinions, please let me be free to air mine
> > too.
> >
> > Marcel
> > www.develde.net
> >
> Everybody has the right to have some opinions, but if you publish
> them you have to count with the fact the other people can criticize
> them, compare them with their own, and they even have full right to
> say you are wrong. It doesn't mean that a person who said it became
> mad. You are oversensitive.
>
> Daniel Forro
>

Sure people can criticize them.
But the way cameron criticized them came across to me as respectless and
hostile.
And made general statements (not "I think" but "you ARE wrong" etc).
So then it's my right to criticize his reponse yes? ;)

Btw you come across somewhat hostile to me too.
Calling my approach and attitude to microtonality very limited the way you
do.
I can say the same to you as I said to cameron...
If you think you have a better approach than me, then don't just use words
but prove it in the Drei Equale retuning competition.
If my approach is indeed so limited, then it shouldn't be very hard to beat
my tuning right? And at the same time prove me wrong and take my �100,- :)

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 28 Mar 2010, at 6:51 PM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> I think harmony is omnipresent in how we hear.

It looks you mix here psychoacoustics with "harmony" as a term in the
Western music theory.

> And I think melody comes from harmony,

Have you ever heard about bitonality (and polytonality), where melody
in one key is accompanied by chords from different key (or keys)?
Here melody and harmony can be totally independent.

> even if there's just one monophonic
> melody playing.

The fact every melody can be harmonized and we can find for it the
best chords and more versions of harmonic progressions based on the
hidden, latent harmony derived from the melodic structure, doesn't
mean that it's necessary to do so. Besides every person can hear
different latent harmony based on his knowledge of music theory and
style he knows. Bossa nova specialist will hear bossa nova typical
progressions even under Chinese folk song.

> While beeing "in tune"?

First, what means "in tune"? Second, chords can be distuned, detuned.
Contrast between tuned and detuned chords can be also one of the
expressive means of (microtonal) music. It's not necessary to have
all chords just tuned. Besides it's impossible to tune more complex
chords, or chords with different structure than triadic in this way.

> Ah but I think there's a reason why for instance the dominant 7th can
> resolve so nicely to the tonic major etc.
> But too long a story to go into this deeply now.
>

I know 22 ways how to resolve this chord to other triads, nothing to
say about much more progressions to resolve them to the other, more
complex chords. All of them can be used when music stream composed in
tonal or extended tonal style needs it. All of them are nice. So what
are you talking about? Your example is the most used one, so much
used we can call it banal.
Have you heard about Janacek's resolution when he was a student and
wanted to provoke his teacher? He did "G-B-D-F" to "Ab-Db-Db-F". This
I call creativity. He was expelled of the school after this as his
teacher was oversensitive and limited (how often these two features
are found in one person), and maybe even angry that he didn't have
enough creativity to find it himself and publish in his textbook. He
couldn't imagine there are more ways how to resolve this chord. It's
not without reason Janacek became one of the most original composers
of all times.

> That's like everybody is crazy except you :)

I see it different way, maybe I'm crazy and the other people are too
normal :-) But as lot of them like my music, and not each of them has
deep theoretical knowledge of music, problem is really not in the
music itself. Nor in the microtonality itself. Microtonal music can
be implanted on the most various music styles.

> Sure people can criticize them.
> But the way cameron criticized them came across to me as
> respectless and
> hostile.
> And made general statements (not "I think" but "you ARE wrong" etc).
> So then it's my right to criticize his reponse yes? ;)

If I see well, he just wrote your opinion is not true, which is of
course true. Then he wrote "it also reflects a deep non-understanding
of music as an action, not a "thing"" which is also true. I don't see
any hostility or respectless attitude. Just a small advice: if you
want to be respected, you must show deep and wide knowledge, and try
to find something really new. And maybe write the names with the
first character capitalised.

> Btw you come across somewhat hostile to me too.
> Calling my approach and attitude to microtonality very limited the
> way you
> do.

It is limited. You are interested only in retuning existing music,
and what's worse - without a proper knowledge of what's behind that
music historically. Just because you think all existing tonal music
is out of tune, and only your way is THE way which with finally make
order in that chaos. There are many other approaches to making real
microtonal music.

> I can say the same to you as I said to cameron...

Of course you can, but it's ridiculous. Any person can easily compare
what I did and do in my life and what you did. And I don't mean
finished formal education or such, no, just work done. Definitely
there is some difference despite we both didn't show everything we
did. So please don't teach me. I don't need your advices. I can
respect you as a slightly confused and lost human soul, seeker of the
truth as I am, but in no case as a person on the same level ofknowledge, skills and experience. But there's no problem. Study hard,
work hard another 30 years as I did and you can be where I am now.
That's all. Another advice: listen carefully and with great respect
advices and well meant opinions of more clever, more educated, more
experienced colleagues, try to accept them, and maybe one day you can
learn something from it. Which I personally do every day when I feel
I can learn something new which I can use for my work. There are
extremely knowledgeable people here and everywhere.

> If you think you have a better approach than me, then don't just
> use words
> but prove it in the Drei Equale retuning competition.
> If my approach is indeed so limited, then it shouldn't be very hard
> to beat
> my tuning right? And at the same time prove me wrong and take my
> 100,- :)
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

I'm not interested in your retuning attempts, there are more
important, more interesting and better paid things to do on my
nearest schedule. You showed enough incompetence in understanding
basic rules of classical music theory and the functional harmony on
this and other forum. With such level of knowledge you can't solve
successfully even such simple examples as Drei Equale. Which is
proofed enough with those "wolfs" on important places, not only on transient chords. And as you can derive from pretty low number of
entrants, I'm not the only one who is not interested to enter. Call
me rude. Life is too short to be always so polite as I am.

Daniel Forro

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Daniel,

This is great!!

Have you heard about Janacek's resolution when he was a student and
wanted to provoke his teacher? He did "G-B-D-F" to "Ab-Db-Db-F"

Marcel, with all due respect I disagree that the only thing to be done is
retuning to a "better 12". This is an absurd outlook for a Westerner.

The number of acceptable notes in Western practice has steadily grown over
time as composers worked out acceptable ways to include the "dissonance" -
to think this historic march will stop here I think is silly.

Chris

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
> "I write standard music on Finale such as classical, romantic era,
> serialism, and some minimalism."
>
>
> Now if you want to write such music (which isn't noise art where wild
> tunings may have a function) it's almost equal to retuning music.
> Furthermore, I have the belief that if you write tonal, harmonic music.
> You're best off practicing first by retuning existing music (even if that's
> your own music if it's any good).
>
> I'm also of the belief that once existing music can be tuned properly and
> acceptable to the average listener, this would be the best thing for
> microtonality as a whole.
>
> Marcel
>
>

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris,

Marcel, with all due respect I disagree that the only thing to be done is
> retuning to a "better 12". This is an absurd outlook for a Westerner.
>
> The number of acceptable notes in Western practice has steadily grown over
> time as composers worked out acceptable ways to include the "dissonance" -
> to think this historic march will stop here I think is silly.
>
> Chris
>

I only meant that I think that to get to those far out microtones and a good
theory on how to use them,
it would in my opinion be wise to first understand how to tune common
practice music.

I see a rising line in complexity over the centuries in music.
Right now (the way I see it) nobody even knows how to retune simple common
practice music perfectly.
Saying to me that even how common practice music works is not very deeply
understood, normal music theory is inadequate to use for JI.
I just think it would be wise to get this part "right" and understood first,
then progress with tuning to ever more complex music.
And then it seems likely to me that after this is done, the path to wild
microtones and the way to use them, the way to break free from even todays
most progressive music, will show itself.

I too wish to eventually use wild microtones and write completely new
groundbreaking music.
It just that I don't think the way to get there is by for instance simply
loading up a wild scale and start ploinking away at the keyboard.

Lets say a caveman had a wild dream, to build a flying machine to transport
his whole tribe with the speed of sound way south every time winter began :)
hehe
Well, I don't think he'd be very successfull trying to build such an
aeroplane from scratch. But if he had studied birds, built models out of
balsa wood, then simple glider models etc etc. Well in this specific example
the caveman had no real chance to fullfill his dream lol.
But what I ment, history shows that there were a lot of steps needed to get
to a commercial jet airplane.
I personally think such incremental steps, from simple to more complex, are
needed to in microtonal music (and a better music theory stemming from a
deeper understanding of tuning.)

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Daniel,

It looks you mix here psychoacoustics with "harmony" as a term in the
> Western music theory.

No I ment that in a deeper sense, melody comes from harmony.
Somewhat along the lines as I think Rameau first discribed

>
>
> > And I think melody comes from harmony,
>
> Have you ever heard about bitonality (and polytonality), where melody
> in one key is accompanied by chords from different key (or keys)?
> Here melody and harmony can be totally independent.

Well just like playing 2 completely different songs at the same time.
I don't mean the melodies of both songs would come from the same "harmony"
or something along that line.
Just that melody comes from harmony in a deeper sense.
Melody is "quantized" according to harmonic rules is what I think.

> While beeing "in tune"?
>
> First, what means "in tune"?

Long discussion and hard to discribe. I'm going to pass on this one.
Will only mention that the Drei Equale tuning competition is a good
competition where people can vote for what's "in tune" to their ears.

> Second, chords can be distuned, detuned.
> Contrast between tuned and detuned chords can be also one of the
> expressive means of (microtonal) music. It's not necessary to have
> all chords just tuned. Besides it's impossible to tune more complex
> chords, or chords with different structure than triadic in this way.

I see a difference between sound and the language of harmony / melody.
To distune a unison is something in the area of a sound "effect".

As for triadic structures, I've explored this and beyond this in perfect
consonant ways with permutations of the harmonic series.
But I also think a chord like for instance 9/8 4/3 5/3 is perfectly in tune
in the proper places.
So no, I'm not limited or limiting "in tune" to simple chords at all.

> Ah but I think there's a reason why for instance the dominant 7th can
> > resolve so nicely to the tonic major etc.
> > But too long a story to go into this deeply now.
> >
>
> I know 22 ways how to resolve this chord to other triads, nothing to
> say about much more progressions to resolve them to the other, more
> complex chords. All of them can be used when music stream composed in
> tonal or extended tonal style needs it. All of them are nice. So what
> are you talking about? Your example is the most used one, so much
> used we can call it banal.
>

My point wasn't just that V7 to I is nice.
But also for instance that V7 to many other chords isn't as nice as to I.

Have you heard about Janacek's resolution when he was a student and
> wanted to provoke his teacher? He did "G-B-D-F" to "Ab-Db-Db-F". This
> I call creativity. He was expelled of the school after this as his
> teacher was oversensitive and limited (how often these two features
> are found in one person), and maybe even angry that he didn't have
> enough creativity to find it himself and publish in his textbook. He
> couldn't imagine there are more ways how to resolve this chord. It's
> not without reason Janacek became one of the most original composers
> of all times.

You've called me oversensitive and limited in you previous post.
Are you comparing me to Janeck's teacher? :)

If I see well, he just wrote your opinion is not true, which is of
> course true.

Lol, no it isn't :)

> Then he wrote "it also reflects a deep non-understanding
> of music as an action, not a "thing"" which is also true.

That one isn't either :)

It is limited. You are interested only in retuning existing music,

Can you look into my mind?
I'm not only interested in retuning existing music. Please see my message I
just wrote to Chris.

Study hard, work hard another 30 years as I did and you can be where I am
> now.
>

Well, honestly it seems to me that where you are now, after 30 years, you
seem to be unable to correctly tune common practice music.

