Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic call for compositions (72-equal)

on friday night i met some members of the boston microtonal collective -- a group i was not previously aware of. they consist of a good number of young string players, trombonists, saxophonists, and even a trumpeter who are ready, willing, and able to perform compositions in the sims/maneri 72-equal notation. so far, they have been improvising their way through performances because of the dearth of compositions.

so, joseph, alison, and everyone else who's working in 72-equal, i hope you will help these folks out! i know i will be getting involved -- i may begin by transcribing blackwood's 18-equal etude, and will get a fretless guitar marked for 72-equal once my 12/22/31 fretless bass is done . . .

-paul (currently between studio recording sessions . . . we just used math to determine that a melody in 5/4 would work over a drum solo in 6/4 if we had six repetitions of the former and five of the latter :) )

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2221

> on friday night i met some members of the boston microtonal
collective -- a group i was not previously aware of. they consist of
a good number of young string players, trombonists, saxophonists, and
even a trumpeter who are ready, willing, and able to perform
compositions in the sims/maneri 72-equal notation. so far, they have
been improvising their way through performances because of the dearth
of compositions.
>
> so, joseph, alison, and everyone else who's working in 72-equal, i
hope you will help these folks out! i know i will be getting
involved -- i may begin by transcribing blackwood's 18-equal etude,
and will get a fretless guitar marked for 72-equal once my 12/22/31
fretless bass is done . . .
>
> -paul (currently between studio recording sessions . . . we just
used math to determine that a melody in 5/4 would work over a drum
solo in 6/4 if we had six repetitions of the former and five of the
latter :) )

****Hi Paul!

Please have the trombonist contact me and I will *immediately* send a
copy of my _Blackjack_....

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

On 2/26/02 2:38 PM, "paul@..." <paul@...> wrote:

> on friday night i met some members of the boston microtonal collective -- a
> group i was not previously aware of.

I just assumed you were involved with them because you're in Boston.

:::dead silence:::

Fairly idiotic eh? Just an unconscious cognition, my bane. Actually, I
think someone suggested you were. If it's getting around that I'm "working
with Maneris", any rumour is possible.

I often eat at a diner around the corner from where Wendy Carlos lives but
the only person I ever met there was Tom O'Horgan. Which is just as idiotic
because we both played at Microthon 2000. But I didn't get a chance to meet
him there. But you'd think having only seen the VH1 Behind the Music on
"Hair" about two days before, I would have recognized him sitting two feet
away, but he actually leaned over and got into the conversation I was having
with Angie about bassoons after having talked to Johnny about them earlier
that day. Well there's some symmetry, in May I'm playing at a show where a
Wendy Carlos piece is going to be played. She might not show up. But at
least her music will be able to listen to mine.

Marc

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Paul!
Does that mean they can/will do pieces that involve improvisation?

paul@... wrote:

> on friday night i met some members of the boston microtonal collective -- a group i was not previously aware of. they consist of a good number of young string players, trombonists, saxophonists, and even a trumpeter who are ready, willing, and able to perform compositions in the sims/maneri 72-equal notation. so far, they have been improvising their way through performances because of the dearth of compositions.
>
> so, joseph, alison, and everyone else who's working in 72-equal, i hope you will help these folks out! i know i will be getting involved -- i may begin by transcribing blackwood's 18-equal etude, and will get a fretless guitar marked for 72-equal once my 12/22/31 fretless bass is done . . .
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2237

>
> {Paul wrote...}
> > > >so, joseph, alison, and everyone else who's working in 72-equal
>
> {Joe wrote...}
> >****whoaoooodere..... *Blackjack??* Uh, uh! Only *notated* in
ET! It's
> >*JUST!* :)
>
> I disagree. There's a big philosophical difference at work here.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

****Oh Jon! There's nothing "ET" about _Blackjack_ unless you mean
as in "Twilight Zone..."!

With those tiny 33 cent intervals and big 83 centers, and one
extra "kooky" 33 at the "end..." ??

Sure doesn't seem like an "equal" kind of thingy, at least in *my*
working with it!

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
>wrote:
> >
> > /makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2226
> >
> > > Critical error: "drum solo"
> > >
> >
> > ***Ha! I didn't see that the first time. That's a riot.
> >
> > Jon, you got to correct *Paul* for a change... :)
>
>i'm still not getting this one . . . someone care to relieve me of my
>idiocy?