I'm not interested in your retuning attempts, there are more
> important, more interesting and better paid things to do on my
> nearest schedule. You showed enough incompetence in understanding
> basic rules of classical music theory and the functional harmony on
> this and other forum. With such level of knowledge you can't solve
> successfully even such simple examples as Drei Equale. Which is
> proofed enough with those "wolfs" on important places, not only on
> transient chords.
>

Well, I think you're looking more like Janeck's teacher here and me more
like Janeck :)

The wolfs are correct in my opinion, I think every note is 100% perfect in
the way I tuned it and that it's the way the music works.
And I'm putting money on it.
You can say all you want, like it's wrong etc.
But I say / think the ideas you're basing these statements on are wrong, and
that you with all your experience can't tune the Drei Equale correctly, and
also fail to see mine is correct.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

Marcel,

again with all due respect western music started out pretty much JI. It then developed towards the tuning compromise of 12edo to afford more note useage. So I don't see a problem to be solved.

It would be great if you could explain your JI theory because I can't see how common practice theory is inadequate.

To, pesonally, microtonal music is about incorporating notes beyond 12. It is about developing an understanding the increased compositional resources.

I've come to view this JI goal as a revisit and rehash of a renissance crisis that was brought about by a transition from vocal to instrumental music (as a generality). This crisis is what I see as the reason for the 19 and 31 edo keyboards built at the time.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:10:39
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Microtonal music

Hi Chris,

I only meant that I think that to get to those far out microtones and a good
theory on how to use them,
it would in my opinion be wise to first understand how to tune common
practice music.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

To Marcel,

When I compose, it is most often for my own personal pleasure, and for the people that I know would like that kind of music. The only time I write music for the "general public" is when I am tasked as such, and that is work, not pleasure. The general public still has the ears of a thousand Rollos.

The response to your tuning competition should tell you something, but it doesn't. That says a lot right there. Finally...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
> I'm not interested in your retuning attempts, there are more
> important, more interesting and better paid things to do on my
> nearest schedule. You showed enough incompetence in understanding
> basic rules of classical music theory and the functional harmony on
> this and other forum. With such level of knowledge you can't solve
> successfully even such simple examples as Drei Equale. Which is
> proofed enough with those "wolfs" on important places, not only on
> transient chords. And as you can derive from pretty low number of
> entrants, I'm not the only one who is not interested to enter. Call
> me rude. Life is too short to be always so polite as I am.

This.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Chris wrote:

>again with all due respect western music started out pretty much JI.
>It then developed towards the tuning compromise of 12edo to afford
>more note useage. So I don't see a problem to be solved.

This is a common belief, but there's no evidence that Western music
started with JI and progressed to temperament. The diatonic scale
came first. Then singers began intoning its 3rds as consonances,
which resulted in 5-limit adaptive JI. Keyboards were tuned to the
closest fixed-pitch version of that: meantone temperament.
Increasing use of modulation forced keyboards to gradually move from
meantone to 12-ET, but singers and instrumentalists remain free to
intone as justly as they can.
American music came along, which emphasizes rhythm and gives harmony
somewhat lower importance. It introduced tetrads as basic consonances,
but these did not 'stick' or spread to all other styles as triads did.

The trends are:

less modulation --------> more modulation
melody/rhythm -> harmony -> melody/rhythm
dyads ---------> triads --------> tetrads
3-limit -------> 5-limit --------------->

In some sense, "more modulation" has meant more temperament, but the
misperception I'd like to clarify is that fixed pitched instruments
were once tuned in just intonation. This has never been the case,
unless you count Pythagorean tuning.

-Carl

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

Carl,

Are you trying to say monks did not sing perfect fifths?

The rest of the history below seems supportive of my position. Why 19 or 31 edo keyboards if not?

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:25:38
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Microtonal music

Chris wrote:

>again with all due respect western music started out pretty much JI.
>It then developed towards the tuning compromise of 12edo to afford
>more note useage. So I don't see a problem to be solved.

The trends are:

less modulation --------> more modulation
melody/rhythm -> harmony -> melody/rhythm
dyads ---------> triads --------> tetrads
3-limit -------> 5-limit --------------->

-Carl

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Carl,

I don't understand why you seem to on occasion say crazy things with regard
to positions I take.

On one hand you say:

"This is a common belief, but there's no evidence that Western music
started with JI and progressed to temperament."

and on the other you say:

"The diatonic scale
came first. Then singers began intoning its 3rds as consonances,
which resulted in 5-limit adaptive JI."

Adaptive JI is still JI in my book.

My point was that the progression has been one of compromise for the sake of
harmonic complexity. Nothing I see in your reply below substantially
disagrees with what I said.

And even adds to the argument that Marcel is revisiting a crisis of the 15th
century. At least that it was a crisis is what I was taught => including
some examples of keyboards with "split" accidentals. And I do count
Pythagorean tuning.

I'd like to also point out that instruments that do not do harmonic
progressions or do not change key, JI / Pythagorean tuning is *not* a
problem.

Chris

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> >again with all due respect western music started out pretty much JI.
> >It then developed towards the tuning compromise of 12edo to afford
> >more note useage. So I don't see a problem to be solved.
>
> This is a common belief, but there's no evidence that Western music
> started with JI and progressed to temperament. The diatonic scale
> came first. Then singers began intoning its 3rds as consonances,
> which resulted in 5-limit adaptive JI. Keyboards were tuned to the
> closest fixed-pitch version of that: meantone temperament.
> Increasing use of modulation forced keyboards to gradually move from
> meantone to 12-ET, but singers and instrumentalists remain free to
> intone as justly as they can.
> American music came along, which emphasizes rhythm and gives harmony
> somewhat lower importance. It introduced tetrads as basic consonances,
> but these did not 'stick' or spread to all other styles as triads did.
>
> The trends are:
>
> less modulation --------> more modulation
> melody/rhythm -> harmony -> melody/rhythm
> dyads ---------> triads --------> tetrads
> 3-limit -------> 5-limit --------------->
>
> In some sense, "more modulation" has meant more temperament, but the
> misperception I'd like to clarify is that fixed pitched instruments
> were once tuned in just intonation. This has never been the case,
> unless you count Pythagorean tuning.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 29 Mar 2010, at 3:25 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> The diatonic scale
> came first. Then singers began intoning its 3rds as consonances,
> which resulted in 5-limit adaptive JI. Keyboards were tuned to the
> closest fixed-pitch version of that: meantone temperament.
> Increasing use of modulation forced keyboards to gradually move from
> meantone to 12-ET, but singers and instrumentalists remain free to
> intone as justly as they can.
>
That's probably partly true, but development of Western music was not so linear, there were periods with sudden jumps and then again steps back. For example chromatic 12tone system was known theoretically few thousand years ago but not in general use. And how will you explain such strange chromatic things like Ars subtilior, Italian chromatic madrigal in Rennaissance? We can find similar jumps and again regressions in using some parameters in music. And regressions in one parameter could be caused by progress in another parameter. For example Neoclassicism was in certain sense return back, but it was birth of new esthetics. Or timbre music od 60ies was step back in the comparison with complexity of multiserialism of 50ies, but it helped to develop sonic aspect of music (BTW sonically it's not so far from prescribed overcomplexity of multiserialism to the chaotic randomness of aleatoric music). Or minimalism can be understood as a big simplification, on the other side composers tried complex polyrhythms and phase shifts... etc.

> American music came along, which emphasizes rhythm and gives harmony
> somewhat lower importance.
>

??? Which American music? What's American music in your understanding? Not part of general Western music? What's so special about this American music in your understanding?

American music was totally dependent on European music, even such "American" style like ragtime. What America gave to the world in music, started in 20th century mainly - of course jazz and pop culture, Ives, Varese, Partch, music for tape, minimalists... did I forget something?

> It introduced tetrads as basic consonances,
> but these did not 'stick' or spread to all other styles as triads did.
>

How "lower importance" of harmony goes together with introducing of tetrads, that means more complex chords? And from where have you come to the opinion that tetrads were introduced by American music? And were not used by other styles than... ???

>
> The trends are:
>
> less modulation --------> more modulation
> melody/rhythm -> harmony -> melody/rhythm
> dyads ---------> triads --------> tetrads
> 3-limit -------> 5-limit --------------->
>

It seems you are talking only about tonal and extended tonal music, which is only small part of music, and mainly that one of the past, closed, finished.

And again I must repeat general development of music was not so linear.

Daniel Forro

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Chris,

again with all due respect western music started out pretty much JI. It then
> developed towards the tuning compromise of 12edo to afford more note useage.
> So I don't see a problem to be solved.
>

I see many problems in tuning common practice music to JI.
First problem is that the normal view of JI where all major triads are 1/1
5/4 3/2 and all minor triads are 1/1 6/5 3/2 is a mathematical impossiblity.
In large chords like 1/1 5/4 3/2 15/8 9/4 8/3 10/3, there's no way possible
to tune it with only perfect major and minor triads.
Look at the 9/4 8/3 10/3 minor triad. When trying to make it a perfect minor
by tuning 9/4 27/10 27/8 then you'd get a 1/1 27/10 27/8 major triad, etc.
This is the same problem as with chord progressions. Some people have
thought the solution to this was to "comma shift" by for instance 81/80 a
held note, or some adaptive JI method.
But these solutions have a terrible sound to my ears, and they don't work
with large chords as in my example above which is really the same problem.
Then there are other solutions like extended JI, but it gives more problems
than it solves etc and also doesn't sound good with common practice music.
And then there are many other problems as to how to tune a certain chord or
melody etc etc.
Basically 95% of common practice music won't work in classic JI.
And 12tet isn't how music works in my opinion and simply sounds bad.
But I've been working hard at finding real solution to tune common practice
music.

>
> It would be great if you could explain your JI theory because I can't see
> how common practice theory is inadequate.
>
As mostly explained above, common practice theory kind of works in 12tet but
not in JI.
My theory is too big to explain here.
I'll put it on my website in time.
But basically it is based on permutations of the harmonic series.
Which will lead to all kinds of insights into chords.
I can tell you the harmonic model of 6-limit harmonic permutation JI.
It is 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 (when reduced to one
octave)
For normal tonal common practice music all chords will fit in this scale.
The "root" of this scale moves in simple intervals, like 3/2, 6/5, 15/8.
Melody comes from harmony but also indicates harmony.
When a chord progression is such that melodies move parallel while retaining
equal distance, the melodies stay in the same ratio to eachother.
(though this is a tricky one, as a chord can invert and a melody can take
over from another melody)
For instance 1/1 5/4 3/2 -> 1/1 4/3 8/5 -> 1/1 3/2 9/5 and not 1/1 3/2 16/9.
One has to read the music well though to make sure that it isn't indeed 1/1
3/2 16/9 and it's some inversion with clumsy melody movement.
For instance 4/3 15/8 9/4 -> 5/4 5/3 2/1 is good.
8/5 9/4 8/3 -> 3/2 2/1 12/5 isn't. Notice the 32/27 between 9/4 and 8/3, and
the 6/5 between 2/1 and 12/5.
However, it's too simple to say it isn't good. It can happen for sure, but
the melody would want to go from 8/3 to 3/1, not to 12/5, and 3/2 is octave
equivalent to 3/1 so one could say that it does, and the 9/4 could be said
to go to 12/5, then it is ok. But this inversion is a much more complex way
to see it and if you look at the music it'll tell you which one of the 2 it
is.
Much much more to tell, and probably the above doesn't make much sense to
you right now because of lack of info, etc.
And I'll probably get some replies from some people telling me I'm all
ignorant and wrong :) But I don't care, here you have some of my findings
atleast untill I publish more on my website :)

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Marcel>"Wild tunings for common practice music. I'm yet to hear a single piece tuned
in a wild tuning that doesn't sound completely out of tune to me (unless the
sounds are severely masking the tuning used)."
I don't believe that for a second. Try http://www.traxinspace.com/song/40893...the first verse is in 12TET, the others are in completely wild tunings. So far I haven't gotten a single comment from anyone that the other parts sound "weird" or "out of tune" from the first part. Now try music from Marcus Satellite, especially his track "Trading Tykes" on cdbaby.com and Ozan Yarman's "Saba Storm"...both using "wild scales". I've showed both of these to tons of friends and not one has mentioned it "sounding out of tune".

There's nothing wrong with getting certain type of purity from near-12TET tunings AKA tunings that can re-tune 12TET songs without noticeably changing the mood...but saying such "12TET-alike" tunings are the only way things can be done while being easy to listen to for the general public?
Sorry but that sound like complete rubbish to me...I'm not mad at you for having your own way of doing things, but I am frustrated you single so many of us out by saying you have "the only right way" to do things.

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> When a chord progression is such that melodies move parallel while retaining
> equal distance, the melodies stay in the same ratio to eachother.
> (though this is a tricky one, as a chord can invert and a melody can take
> over from another melody)
> For instance 1/1 5/4 3/2 -> 1/1 4/3 8/5 -> 1/1 3/2 9/5 and not 1/1 3/2 16/9.
> One has to read the music well though to make sure that it isn't indeed 1/1
> 3/2 16/9 and it's some inversion with clumsy melody movement.
> For instance 4/3 15/8 9/4 -> 5/4 5/3 2/1 is good.
> 8/5 9/4 8/3 -> 3/2 2/1 12/5 isn't. Notice the 32/27 between 9/4 and 8/3, and
> the 6/5 between 2/1 and 12/5.
> However, it's too simple to say it isn't good. It can happen for sure, but
> the melody would want to go from 8/3 to 3/1, not to 12/5, and 3/2 is octave
> equivalent to 3/1 so one could say that it does, and the 9/4 could be said
> to go to 12/5, then it is ok. But this inversion is a much more complex way
> to see it and if you look at the music it'll tell you which one of the 2 it
> is.

Btw I've pointed out one particular case in my JI transcription of the
Drei Equale where the melodies seem to move parallel while retaining
equal distance, but infact they don't and they move into an inversion.
It's on measure 23 into 24, indicated by the red arrow that points
from 5/2 to 75/32. It's pointing the way the melody really moves.
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28MdV-JI%29.png
See that just before that the 3/2 5/2 moves nicely into 45/32 75/32,
but when it repeats it gives the impression of going from 5/2 3/1 into
45/16 10/3 (which if true would offcourse not be tuned in this way),
but it doesn't, the 5/2 doesn't go to 45/16 but to 75/32. If you
listen closely you can actually hear it btw.
There are several such tricky movements into inversions in the piece
but I singled out this one as an example because it had particulary
bugged me in the past when I missed it.

Marcel
www.develde.net

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Michael,

I don't believe that for a second. Try
> http://www.traxinspace.com/song/40893...the first verse is in 12TET, the
> others are in completely wild tunings. So far I haven't gotten a single
> comment from anyone that the other parts sound "weird" or "out of tune" from
> the first part. Now try music from Marcus Satellite, especially his track
> "Trading Tykes" on cdbaby.com and Ozan Yarman's "Saba Storm"...both using
> "wild scales". I've showed both of these to tons of friends and not one has
> mentioned it "sounding out of tune".
>

With all respect but they do sound out of tune to me.
Not that that's a bad thing allways.
My favorite microtonal music is Selected Ambient Works II by Aphex Twin.
It's very much out of tune, but to such a beautifull effect.

I'm not mad at you for having your own way of doing things, but I am
> frustrated you single so many of us out by saying you have "the only right
> way" to do things.
>

Well I'm sorry I do not mean to frustrate you or others.
But I cannot help but to hold the belief that there is ingerent logic to
harmony and melody etc.
And that it's "true" form is JI.
And (with the exception of music that has multiple interpretations possible,
simple music or very special theoritical classical music) that there's just
one way to tune a composition "pure" and true to this harmonic and melodic
"mathematical framework".
I wish I could say "hey people look here I've found a way to tune common
practice music in pure JI", and on the other hand say "but all other tunings
are pure too", but I can't.
I don't say it out of disrespect, I hope you can see it as nothing personal.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Michael,

It's not a fair comparison. For example, to show why I thought so few people
> were entering your contest, I submitted a version of the song re-tuned to my
> 7-tone Ptolemy-style scale.
> And you quickly said (as I predicted) that is was not suitable for
> competition and alluded to it simply not sounding like the original mood of
> the 12TET version. You didn't mention any problems with dissonance, bad
> mood, or any psycho-acoustic factor.
>
> Guess what? Wild scales are going to give different moods than 12TET...in
> fact that's much the point of such scales.
>
> So...let me get this right...to really enter your contest you have to
> re-tune with a scale that creates a mood which sounds very much like 12TET
> IE wild scales virtually "aren't allowed"...but yet you're asking for us to
> try to win the contest with wild scales? Correct me if I'm missing
> something, but that sounds to me like a bizarre double standard...
>

First of all, your entry is the only one I rejected.
I'm sorry to have to reject your tuning, though I gave you the option to
object to my decision.
At first, even when you submitted it before I commented, it seemed to me
that you were thinking about the same thing as I was, that your entry is not
a serious appropriate entry for the competition.
I also gave you a chance to object to my decision to not accept your entry,
and I'll take this message as that you do indeed now object :)

The thing is, your tuning of the Drei Equale is so not in line with the
intentions of the competition.
And your tuning is so "wild" that you may as well have sent in a completely
different composition.
I don't recognise the Drei Equale back in your entry, it has become a
completely different piece. (not surprising when retuning a fairly complex
12-tone piece to a fixed 7-tone scale)
The voting will be about finding the tuning which sounds most "in tune"
"right" "pure" etc. What place could your piece have in this?
Furthermore, to render each tuning is costing me a lot of effort, as I have
to retune a real trombone quartet recording with melodyne editor, and do
this based on reading the pitch bend values in the midi files of the
entries, amongst other things. I don't want to have to do this for non
serious entries.
I also specifically requested when starting the competition that only
serious entries be submitted.

I hope you can agree. If not, and if you feel you have good reasons why you
don't agree with my decision feel free to send me an email about it.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Marcel>"With all respect but they do sound out of tune to me.
Not that that's a bad thing always."

In all fairness, I am pretty confident that you have pre-decided that any 12-tone tuning that's not with about 15-cents of 12TET for all notes is automatically wrong. By turning down Marcus's music as in tune you seems to be, for example, indirectly saying Wilson's tuning theories (used to generate scales used in Marcus's music) are wrong. And by turning down Ozan's music you seem to indirectly be saying Maqam's are wrong. It's not to far a step to say that anything that's not very close to 12TET is "wrong" and that your theories (to the untrained ear) seem to go in a loop "from 12TET almost back to 12TET" in that sense.

Granted, you have given some interesting examples of why chords do/don't work well in 12TET and different ways to purify them plus posted a very smart and fluent "random chord progression generator" program about half a year back.

>"But I cannot help but to hold the belief that there is ingerent logic to
harmony and melody etc. And that it's "true" form is JI."

The one thing I think we can both agree on is that periodicity between root tones and harmonics is a way to aid development of consonance and that JI is based much on that premise.

It seems obvious to me though, that periodicity is only one issue in what makes scales which can be used to make music feel "normal" to most people and not the whole game.
What about critical band resolution? What about difference tones? What about symmetry between intervals? What about sub harmonics? These issues are not directly addressed/solved by JI and often to optimize such issues you have to compromise periodicity.
And, furthermore (even assuming JI along could solve virtually all issues regarding tonal purity), what about the fact JI (at least extended JI) can easily include chords like 10:11:12:13 which have intervals that don't exist in "common practice" music theory (yet, of course, are still JI)?

>"I wish I could say "hey people look here I've found a way to tune common practice music in pure JI", and on the other hand say "but all other tunings are pure too", but I can't."

I take the position that JI isn't necessarily pure either. Easy example: take the chord 12:13:14:15, which includes the pure minor second of 15/14.
Hear the critical band dissonance from tones being too close even within these "pure" intervals? Even "pure JI " can sound dissonant, both by math and otherwise. What combination of concepts exactly makes true "purity" I am unsure of...but I am very confident is a balance of many factors of which periodicity and JI is only one. To me,saying JI is the solution is like saying a single tree composes the framework for the whole forest.

________________________________
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@...m
Sent: Sun, March 28, 2010 9:03:35 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Microtonal music

Hi Michael,

I'm not mad at you for having your own way of doing things, but I am
> frustrated you single so many of us out by saying you have "the only right
> way" to do things.
>

Marcel
www.develde. net

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Chris wrote:

>On one hand you say:
>
>"This is a common belief, but there's no evidence that Western music
>started with JI and progressed to temperament."
[snip]
>My point was that the progression has been one of compromise for the sake
>of harmonic complexity. Nothing I see in your reply below substantially
>disagrees with what I said.

I can't make it any clearer that the quoted sentence above, which
directly contradicts what you originally said, which was,

"again with all due respect western music started out pretty much JI.
It then developed towards the tuning compromise of 12edo to afford
more note useage."

>And even adds to the argument that Marcel is revisiting a crisis of the
>15th century. At least that it was a crisis is what I was taught =>
>including some examples of keyboards with "split" accidentals. And I do
>count Pythagorean tuning.

I don't know what crisis you're referring to. The keyboard we have
today was very much entrenched by the 15th century.

>I'd like to also point out that instruments that do not do harmonic
>progressions or do not change key, JI / Pythagorean tuning is *not*
>a problem.

It may not be a problem, but again, there's no evidence 5-limit JI
was ever used to tune instruments. And aside from a few sketches of
Willaert and Vicentino, there is no evidence composers ever wrote it.
That 81/80 would vanish was assumed out of the gate.

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"At first, even when you submitted it before I commented, it seemed to me
that you were thinking about the same thing as I was, that your entry is not
a serious appropriate entry for the competition."

I was because I thought you came in (originally) with the idea "wild tunings" were out of the question and you wanted something that had a very similar mood to the original.
However, then you came back and "dared" the rest of us here to submit "wild tunings" for the competition, which would imply wild tunings were no longer "not allowed".
Show me a song with a "wild tuning" that made it into the competition and explain why it managed to get included and it'll be easy for me to forgive this apparent double-standard for entries. I also figure...many wild tunings are going to make songs feel fairly indistinguishable from the originals minus the up/down direction of tone in melodic progressions.

>"And your tuning is so "wild" that you may as well have sent in a completely different composition."
So (if I have this straight) again it seems you're censoring out tunings based on "wildness" alone and yet asking for people to enter "wild" tunings? I'm also guessing any tuning that is too wild is automatically not serious?...something I assumed before but now I question again since you are supposedly opening a challenge for "wild tuning entries".