You're no idiot! I have NOOOOO idea what Joe P saw in it, I was just making a joke about the wisdom of including a drum solo! What next: a *bass* solo??? :)

Gad, how I hated it when my bandmates would turn and say "OK, the next tune we're going to have a drum solo." Like I wanted to listen to myself play or something...

All in fun, and I actually *do* like drum solos - when done in moderation.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul/Joe,

{you wrote...}
>i think jon was just disagreeing with the "it's just" part of what you >said . . .

Exactly. It is quite simple, really: if I want a scale of x number of notes to be JI pitches, I will simply tune them that way. The 'philosophical' point is that even if one says or agrees that 'you can't hear the difference of the note if it is within x number of cents to the true JI ratio' - even if one agrees with that, the difference is still there. It exists. You may not be able to discern it, but you can't say it isn't there.

And if you want the real thing, you build the real thing. You don't build the thing that, for all intents and purposes, looks, smells, and tastes like the real thing.

The Real Thing. *That* is what I like, and that is a philosophical difference.

Either that, or my head is up my ass again! :)

Cheers,
ListMom (in a naughty mood...)

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul/Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >i think jon was just disagreeing with the "it's just" part of what
you
> >said . . .
>
> Exactly. It is quite simple, really: if I want a scale of x number
of notes
> to be JI pitches, I will simply tune them that way.
The 'philosophical'
> point is that even if one says or agrees that 'you can't hear the
> difference of the note if it is within x number of cents to the
true JI
> ratio' - even if one agrees with that, the difference is still
there. It
> exists. You may not be able to discern it, but you can't say it
isn't there.

except when it isn't -- say if we're talking about a choral group who
will end up performing a piece written in blackjack in *adaptive*
ji . . .

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2256

> i agree with jon. blackjack has a larger number of consonant 7-
limit
> chords than any similarly designed 21-tone just scale could have,
> assuming your maximum allowed error is between 3 and 7 cents. the
> just scale would have 'wolves' of 7 cents & over. i think kraig
> preferred the just scale with the 8-cent 'wolves', while joseph
> prefers the tempered scale. definitely a difference.

***I can't see why, if there are *more* Just concordances in it than
even a "Just" scale has, it wouldn't be called "Just??"

That's being a little "dogmatic," isn't it.. woof woof ?? :)

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

On 2/26/02 3:12 PM, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@...> wrote:

> Marc,
>
> {you wrote...}
>> She might not show up. But at least her music will be able to listen to
>> mine.
>
> I don't know why, but that's one of the coolest sentiments I've heard in a
> while!

Yeah whoa I didn't quite realize I said it like that.

That says a lot really. Wendy Carlos is known enough that her music is as
alive as any other famous object. So for just her music to be listening to
mine, I think is also a backwards way of expressing how it must be, in only
my second actual public performance, to be put on the same bill as her. Or
her music rather.

Marc

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

>
> Exactly. It is quite simple, really: if I want a scale of x number of notes
> to be JI pitches, I will simply tune them that way. The 'philosophical'
> point is that even if one says or agrees that 'you can't hear the
> difference of the note if it is within x number of cents to the true JI
> ratio' - even if one agrees with that, the difference is still there. It
> exists. You may not be able to discern it, but you can't say it isn't there.

I can if you can't tune that precisely. The difference between 5-limit
JI and 4296 5-limit harmony is in how you approach making it, not in the sounds you make.

> And if you want the real thing, you build the real thing. You don't build
> the thing that, for all intents and purposes, looks, smells, and tastes
> like the real thing.

I was surprised to discover just how much more harmony a microtemperament like hemiennealimmal adds to the JI universe of the Genesis scale. In practice, that suggests pursuit of the real thing misses out on some real possibilities.

Can you hear philosopy? You *can* hear the extra possibilties of hemiennealimmal, but they are there precisely becasuse they are *not* JI possibilities, and hence in a structural sense, define a non-JI universe. In that sense, you can hear it is not JI, and object to it on those grounds, I suppose.

> The Real Thing. *That* is what I like, and that is a philosophical difference.

Does your liking pass a blind test?

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Gene,

I can pick out, easily, just one of the things I like about you: you are very predictable. For instance, I make a statement about something I like, and you proceed to show me that what I like is a foolish decision, lacking in some critical way. It is heart-warming that you are always looking out for someone like me, who happens to have developed some personal regard for certain musical aspects.

{you wrote...}
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>You may not be able to discern it, but you can't say it isn't there.
>
>I can if you can't tune that precisely.

Gee, we must be talking about all those 4, 5, 6-place decimal calculations.