......It just sounds like you keep changing the rules....that's all. Is this a "common practice" competition or not? If you're going to call out "wild" tunings (like I assumed you had been set on doing before), I wish you'd at least stay honest and consistent about it.

>"The voting will be about finding the tuning which sounds most "in tune" "right" "pure" etc. What place could your piece have in this?"

What on earth do you mean by "pure" and "right"?
A) The psycho-acoustic definition veers toward issues like how resolved a sound is...something Cameron, Chris, Sevish, and several others (I believe) have agreed my latest "breed" of scales does quite well.
B) "Pure" as in related to tones within 15 cents or so only of standard JI diatonic "common practice" intervals and nothing else. For example, the interval 13/12, though acceptable in JI, would be unacceptable in "common practice"...though 15/14 would be fine. In such a case adaptive JI would very likely win hands-down.
C) "Right" as in "fitting with the mood Beethoven intended", likely including both the most expressive consonance and dissonance at the right phrased points in the song that fits the mood of the original but sound "stronger". Such would likely result in all scales submitted sounding almost identical since changing any interval used in the a scale from 12TET would almost certainly change the mood.
D) Something not mentioned in A-C

...I don't think you ever really defined this when you started the competition...and originally I just assumed you were making a "common practice only" type of competition.
But I'm pretty sure at this point I'm not the only one confused by now about what the competition is trying to achieve.

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Daniel wrote:
>> The diatonic scale
>> came first. Then singers began intoning its 3rds as consonances,
>> which resulted in 5-limit adaptive JI. Keyboards were tuned to the
>> closest fixed-pitch version of that: meantone temperament.
>> Increasing use of modulation forced keyboards to gradually move from
>> meantone to 12-ET, but singers and instrumentalists remain free to
>> intone as justly as they can.
>>
>That's probably partly true, but development of Western music was not
>so linear,

Of course it wasn't; I covered 700 years in a single paragraph.

>> American music came along, which emphasizes rhythm and gives harmony
>> somewhat lower importance.
>
>??? Which American music? What's American music in your
>understanding?

Commonly called African-American music, but more properly called,
it seems to me, American music.

>Not part of general Western music? What's so special
>about this American music in your understanding?

Definitely a divergence from Western music prior to cultural mixing
in the Americas. I have a webpage to answer this:
http://lumma.org/music/theory/JazzVsClassical.html

>> It introduced tetrads as basic consonances, but these did not
>> 'stick' or spread to all other styles as triads did.
>
>How "lower importance" of harmony goes together with introducing of
>tetrads, that means more complex chords?

Chords were more complex, and required a new functional harmony
grammar. But harmony also became a smaller part of the music.
The chords live more like a ground or continuo, a bit apart.
Compare to a Beethoven piano concerto or something, where he is
just playing 3rds up and down the keyboard. Rhythm gets a bigger
piece of the pie, and this necessarily means there are fewer
pitches that begin and end at the same time. Parallel writing in
jazz is less dense.

>And from where have you come to the opinion that tetrads were
>introduced by American music? And were not used by other
>styles than... ???

The impressionists were discovering them around the same time,
but didn't arrive at a standardized functional language for them.

>> The trends are:
>>
>> less modulation --------> more modulation
>> melody/rhythm -> harmony -> melody/rhythm
>> dyads ---------> triads --------> tetrads
>> 3-limit -------> 5-limit --------------->
>
>It seems you are talking only about tonal and extended tonal music,
>which is only small part of music, and mainly that one of the past,
>closed, finished.

I'm talking about the most significant trends in music, globally,
of the last 700 years. Tonal music is finished? Why would you
say that?

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> >Not part of general Western music? What's so special
> >about this American music in your understanding?
>
> Definitely a divergence from Western music prior to cultural mixing
> in the Americas. I have a webpage to answer this:
> http://lumma.org/music/theory/JazzVsClassical.html

Never saw that but that's pretty much an ideal explanation. Although I
would add that pentadic and hexadic harmonies are pretty common in
jazz as well and probably more common than tetradic harmony; maj7
chords are usually voiced as maj9 or majadd69 for example. If by
"tetradic" you mean more of a rough grab at the 7-limit rather than
specifically 4-notes, then you might also consider lydian dominant or
dom7#11 chords a rough grab at the 11-limit as well.

I've heard dynamically intoned horn sections play that #11 super flat
and pretty close to 11/4; I dunno if the MD's were coaching the horn
players to do that intentionally or what, but it sounded good.

What's your take also on the "jazz as expression of pajara within
12-tet" idea? That jazz vs classical = "pajara vs. meantone." With, of
course, a bit of dominant and augmented and all other sorts of
temperaments thrown in for later developments.

> Rhythm gets a bigger
> piece of the pie, and this necessarily means there are fewer
> pitches that begin and end at the same time. Parallel writing in
> jazz is less dense.

There is a strong parallel writing tradition in jazz as well, check
out some of the instrumental big bands. At UM there was a heavy focus
on arranging for big bands, along with tons of rules to follow for
arranging "tetradic" or "pentadic" or beyond harmony out for 5 voices
(the most common way to arrange a hexad for 5 voices is just to leave
out the root and/or the fifth, leaving the bass to play it). If you
aren't aware of it, you might find it interesting as an expansion of
the traditional common practice 4-part writing rules into more modern
"7-limit" or "tetradic" or "pajara-based" harmony or however you want
to think of it.

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 29 Mar 2010, at 12:11 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Commonly called African-American music, but more properly called,
> it seems to me, American music.
>
I would keep Afro-American, it shows clearly that's a synthesis of those both styles. That means blues, jazz, soul, funk, all this? But American music has more styles, not only this.

There's also the other America - South, with Latin music influence, and that's completely different world. So in my opinion to say just "American" can be confusing.

> The impressionists were discovering them around the same time,
> but didn't arrive at a standardized functional language for them.
>

Impressionists? Why so late? Seventh chords have been used few hundred years before impressionists.
> I'm talking about the most significant trends in music, globally,
> of the last 700 years. Tonal music is finished? Why would you
> say that?
>
> -Carl
>

As a composer who still writes a lot of extended tonal music besides the other styles. It's difficult to find something really innovative here, lot of possible combinations were used in past let's say 600 years. From this point of view it's dead, and it was so 100 years ago, with Mahler, Strauss, Janacek... Only recycling. Or you can call it crisis. I suppose you will not argument that all contemporary pop styles or most of film or other functional music (which is written mainly in tonality or extended tonality) is somehow innovative in anything (melody, harmony, rhythm, arrangement, expressivity, articulation and phrasing... etc).

Daniel Forro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Daniel wrote:

>I would keep Afro-American, it shows clearly that's a synthesis of
>those both styles. That means blues, jazz, soul, funk, all this? But
>American music has more styles, not only this.

All of that and more, yes. But not Partch or Ives. They are
insignificant at this scale. Not even a dot.

>There's also the other America - South, with Latin music influence,
>and that's completely different world. So in my opinion to say just
>"American" can be confusing.

On the contrary, the correspondence between South and North American
music is startling. Compare choro and ragtime, for intance.

>> The impressionists were discovering them around the same time,
>> but didn't arrive at a standardized functional language for them.
>
>Impressionists? Why so late? Seventh chords have been used few
>hundred years before impressionists.

They were not. Not as fundamental consonances, which would be the
first and last of a piece, and most in between.

>As a composer who still writes a lot of extended tonal music besides
>the other styles. It's difficult to find something really innovative
>here, lot of possible combinations were used in past let's say 600
>years. From this point of view it's dead, and it was so 100 years
>ago, with Mahler, Strauss, Janacek... Only recycling. Or you can call
>it crisis. I suppose you will not argument that all contemporary pop
>styles or most of film or other functional music (which is written
>mainly in tonality or extended tonality) is somehow innovative in
>anything (melody, harmony, rhythm, arrangement, expressivity,
>articulation and phrasing... etc).

Maybe there is no more innovation in tonal sytles, but they are
still the dominant styles. And what is taking its place in terms
of innovation? I see nothing, except xenharmonic music.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Mike:

>> http://lumma.org/music/theory/JazzVsClassical.html
>
>Never saw that but that's pretty much an ideal explanation.

Thanks. I even put the rows in order of how important they are at
differentiating the two.

>Although I would add that pentadic and hexadic harmonies are pretty
>common in jazz as well and probably more common than tetradic harmony;
>maj7 chords are usually voiced as maj9 or majadd69 for example.

True. Still, I feel the function is kinda based on the tetrad.
Like, it'd still be there if you took out the 9th but not if you
used major and minor triads instead. Thoughts?

>I've heard dynamically intoned horn sections play that #11 super flat
>and pretty close to 11/4; I dunno if the MD's were coaching the horn
>players to do that intentionally or what, but it sounded good.

Yeah, this kind of thing happens all the time. But it isn't
systematic yet. Probably consonant 3rds were occasionally heard
in monasteries, I don't know. But I feel relatively sure they
were systematic for the first time in the Burgundian school.

>What's your take also on the "jazz as expression of pajara within
>12-tet" idea? That jazz vs classical = "pajara vs. meantone." With,
>of course, a bit of dominant and augmented and all other sorts of
>temperaments thrown in for later developments.

It seems likely, but honestly, I don't know how I would analyze a
piece of music and say for sure. Maybe you should ping Paul and see
if you two can figure it out.

>> Rhythm gets a bigger piece of the pie, and this necessarily means
>> there are fewer pitches that begin and end at the same time.
>> Parallel writing in jazz is less dense.
>
>There is a strong parallel writing tradition in jazz as well, check
>out some of the instrumental big bands.

Good point. As you know, I played trumpet in high school. Though
I wasn't a full-time member of the dance band, I did sit in
occasionally, and we occasionally did big band tunes in the full
concert band. I sat 2nd chair to one of my best friends, who later
did two tours with the Glenn Miller band. They played a swing party
on the USS Hornet carrier every year in Alameda, which we'd attend.

So yeah, you got me here. Don't think it's damning to my point
though.

-Carl

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 29 Mar 2010, at 12:11 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Definitely a divergence from Western music prior to cultural mixing
> in the Americas. I have a webpage to answer this:
> http://lumma.org/music/theory/JazzVsClassical.html
>

That's rather simplified and generalized table. With no connection to real situation in both styles.

There's a lot of classical music which was primarily improvised and then one day written into the score and somehow fixed, but it doesn't mean it can't be still changed or improved. This score can be taken as one possible shape of that music and again improvised (when somebody can do it) without destroying the basic atmosphere of music itself. Lot of Baroque, Classic and Romantic music, nothing to say about aleatoric... I do such things with classical works at my concerts whenever I feel some place can be changed and improved slightly. Even Mozart or Bach had their bad days. Have you mentioned how many arrangements of some classical piano music was done by some pianists with composing aspirations? Some of them are too far from original, or against the period rules, but some are nice.

In jazz very often melody of song is changed by improvisation, and still recognizable. And harmony can be changed totally, any song or standard can be easily reharmonized. This is essence of jazz impro.

To compare medium is funny, even classical music is recorded, and jazz is published in scores. I see no difference here after recording media came to use.

Complexity of harmony depends on the style and composer only, basically there need not to be any difference in chordal structure and harmonic progressions between jazz and art music.

The same is truth for rhythm and metrics.

Big bands are not electric, and big (therefore big-band). And there's a lot of solo or chamber music, duos, trios, quartets in classical music, nothing to say about possibility to compose and perform classical music with electric instruments.

So why you did such table?

Daniel Forro

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

> True. Still, I feel the function is kinda based on the tetrad.
> Like, it'd still be there if you took out the 9th but not if you
> used major and minor triads instead. Thoughts?

Yeah, I agree with that. The basic structure of the I chord does seem
to be tetradic now that I think about it. Although I would throw in
that the stereotype of jazz as using 4:5:6:7 as the I chord is just a
stereotype for the vast majority of jazz standards.

There is actually an interesting parallel between jazz and classical
music in that sense. V chords or dominant chords in general tend to be
more pentadic (or sometimes hexadic), as that's where people start
screwing around with the octatonic scale, the altered scale, lydian
dominant, etc. Some of these can roughly approximate other otonal
harmonics of the root of the V chord: the #11 is sort of like 11/4,
the natural 9 is like 9/4, the b9 and #9 are sort of like 17/8 and
19/8 (although the b9 can be other things as well), and the b13
sometimes sounds really good tuned as 13/4 (although it sometimes also
functions rather diatonically as an 8/5).

Well, classical music is the same way. The basic structure is triadic,
but dominant chords often tend to be tetradic. And the basic structure
of the dominant 7 chord very roughly approximates 4:5:6:7.

I'm not sure what it reflects about western music that the V chord
tends to be an even more enriched unison than the I chord, but that
pattern seems to be all over the place.

> Yeah, this kind of thing happens all the time. But it isn't
> systematic yet. Probably consonant 3rds were occasionally heard
> in monasteries, I don't know. But I feel relatively sure they
> were systematic for the first time in the Burgundian school.

?? The Burgundian school?

> It seems likely, but honestly, I don't know how I would analyze a
> piece of music and say for sure. Maybe you should ping Paul and see
> if you two can figure it out.

We had a discussion about it on my facebook wall a while ago actually
(http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/MikeBattagliaMusic?v=feed&story_fbid=296159197506).

The basic idea was that
- tritone substitution is basically the quintessential tempering out of 50/49
- the tempering out of 64/63 is sort of reflected in the "jazz"
incarnation of the 12-bar blues, as well as in chord progressions like
||: Csus9 | C9 :||
- equals pajara in jazz.

The duality between the dominant 7 chord as a very emotionally bright
5-limit structure (possibly wanting to "go somewhere") and the
dominant 7 as a more complex and stable I chord (possibly well-tuned
as 4:5:6:7) is a very prominent feature of the transition from the
blues in its traditional sense towards the blues as used in later jazz
compositions.

Monk, for example, tended to use the dom7 chord (and #11) more in an
"overtonal" sense (albeit mistuned. and that's precisely the vibe he
gave off, dirty overtones). For example, check out the strongly
implied higher-limit chords he plays right at the beginning of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyfEddS41nM (once they start talking
about chords you can stop).

In contrast, post-bop composers tended to explore the dom7 chord more
as a complex 5/7-limit structure - check out Freddie Hubbard's Arietis
for an example of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7r6qWuI1Wc -
you can sort of "feel" the m7 interval as consisting of 2 fourths,
while at the same time sort of functioning as a stable I chord, thus
implying a tempering out of 64/63.

Of course, meantone tendencies are very present in jazz as well,
especially in "jazz standards" (many of which were influenced by
Gershwin's ideas, think about that for a second). And the only
possible 7-limit temperament containing both meantone and pajara is
12tet (or some 12 note well temperament).

So at this point I view the entire 20th century as a systematic
exploration of other sub-temperaments (or perhaps more properly,
"super-temperaments") existing within 12-tet besides meantone. In this
context, generalized regular mapping would basically be the next step,
as most of the obvious choices in 12-tet have been well-plowed through
by now.

> >> Rhythm gets a bigger piece of the pie, and this necessarily means
> >> there are fewer pitches that begin and end at the same time.
> >> Parallel writing in jazz is less dense.
> >
> >There is a strong parallel writing tradition in jazz as well, check
> >out some of the instrumental big bands.
>
> Good point. As you know, I played trumpet in high school.

Ah, I didn't know that. Then you're well aware of all that then :)

-Mike

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 29 Mar 2010, at 3:21 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> There is actually an interesting parallel between jazz and classical
> music in that sense. V chords or dominant chords in general tend to be
> more pentadic (or sometimes hexadic), as that's where people start
> screwing around with the octatonic scale, the altered scale, lydian
> dominant, etc. Some of these can roughly approximate other otonal
> harmonics of the root of the V chord: the #11 is sort of like 11/4,
> the natural 9 is like 9/4, the b9 and #9 are sort of like 17/8 and
> 19/8 (although the b9 can be other things as well), and the b13
> sometimes sounds really good tuned as 13/4 (although it sometimes also
> functions rather diatonically as an 8/5).
>
> Well, classical music is the same way. The basic structure is triadic,
> but dominant chords often tend to be tetradic. And the basic structure
> of the dominant 7 chord very roughly approximates 4:5:6:7.
>
> I'm not sure what it reflects about western music that the V chord
> tends to be an even more enriched unison than the I chord, but that
> pattern seems to be all over the place.
>
>
??? Unison ??? What do you mean?

Dominant function in functional harmony represents the biggest tension which must be resolved into the other chord, preferably as simple as tonic triad. So this tension and contrast between structure of dominant chord and tonic chord is emphasized when we add seventh, ninth (preferably diminished}, even 11th and 13th or diminished 13th (nice example Chopin's Nocturno 48/1 C minor).

Daniel Forro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Daniel wrote:

>> I have a webpage to answer this:
>> http://lumma.org/music/theory/JazzVsClassical.html
>
>To compare medium is funny, even classical music is recorded, and
>jazz is published in scores. I see no difference here after recording
>media came to use.

There is a huge difference. Recordings were the medium used
by jazz artists to communicate with one another. Many famous
artists taught themselves from records. Scores were only used
to coordinate large ensembles like big bands. Recordings didn't
exist in the common practice era, and neither were they used
much by musicians or composers in the European tradition in the
20th century -- they were used primarily to deliver music to
audiences.

>Complexity of harmony depends on the style and composer only,
>basically there need not to be any difference in chordal structure
>and harmonic progressions between jazz and art music.

But you just agreed that jazz had the first functional harmony
grammar based on tetrads.

>Why so many error allerts when trying to go thru your pages?

Sorry, I really should put up a website instead of just linking
to pages in e-mails.

>The same is truth for rhythm and metrics.

You don't think the omnipresence of percussion in American music
and its practical nonexistence of it in European music is of any
significance?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

On 29 Mar 2010, at 3:40 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> There is a huge difference. Recordings were the medium used
> by jazz artists to communicate with one another. Many famous
> artists taught themselves from records. Scores were only used
> to coordinate large ensembles like big bands. Recordings didn't
> exist in the common practice era, and neither were they used
> much by musicians or composers in the European tradition in the
> 20th century -- they were used primarily to deliver music to
> audiences.
>
>
OK, that's true.

> >Complexity of harmony depends on the style and composer only,
> >basically there need not to be any difference in chordal structure
> >and harmonic progressions between jazz and art music.
>
> But you just agreed that jazz had the first functional harmony
> grammar based on tetrads.
>

But jazz came after impressionism and its harmony is derived from classical music and depending on it, so such chords didn't started in jazz primarily. Such Gershwin (yes, I know, he is not jazz composer) learned a lot from Debussy, Ravel, Skriabin, as well as later be-bop musicians. Modal jazz also had predecessors in modal classical music.
>
> >Why so many error allerts when trying to go thru your pages?
>
> Sorry, I really should put up a website instead of just linking
> to pages in e-mails.
>
No, email link worked well. I mean when I visited your pages almost all links (written at the left) answered with error allerts...
>
> >The same is truth for rhythm and metrics.
>
> You don't think the omnipresence of percussion in American music
> and its practical nonexistence of it in European music is of any
> significance?
>
> -Carl
>

???
After Stravinski, Bartok, Messiaen there was a lot of drums and percussions in European music. Of course Varese is exceptional in this, and also he inspired many European composers after WWW II. Another wave came in 60ies with timbre and aleatoric music, another one with "world music" inspiration before the end of 20th century, so I wouldn't say there's less drums and percussions in European classical contemporary music in comparison with American authors. Some composers like them (including me - in my orchestral works I always have at least 4 or more performers, in Double Concerto for pipe organ an percussions 7 performers with hundreds of instruments, some of them very special). There are many drum & percussions ensembles in Europe playing only such music. And they have always something new to play as lot of composers write for them and dedicate them works.

Daniel Forro

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > "Wild tunings" not only have a place in even very romantic downright
> > "mainstream" music: they can be much better than 12-tET for a myriad of
> > feelings, including "pretty" and downright "sentimental" as well as
> > beautiful, scary, whatever.
> >
>
> Btw one more thing I forgot to mention.
> I'm not just words about tuning common practice music, I'm putting money on
> it :)
>
> If you truly belief the things you say above, and can make them come true...
> The you may win o?0,-
>
> As you probably allready know I've written out a (re)tuning competition on
> the tuning list.
> If you can tune Beethoven's Drei Equale no1, in your (wild?) tuning of
> choice better than me and the other contestants (of which there are very
> few) then you can win by popular vote on the tuning list and prove your
> point and take my money. How does that sound? :)
> You can make it as sad and pretty and beautifull as you want. Though it'll
> be popular vote that'll decide if others agree offcourse.
> I personally don't give you any chance at all of winning this, but if what
> you say were true this would be a good opportunity to prove your point.
>
> Details of the competition at www.develde.net
>
> Marcel
>
>

There is an infinitely better test of whether I truly believe the
things I say and can "make them come true", can you guess what that might be?

Anyway, here is my Drei Equali submission:

"The correct intonation for Drei Equali- it is written for four instruments with almost maximally fluid intonation for crying out loud- must be realized by live trombone players and will VARY according to the thoughts and passions of each player, group, and
performance."

I dare you to put THAT- my submission- into the vote. :-P

You are most certainly entitled to your opinions and hearing of
course! I honestly think it's great that you're monomanically retuning a single piece of music, LOL. Groovy. Just don't expect others whose music must make emotional connection with audiences to agree with your opinions when those opinions completely contradict experience.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Cameron,

There is an infinitely better test of whether I truly believe the
> things I say and can "make them come true", can you guess what that might
> be?
>
> Anyway, here is my Drei Equali submission:
>
> "The correct intonation for Drei Equali- it is written for four instruments
> with almost maximally fluid intonation for crying out loud- must be realized
> by live trombone players and will VARY according to the thoughts and
> passions of each player, group, and
> performance."
>
> I dare you to put THAT- my submission- into the vote. :-P
>

Well, guess what?
What you discribe will allready be an entry :)

I've analysed a certain trombone quartet recording (the one I like most) of
the Drei Equale with Melodyne editor.

And there's no waay this one is going to win. In some places it's
temporarily better than 12tet, but overall it's significantly worse.
I'm quite sure it won't get a single vote, as it's quite out of tune.
(a bit similar to the Lasso example I've posted on my website earlyer)

I can't accept this as your entry though.
But if you were to take another recording and analyse it with Melodyne
editor yourself and the turn it into a pitch bend midi file and submit that
to me for entry into the comptetion I will offcourse accept it.

But any chance of winning this way? Nehh.

I am a bit surprised though that you apparently think you can't tune it
better yourself in non real time with the precision of a computer, than a
real trombone quartet who have a hard time working together, controlling
their instruments and tuning in real time their instruments by ear relative
to eachother.

>
> You are most certainly entitled to your opinions and hearing of
> course! I honestly think it's great that you're monomanically retuning a
> single piece of music, LOL. Groovy. Just don't expect others whose music
> must make emotional connection with audiences to agree with your opinions
> when those opinions completely contradict experience.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Ah yes the almost monomanically retuning of this piece was because I've
chosen it as my test piece for several reasons.
I didn't know a better piece to test my theories on. And I'm glad I did and
it fulfilled it's function to me.
Besides that I like the piece a lot.
I don't expect others to like it as much as I do, but it's still a great
piece to test ones tuning theories on.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Cameron>"The correct intonation for Drei Equali- it is written for four
instruments with almost maximally fluid intonation for crying out loud- must be realized by live trombone players and will VARY according to
the thoughts and passions of each player, group, and performance. "

Amen. I've heard countless articles that the difference between a good and bad cover band is exactly the same thing you mentioned. In order to improve a song already composed in virtually maximally fluid intonation, IMVHO, you have to put it up.

Marcel> If you can tune Beethoven's Drei Equale no1, in your (wild?) tuning of
> choice better than me and the other contestants (of which there are very
> few) then you can win by popular vote on the tuning list and prove
your
> point and take my money. How does that sound? :)

Some questions:

A) Who is judging this contest anyhow (IE list of judge names)? I also hope none of the judges are also competitors and/or the contest host.
B) Is the goal here to re-tune the song so it is enjoyable to listen to regardless of how much it sounds like the original in mood OR to re-tune it so it "sounds just like Beethoven, but with more expression"? These are two remarkably different goals...almost akin to comparing a cover song to a re-mix.

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Michael,

A) Who is judging this contest anyhow (IE list of judge names)? I also hope
> none of the judges are also competitors and/or the contest host.
>

No judges, winner decided by popular vote on the tuning list.
Voting by poll, and I believe Carl will check that there are no "anonymous"
new accounts participating in the vote to prevent cheating.

> B) Is the goal here to re-tune the song so it is enjoyable to listen to
> regardless of how much it sounds like the original in mood OR to re-tune it
> so it "sounds just like Beethoven, but with more expression"? These are two
> remarkably different goals...almost akin to comparing a cover song to a
> re-mix.
>

To re-tune it so it sounds like the music Beethoven wrote, with more
expression, more in tune than 12tet, etc.
Not a re-mix contest.
Also not a contest of most expressive way of playing etc as all renderings
will be exactly the same except for the tuning.
Purely a tuning contest.
You can find the rules here:
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/Home/drei-equale-tuning-competition

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Are deliberately not getting the point just to try to irk me? :-D

The point of writing a piece of music down on a piece of paper
is so that there will be DIFFERENT interpretations. If there
were only one interpretation, only the author would play it.

In fact, there is a very famous historical bit about Beethoven,
in which he is on record saying this very thing. He said to
another musician playing one of his pieces that they played
it completely differently than he would, but it was just as good
and correct.

And, of course, when you write for multiple musicians, the music is the interpretation of all of them together. So, no ONE person could ever intonate Drei Equali in the same kind of "good" (or bad!) as
way as four people.

By the way, do you think that I am saying these things because I am not able to tune this piece? And you think you'd be able to apply your tuning by ear?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > it could never, ever be "good" in the same way as four trombonists would
> > tune it.
>
>
> Well, thanks to modern technology and Melodyne DNA, every person sending in
> an entry to this competition is now going to be four trombonists ;)
> Or do you wish to be so conservative that you'll say you can listen to a
> recording of a trombone quartet, but you somehow a retuned trombone quartet
> recording doesn't count?
> The tuning has to happen at the trombone and not after it has been recorded
> or something? Why is that?
> What's "musical" about that?
> In the competition there'll be a real trombone quartet recording, not
> retuned, and several Melodyne retuned versions of that same recording.
> Hell if I was 4 trombone players and able to do so I'd play it live in my
> tuning.
> So what's your point exactly?
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Cameron,

Are deliberately not getting the point just to try to irk me? :-D
>

No.
Are you deliberately not getting my points, and go into ever more far out
reasons as to why my tuning or competition isn't good?

> The point of writing a piece of music down on a piece of paper
> is so that there will be DIFFERENT interpretations. If there
> were only one interpretation, only the author would play it.
>

Agreed.
Interpretations in how to expressively play the piece. Tempo, Rhythm, volume
etc etc.
But not tuning.
Sure, if one doesn't know how to tune perfectly, you'll also get different
tunings by different people, all of which have their strong and weak points.
But I'm saying there's a perfect way to tune. On that is how the harmony and
melody of the piece works, and that isn't open to free interpretation (with
some exception like I mentioned earlyer, but not in the way you mean).

>
> In fact, there is a very famous historical bit about Beethoven,
> in which he is on record saying this very thing. He said to
> another musician playing one of his pieces that they played
> it completely differently than he would, but it was just as good
> and correct.
>

And you thought he was talking about tuning??
I don't think you think so, and I think it's most likely about playing on a
(forte)piano.
Then why do you bring this example on? It isn't even relevant and you
(should) know this.

>
> And, of course, when you write for multiple musicians, the music is the
> interpretation of all of them together. So, no ONE person could ever
> intonate Drei Equali in the same kind of "good" (or bad!) as
> way as four people.
>

LOL
You've got to be kidding me.
You are now saying, that Beethoven ment the tuning of this piece to be
interpreted by 4 people.
This is what the harmonies etc are about.
And that to do it any other way is wrong.
You must be the most "crazy" (not ment in a bad disrespectfull way) and
conservative person on this tuning list ;)

> By the way, do you think that I am saying these things because I am not
> able to tune this piece? And you think you'd be able to apply your tuning by
> ear?
>
Yes I can apply my tuning by ear to a certain precision. Every single note I
have in my mind and ear. And yes I can sing the notes in this way.

And yes, I think you are not able to tune this piece to anything nice in JI,
although likely staying close to 12tet in a meantone you can create
acceptable results.
Yes I think this is part of the reason why you attack my tuning and
competition.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> > But I'm saying there's a perfect way to tune.
>
> This is your starting point, your reason for doing all this, and this is
> where you are most assuredly wrong. The fact that the vast majority of
> people around these lists (many of whom have much longer and deeper
> experience in intonational and tuning issues than yourself) don't choose to
> take part in these superficial exercises should tell you something.
>

No, this is where I'm RIGHT!

Many, probably most of you guys here on this list started out with this same
thought.
You discovered that 12tet is a compromise tuning.
And you discovered for instance the harmonic series.
And that for instance a major chord of C (1/1) - C (2/1) - G (3/1) - C (4/1)
- E (5/1) is perfectly in tune, sounds perfect, and so much better than
12tet.

But.. then you discovered comma problems.
And you discovered that in history nobody has been able to find a good
consistent and acceptable solution for these comma problems.
These are based on the assumption that all major chords are allways 1/1 5/4
3/2 and inversions etc, and minor 1/1 6/5 3/2 and inversions etc.
And that a chord like 1/1 5/4 3/2 15/8 9/4 8/3 5/3 allways has atleast one
minor or major chord as an "unperfect" chord in it.
Similar problem as the I - VI - II - V - I chord progression etc.

And you guys FAILED to make sense of it, just like people in the past.
You failed even though now there is modern technology that'll allow you with
ease to experiment, calculate, and listen to your theories etc.
You guys then came to the conclusion that perfect tuning is a mathematical
impossibility.
And you even have examples that were supposed to prove this, like the Lasso
example.
Well I SOLVED the Lasso example. See it at www.develde.net
Nobody on this list did it before, and it was even presented to me as proof
that JI won't work for common practice music.

I've showed that perfect tuning makes perfect sense with a 9/8 4/3 5/3 minor
triad sometimes, and that this takes nothing away from the perfection.
Infact it is part of the perfection.

I tuned the Drei Equale in PURE PERFECT JI, and you can HEAR it's correct
and much better than 12tet.
Where is the argument that was allways brought up "you can't tune most
common practice music in pure JI"
I did just that, and it doesn't sound crazy it sounds perfectly natural and
correct.

It's just the fact that you guys here have soooo convinced yourselves that
such a thing that I'm saying and doing is impossible.
That when it is actually done you refuse to belief it!!!
YOU ARE ALL BLIND AND DEAF!

>
> But it doesn't seem to.
>
> The more you go on about all this, the more you take advantage of people's
> good demeanor. Forum members have been polite with you, but please, get on
> with the 'contest' and be done with it.

Forum members have been anything but polite to me, regardless of wether I've
been polite or not...
The things I'm saying and doing are apparently so hurtfull to accept to
forum members they're untill now twisting themselves in every possible
corner to put my ideas down.
But you can't and wont.

Marcel
www.develde.net

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗prentrodgers <prentrodgers@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Carl> Moderators: isn't it time to block messages like these?
I'm completely against censorship. If someone is going to say anything akin to "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", let everyone else say politely "we have our doubts".

Lord knows how many times I've run into you on the tuning list only to have you say something akin to "your efforts are always wrong...why not just listen to my sage advice and stop your own research: you'll never find anything anyhow".
Yet what happened over time was that a lot of my style did evolve from your advice and some of my research was (as you predicted) silenced and proven wrong, and others of it proven very useful and used by many. Over time, the problem solved itself...without anyone censoring me or you, only the theories that came from our discussions. And over time, the "cream" was the only thing that rose to the top. Heck I even stepped far away from my PHI and Silver tunings only to have other musicians' works with them, unprompted by me, bring my attention back to them...often things start working when people step back and resolve things for themselves. And some died a slow and painful death like my x/16 harmonic series scales and my (PHI^x)(2^y) format scales.

And, IMVHO, there's nothing wrong with that kind of arguing (musicians by nature argue a lot) :-D...unless it gets to the point where people intend on denying others freedom of speech or threatening them directly IE "shut up or get out, you idiot" type statements. If Marcel or anyone else has what they believe to be a superior idea...over time composers and listeners will either click with the idea or not...and over time results with show if something is working. This happened with the works of Mario Pizzaro and several other "notorious" theoreticians as well...it wasn't any moderator's yelling that silenced them...it was realizing that even with no "tyranical" silencing of any sort (IE in fairly ideal circumstances) their theories were still not catching on...then such people began to ask if themselves, and not others, were the problem.

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

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

> I've showed that perfect tuning makes perfect sense with a 9/8 4/3 >5/3 minor
> triad sometimes, and that this takes nothing away from the >perfection.
> Infact it is part of the perfection.

But you see, that is just sticking the syntonic comma into a minor chord (the difference between 6/5 and 32/27 being 81/80). Nothing new there. Let's see... heh, it took me 30 seconds (literally) to find this approach even on the internet "... the major sixth, or its inversion the minor third, is not an interval where distonation is very noticeable.", from an online article on the syntonic comma.

One of many approaches. It is not perfect, universal, or new. I agree with you that it can work very nicely. You don't agree with yourself though- some time ago I made a Lasso example which was tuned exactly like yours except for a couple of tones, and you did not point out those chords: you simply dismissed the whole thing as "out of tune". Of course I did this deliberately, and I think "everyone" noticed. LOL.

>
> I tuned the Drei Equale in PURE PERFECT JI, and you can HEAR it's >correct
> and much better than 12tet.

Your Drei Equali is mostly 5-limit triads, which sound lovely of course, but with sudden grating Pythagorean intervals in strange places. It would make a perfect example for someone who wanted to give a lecture "Wolves and commas: why we use the 12-tET compromise".

Your approach works out to be exactly that of trying to force 5-limit JI into 12-tET enharmonicity via ham-fisted 3-limit distortions.

I don't think you're crazy or deaf. There is a rhyme and reason to your interpretation. It is a kind of "extended JI" and your notation describes it exactly. For example you treat d minor as a kind of harmonic mode 10:9 from C, and you really do use 30:18, not 5:3, as "A", etc., and I think you are completely consistent throughout.

A far far better approach, both historically and acoustically, is very obvious, but why bother showing it to you, when it is obvious that anything that is not identical (in result) to 5-limit+wolves you'll simply dismiss as "out of tune". Sad, because Drei Equali happens to have an excellent example of something really cool, and very JI indeed.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

Mike,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I'm asking if you're really arrogant enough to label my post as "pedantic."

Oh, good lords, *no*! I could go back and refer to the thread of posts, but what I referred to was: if I had my choice between a couple of people having a minor flamefest that burns out pretty quickly vs. a couple of days of postings on tuning minutia that belongs on _another_ list, I'd choose the former. I certainly wasn't referring to any posts, or posters, in particular.

Look, this list was started as an antidote to the main tuning list, as a place where people could discuss the act of creating microtonal music. The more it veers towards the theoretical, and away from the procedural and pragmatic making of actual music, is when I want to pull out my own teeth.

I hope you'll take this as a clear note that I wasn't putting anything on you (or anyone in particular at all) and that we don't get into it any further, because I'd rather not distract any further than I have. I'd be happy to continue this off-list if you feel the need.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Haha, no, it's fine. I thought you were labeling saying post was a pedantic
doting on about tuning history, which seemed to come out of the blue. My
apologies.

-Mike

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:01 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
> Mike,
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm asking if you're really arrogant enough to label my post as
> "pedantic."
>
> Oh, good lords, *no*! I could go back and refer to the thread of posts, but
> what I referred to was: if I had my choice between a couple of people having
> a minor flamefest that burns out pretty quickly vs. a couple of days of
> postings on tuning minutia that belongs on _another_ list, I'd choose the
> former. I certainly wasn't referring to any posts, or posters, in
> particular.
>
> Look, this list was started as an antidote to the main tuning list, as a
> place where people could discuss the act of creating microtonal music. The
> more it veers towards the theoretical, and away from the procedural and
> pragmatic making of actual music, is when I want to pull out my own teeth.
>
> I hope you'll take this as a clear note that I wasn't putting anything on
> you (or anyone in particular at all) and that we don't get into it any
> further, because I'd rather not distract any further than I have. I'd be
> happy to continue this off-list if you feel the need.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>
>

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Okay, quick and dirty (watching Star Trek on mute, with
subtitles :-) ) apologies sloppiness and for my "bom-bom" tromboney kind of
sound, LOL.

http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=3equali7limitXample.wav

measures 1-21 of Drei Equali, 7-limit Just. Any critiques of "out of tune" must
be described as which pitch in which voice where, otherwise any monkey can say
"out of tune", can't they now.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Haha, no, it's fine. I thought you were labeling saying post was a pedantic
> doting on about tuning history, which seemed to come out of the blue. My
> apologies.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:01 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm asking if you're really arrogant enough to label my post as
> > "pedantic."
> >
> > Oh, good lords, *no*! I could go back and refer to the thread of posts, but
> > what I referred to was: if I had my choice between a couple of people having
> > a minor flamefest that burns out pretty quickly vs. a couple of days of
> > postings on tuning minutia that belongs on _another_ list, I'd choose the
> > former. I certainly wasn't referring to any posts, or posters, in
> > particular.
> >
> > Look, this list was started as an antidote to the main tuning list, as a
> > place where people could discuss the act of creating microtonal music. The
> > more it veers towards the theoretical, and away from the procedural and
> > pragmatic making of actual music, is when I want to pull out my own teeth.
> >
> > I hope you'll take this as a clear note that I wasn't putting anything on
> > you (or anyone in particular at all) and that we don't get into it any
> > further, because I'd rather not distract any further than I have. I'd be
> > happy to continue this off-list if you feel the need.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi all,

First my apology this list and Cameron and Daniel in particular for getting
a bit too worked up a few days ago and the not so respectfull shouting
message I posted back then.
I apparently lose my temper on these lists sometimes. I've told myself I
wasn't going to do it again, but yet it happened again.
Sorry.
(strange thing is I never lose my temper in real life.. I guess tuning gets
to me in ways real life doesn't lol)

I unsubscribed for a few days from the lists but I read the following
message from Cameron on the web interface:

> I've showed that perfect tuning makes perfect sense with a 9/8 4/3 >5/3
> minor
> > triad sometimes, and that this takes nothing away from the >perfection.
> > Infact it is part of the perfection.
>
> But you see, that is just sticking the syntonic comma into a minor chord
> (the
> difference between 6/5 and 32/27 being 81/80). Nothing new there. Let's
> see...
> heh, it took me 30 seconds (literally) to find this approach even on the
> internet "... the major sixth, or its inversion the minor third, is not an
> interval where distonation is very noticeable.", from an online article on
> the
> syntonic comma.
>
> One of many approaches. It is not perfect, universal, or new. I agree with
> you
> that it can work very nicely.
>

I do think it's perfect, but I don't care if it's new.
Btw I also think this wolf can be in the major chord, making a 1/1 5/4 40/27
major.
My method is not just about these chords but also about when they occur.
I'm glad you agree it can work nicely though :)

> You don't agree with yourself though- some time
> ago I made a Lasso example which was tuned exactly like yours except for a
> couple of tones, and you did not point out those chords: you simply
> dismissed
> the whole thing as "out of tune". Of course I did this deliberately, and I
> think
> "everyone" noticed. LOL.
>

I'm sorry but I no longer have this version.
So I can't say if I said out of tune in error, a few notes different can
make a lot of difference though, and if I read your message correctly you
yourself say it sounded "out of tune" aswell?

>
> >
> > I tuned the Drei Equale in PURE PERFECT JI, and you can HEAR it's
> >correct
> > and much better than 12tet.
>
> Your Drei Equali is mostly 5-limit triads, which sound lovely of course,
> but
> with sudden grating Pythagorean intervals in strange places. It would make
> a
> perfect example for someone who wanted to give a lecture "Wolves and
> commas: why
> we use the 12-tET compromise".
>

There are no Pythagorean intervals in my tuning. Except for 27/16 which I
consider a normal 5-limit interval, there's never an 81/x or something like
that.

> Your approach works out to be exactly that of trying to force 5-limit JI
> into
> 12-tET enharmonicity via ham-fisted 3-limit distortions.
>
> I don't think you're crazy or deaf. There is a rhyme and reason to your
> interpretation. It is a kind of "extended JI" and your notation describes
> it
> exactly. For example you treat d minor as a kind of harmonic mode 10:9 from
> C,
> and you really do use 30:18, not 5:3, as "A", etc., and I think you are
> completely consistent throughout.
>

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to look at it, and see
that it's consistent.
As for D minor from C, I only wrote the JI ratios relevant to C (C as 1/1)
to make it easy to read.
Most people are used to seeing JI ratios with C as 1/1.

But.. I've since done more thinking about which rules are at play in
determining how a chord progression is tuned out of it's many many
possiblities.
One of the things that accepting wolfs does it gives a much greater number
of possiblities for chord progressions, and I've been fighting for a long
time to find the rules that determine the right path through all of these
possiblities.

Now here I agree a lot with what you just said.
You mention the key d minor.
I've come to the realisation what importance the tonic makes in music (yet
again, and better this time), and realised I allready had a tonal model.
The Drei Equale I've posted I've now seen is almost correct in the key of G
(with a couple of exceptions).
So that means my old method is too prone too error, and I was yet again
wrong with my interpretation (though it got real close to correct JI this
time I think)
I've now rewritten the Drei Equale to be in the key of D. I have not yet had
the time to render it, I'll do that tomorrow (for now I've removed the old
version).
And I also have thought of another new trick to make the key audible I think
everybody will like :)
Oh and btw I'll also remove the Lasso example, as I'm yet to check if that
one'll change to when I look at the key.

A far far better approach, both historically and acoustically, is very
> obvious,
> but why bother showing it to you, when it is obvious that anything that is
> not
> identical (in result) to 5-limit+wolves you'll simply dismiss as "out of
> tune".
> Sad, because Drei Equali happens to have an excellent example of something
> really cool, and very JI indeed.
>

Oh no, theoretically I can't see the Drei Equale work in higher than
5-limit.
But if someone makes a version that sounds correct, I'm not rejecting it.
I'll embrace it and will try to understand it.
But right now I don't think it can be done, but please prove me wrong.
It's for a large part what the whole competition is about.

On 2 April 2010 12:29, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> Okay, quick and dirty (watching Star Trek on mute, with
> subtitles :-) ) apologies sloppiness and for my "bom-bom" tromboney kind of
> sound, LOL.
>
> measures 1-21 of Drei Equali, 7-limit Just. Any critiques of "out of tune"
> must be described as which pitch in which voice where, otherwise any monkey
> can say "out of tune", can't they now.
>

I'd really really love to hear it but I don't see you rendering?
I don't have any attachments with your mail and I don't see a folder of
yours either on MMM.
Can you tell me where I can find your tuning / mp3?

Kind regards,
Marcel

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

🔗prentrodgers <prentrodgers@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

Hi Marcel,

No problems, it's the internet not real life. :-) don't know why you're not seeing my link? Do you only access the group via email or something?

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

>
> I do think it's perfect, but I don't care if it's new.
> Btw I also think this wolf can be in the major chord, making a 1/1 >5/4 40/27
> major.
> My method is not just about these chords but also about when they >occur.
> I'm glad you agree it can work nicely though :)

Have you read old tuning literature? Like, 18th century. It's very interesting and much more wild than contemporary 12-tET based thinking. Check out Tartini's 1714 book- if your can't find it, there are academic articles which quote it extensively, you can find them on JSTOR, university libraries usually have this. Anyway you'll find things you may not have expected.
> >
>
> There are no Pythagorean intervals in my tuning. Except for 27/16 >which I
> consider a normal 5-limit interval, there's never an 81/x or >something like
> that.

Well they sneak in you know- you've got a 32/27 in measure 19 for example, between F# and A. As I said before, each time you shift a syntonic comma from 5-limit, you're bound to get these Pythagorean intervals. Probably better to call them syntonically altered or something, rather than Pythagorean, but there there are.

>
> First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to look at >it, and see
> that it's consistent.

Well I can hear that you're listening for a specific something. Some of the chords you wind up with are bizarre, but they're all bizarre in the same way. So it's no accident. I think you are concentrating on avoiding have the tonic shift.

> As for D minor from C, I only wrote the JI ratios relevant to C (C >as 1/1)
> to make it easy to read.
> Most people are used to seeing JI ratios with C as 1/1.
>
> But.. I've since done more thinking about which rules are at play in
> determining how a chord progression is tuned out of it's many many
> possiblities.
> One of the things that accepting wolfs does it gives a much greater number
> of possiblities for chord progressions, and I've been fighting for a long
> time to find the rules that determine the right path through all of these
> possiblities.

I think the "right path" is an artistic decision. For me the piece is "right" as 7-limit, that is, quarter-comma meantone with performance flexibility. This spreads the commas out into continual adjustments of 2-5 cents.

BTW I sang my example "cold" and without "guide tracks", acappella. It's very sloppy and quick (only did the first 21 measures) but I think a sufficient demonstration that a 7-limit interpretation will work. I challenge you to make slinkier measures 20-21. :-P

> I've now rewritten the Drei Equale to be in the key of D. I have >not yet had
> the time to render it, I'll do that tomorrow (for now I've removed the old
> version).
> And I also have thought of another new trick to make the key audible I think
> everybody will like :)
> Oh and btw I'll also remove the Lasso example, as I'm yet to check if that
> one'll change to when I look at the key.

Groovy, looking forward to it.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Cameron,

Hi Marcel,
>
> No problems, it's the internet not real life. :-)
>

Hehe ok thanks :)

> don't know why you're not seeing my link? Do you only access the group via
> email or something?
>
I found it! Thanks.
My gmail put it (and a few other list messages) under spam grr.

> > I do think it's perfect, but I don't care if it's new.
> > Btw I also think this wolf can be in the major chord, making a 1/1 >5/4
> 40/27
> > major.
> > My method is not just about these chords but also about when they >occur.
> > I'm glad you agree it can work nicely though :)
>
> Have you read old tuning literature? Like, 18th century. It's very
> interesting and much more wild than contemporary 12-tET based thinking.
> Check out Tartini's 1714 book- if your can't find it, there are academic
> articles which quote it extensively, you can find them on JSTOR, university
> libraries usually have this. Anyway you'll find things you may not have
> expected.
>

I've read Rameau's treatise on harmony.
He also references and criticizes theorists that went before him so I know
some about those too.
But I can't agree much with Rameau's thinking or other historic theorists
I've read about.
Besides this, apparently the older theories have not led to a good JI
theory.
I feel like I have to find out things by myself.

> > There are no Pythagorean intervals in my tuning. Except for 27/16 >which
> I
> > consider a normal 5-limit interval, there's never an 81/x or >something
> like
> > that.
>
> Well they sneak in you know- you've got a 32/27 in measure 19 for example,
> between F# and A. As I said before, each time you shift a syntonic comma
> from 5-limit, you're bound to get these Pythagorean intervals. Probably
> better to call them syntonically altered or something, rather than
> Pythagorean, but there there are.
>

Ah yes, but I see those as normal prime-5 limit intervals.
Like for instance the 32/27 between 9/8 and 4/3 in the V7 chord of 3/2 15/8
9/4 8/3
Things start getting pythagorean to me at 81/64 or derivatives of that.

> First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to look at >it, and
> see
> > that it's consistent.
>
> Well I can hear that you're listening for a specific something. Some of the
> chords you wind up with are bizarre, but they're all bizarre in the same
> way. So it's no accident. I think you are concentrating on avoiding have the
> tonic shift.

Well in my old version it's actually a little bit an accident that it
appears there is no tonic shift (although the tonic isn't clear in this
version).
But in the new version, the tonic is indeed the central theme / organizer
and it does not shift.

> As for D minor from C, I only wrote the JI ratios relevant to C (C >as
> 1/1)
> > to make it easy to read.
> > Most people are used to seeing JI ratios with C as 1/1.
> >
> > But.. I've since done more thinking about which rules are at play in
> > determining how a chord progression is tuned out of it's many many
> > possiblities.
> > One of the things that accepting wolfs does it gives a much greater
> number
> > of possiblities for chord progressions, and I've been fighting for a long
> > time to find the rules that determine the right path through all of these
> > possiblities.
>
> I think the "right path" is an artistic decision. For me the piece is
> "right" as 7-limit, that is, quarter-comma meantone with performance
> flexibility. This spreads the commas out into continual adjustments of 2-5
> cents.
>
> BTW I sang my example "cold" and without "guide tracks", acappella. It's
> very sloppy and quick (only did the first 21 measures) but I think a
> sufficient demonstration that a 7-limit interpretation will work. I
> challenge you to make slinkier measures 20-21. :-P

I accept the challenge :)
And I think my new version does it.
Btw I love the bom bom voices :) But is there any way you could put your
tuning in the base midi file on my site?
I can hear the tuning not so clear with the voices, and it actually took me
a second listen to hear that you hit several wrong notes somehwere around
measure 10-12.
With the bare midi file playing, and midi sound I would be able to hear the
tuning much better.

> I've now rewritten the Drei Equale to be in the key of D. I have >not yet
> had
> > the time to render it, I'll do that tomorrow (for now I've removed the
> old
> > version).
> > And I also have thought of another new trick to make the key audible I
> think
> > everybody will like :)
> > Oh and btw I'll also remove the Lasso example, as I'm yet to check if
> that
> > one'll change to when I look at the key.
>
> Groovy, looking forward to it.
>
> -Cameron Bobro

Well I've rendered it now, and it's shocking.
Extremely microtonal sounding throughout the piece unlike any previous
tuning of mine.
I'm allmost done retuning a real trombone quartet aswell with melodyne, I'll
post all files when it's done, hopefully later today otherwise tomorrow.

Marcel

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

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

> > > My method is not just about these chords but also about when >they occur.

This is everyone's method. At least, every performing musician's method in an ensemble piece like Drei Equali, because tuning depends on where you're coming from and where you're going to.

>
> I've read Rameau's treatise on harmony.
> He also references and criticizes theorists that went before him so I know
> some about those too.
> But I can't agree much with Rameau's thinking or other historic >theorists
> I've read about.
> Besides this, apparently the older theories have not led to a good >JI
> theory.
> I feel like I have to find out things by myself.

Well finding things out yourself is great. Still, reading the old literature is vital, even if you disagree with it.

> > Well they sneak in you know- you've got a 32/27 in measure 19 for example,
> > between F# and A. As I said before, each time you shift a syntonic comma
> > from 5-limit, you're bound to get these Pythagorean intervals. Probably
> > better to call them syntonically altered or something, rather than
> > Pythagorean, but there there are.
> >
>
> Ah yes, but I see those as normal prime-5 limit intervals.
> Like for instance the 32/27 between 9/8 and 4/3 in the V7 chord of 3/2 15/8
> 9/4 8/3
> Things start getting pythagorean to me at 81/64 or derivatives of that.

Every time 32/27 is contained within a 3/2, you've got an 81/64 as well. Anyway, you may call them perfect 5-limit JI of course, but everyone else is going to hear them as syntonic comma adjustments, or, as you are getting better at hiding them, "stiff" spots in the piece.

> > > But.. I've since done more thinking about which rules are at play in
> > > determining how a chord progression is tuned out of it's many >many
> > > possiblities.
> > > One of the things that accepting wolfs does it gives a much >greater
> > number
> > > of possiblities for chord progressions, and I've been fighting for a long
> > > time to find the rules that determine the right path through >all of these
> > > possiblities.

They're found in the counterpoint, not the "chords", as you've already discovered.

> I accept the challenge :)
> And I think my new version does it.

Not yet- my measures 20-21 are smoother. :-P Here's your chance to work in the 7 limit! You may not want smooth here, though.

> Btw I love the bom bom voices :) But is there any way you could put >your
> tuning in the base midi file on my site?

Well that would be kind of hard, it's just acappella singing without guide tracks.

> I can hear the tuning not so clear with the voices, and it actually >took me
> a second listen to hear that you hit several wrong notes somehwere >around
> measure 10-12.

But you're latest version has the same "wrong notes". :-) Your earlier version had a couple of pitches a comma different IIRC. But all the same notes.

> With the bare midi file playing, and midi sound I would be able to >hear the
> tuning much better.

I don't use midi pitchbends for tuning, but .scl files, Csound and acoustic instruments.

And there is no midi file of the sketch I made anyway. But, if you sent me your Scala session, just copy-paste it to a text file, I could make a version for you, using the instructions you posted on your site. Most of the intervals are the same as your newest version anyway, it should go quickly.

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <jmagnusj@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <jmagnusj@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗prentrodgers <prentrodgers@...>

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Prent,

I have not tried using MIDI with Csound. It's possible. But so is everything
> with Csound, or so it seems.
>

Ok, too bad would have saved me work :)
I'll have go learn Csound myself as I really want a stable electronic sound
as a reference.
Will also share it on this list once finished, just haven't gotten around to
it yet, too bussy with tuning.

> I could realize your tuning with the McGill trombones if you'd like.
>
Well I'd personally like that, however is it in soundfont format?
Or would you perhaps be willing to share the trombone base samples with me
so I can turn it into a soundfont?
I'm still searching for a good soundfont trombone sound to use with Timidity
and which I can use to render all the entries fir the competition with
besides the real trombones and (csound) synthwave.

I'll study your suggestions tonight. I am especially unhappy with my choices
> if I play each instrument by itself. There are too many goofy note movements
> of which I am sure the maestro LVB would not approve.
>
Yes, to listen to individual voices solo is a good listening aid.
I do it myself to.

Btw, I can give you some easy advice as to how to get rid of all except one
of the wolfs.
Chords 5 - 15, and 61 - 71 are basically the same structure as chords 33 -
43.
You can go low or high with these chords.
To go low without wolfs simply make chord 8:: 10/9 16/9 20/9, and chord 9:
32/27 (and then likely also drop the following 7th in the high melody to
64/27 too), same for chords 61-71 offcourse.
And for chords 33 - 43 drop the 3/2 to 40/27 in chord 41, and in chord 45
make 64/27.
And chord 96, make it 8/9.
Now all wolfs are gone except the one at chord 50, which you can't get rid
of in prime-5-limit without either a comma shifting melody, or by creating
another wolf.
As for the above version without wolfs (except one) I don't like how it
sounds, I don't think it's an improvement over my version at all.

There's one other way to do it in prime-5-limit without wolfs.
That is to go high.
I used to go high myself when I didn't have my theory finished enough to
tell me how to go.
To go high go to 27/10 in chord 7, then a simple I-V-I on 9/5, then 12/5
27/10 3/1 in chords 16-18, and then the way it is allready again.
One can do the same sort of thing in chords 33-43, go high, resulting in
9/10 in the bass before the diminished 7th chord.
Petr Parizek did a good wolfless (one comma shift) version this way which is
pretty good.
But overall I like the high wolfless version less than the low version
without wolfs.

As for 7-limit.
Well, I don't think a 7-limit can sound as right in this song as my 6-limit
tonal-ji version.
And where the possibilities are pretty limited in prime-5-limit without
wolfs, the possibilities are almost endless when going to 7-limit.
I wish you good luck with this, as it'll be impossible to try out all
possiblities. I can't give any advice here.
My advice will be limited in any case I'm afraid, as I personally think my
tonal-ji version is correct in a certain absolute sense (but I do not expect
other people to think so too btw ;) so if you think you can improve it go
ahead)

I did just do a 7-limit version for fun.
I'll quote from my own post on the tuning list:

"
Just for fun I did a little experiment with the drei equale no1.
I interpreted the chords and their position to the root alternatively (in a
crazy and wrong way), to give 7-limit music.
I'm NOT saying this is what it was ment to be (as it clearly isn't) or
anything like that.
And I just did it quickly, and the second half and especially the ending
aren't logical at all even in the crazy interpretation way I should've done
them differently but not putting the time in now.
But anyhow, again just for fun, here it is:

http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%287-limit_test_19-04-2010%29.mid

I think people here will enjoy it :)
Strong 7-limit chords.
"

Happy retuning :)
Marcel

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

Microtonal music

🔗Mike <michael_kspr@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗markallanbarnes <mark.barnes3@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Dave Seidel <dave@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗prentrodgers <prentrodgers@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>