>The difference between 5-limit JI and 4296 5-limit harmony is in how you >approach making it, not in the sounds you make.

According to you. There is a difference in how you go about setting the whole thing in motion, and obviously that is both of no concern to you, and is not germane to your music making.

> > And if you want the real thing, you build the real thing. You don't build
> > the thing that, for all intents and purposes, looks, smells, and tastes
> > like the real thing.
>
>I was surprised to discover just how much more harmony a microtemperament >like hemiennealimmal adds to the JI universe of the Genesis scale. In >practice, that suggests pursuit of the real thing misses out on some real >possibilities.

"How much more harmony". A. Who says Composer Z wants to write harmonically-based or intricate music? B. Who says there isn't enough harmonic interest in the JI universe for Composer Z's needs?

The world is rife with possibility, and each chooses his own universe of possibilities to work with.

>Can you hear philosopy?

Can you cope with it?

>You *can* hear the extra possibilties of hemiennealimmal, but they are >there precisely becasuse they are *not* JI possibilities

So what??? Let another composer use them!

> > The Real Thing. *That* is what I like, and that is a philosophical > difference.
>
>Does your liking pass a blind test?

Over and over again, you miss the point. And you want to test. And you want to calculate. Why is it not possible for you to allow for personal choice (even if, in your esteemed opinion, it ends up being some minor subset of some grandly large construct with So Many More Opportunities) to exist for others that is different from yours?

Let's say I want a scale of 5 notes, and I want those 5 notes to be in tune, rational pitches. I'll tune them that way. I won't make some large number temperament and pick 5 notes out of it that are so close to those pitches that no one can tell. That seems to me laughable. But if someone else wants to do it because that is the way they like to, fine: I'm happy that they have found a valid and affirming way to work.

Pedantic. Yes, that is the word I was looking for...

Cheers,
Jon (who appreciates the dialogue, in a rather abstract way...)

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>what part don't you understand? monz' dictionary may help as usual . . .

Ahem.

I understand the terms, but not in your way of referencing *my* statement, or the jerry-rigging of the example you put together.

However! I've got to run, traffic is high, and the thread has gotten strung out. I'm interested in your reaction, so let's table it for now, I'll repost with as cogent a question as possible, and you can give your impressions there. Maybe if I isolate to one item we both can get at it better...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2257
>
>
> > You're no idiot! I have NOOOOO idea what Joe P saw in it, I was
> just making a joke about the wisdom of including a drum solo! What
> next: a *bass* solo??? :)
> >
>
>
> ***Well, I thought Paul said that he was "overlayering" something
in
> 5 or so against something in 6 in the "drum solo."
>
> How can it be a "solo" if he's layering something over it??
>
> Just a joke...

hmm . . . well in jazz very often the other instruments will play an
ostinato during the drum solo . . . while a horn solo often has all
the bass, piano, drums, and even guitar actually *improvising* at the
*same time* . . . perhaps there's a different, *classical* definition
of 'solo' you're thinking of . . . (yeah, i think there is) . . .

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

paul@... wrote:

> on friday night i met some members of the boston microtonal
> collective -- a group i was not previously aware of. they consist of a
> good number of young string players, trombonists, saxophonists, and
> even a trumpeter who are ready, willing, and able to perform
> compositions in the sims/maneri 72-equal notation. so far, they have
> been improvising their way through performances because of the dearth
> of compositions.
>
> so, joseph, alison, and everyone else who's working in 72-equal, i
> hope you will help these folks out! i know i will be getting involved
> -- i may begin by transcribing blackwood's 18-equal etude, and will
> get a fretless guitar marked for 72-equal once my 12/22/31 fretless
> bass is done . . .

I'll send a copy of my score when it's finished and I'll include
orchestration suggestions as there are two high voices in my piece.

>
> -paul (currently between studio recording sessions . . . we just used
> math to determine that a melody in 5/4 would work over a drum solo in
> 6/4 if we had six repetitions of the former and five of the latter :)
> )

Even I could have worked that out - : - )

Regards

>
>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2256
>
> > i agree with jon. blackjack has a larger number of consonant 7-
> limit
> > chords than any similarly designed 21-tone just scale could have,
> > assuming your maximum allowed error is between 3 and 7 cents. the
> > just scale would have 'wolves' of 7 cents & over. i think kraig
> > preferred the just scale with the 8-cent 'wolves', while joseph
> > prefers the tempered scale. definitely a difference.
>
>
> ***I can't see why, if there are *more* Just concordances in it
than
> even a "Just" scale has, it wouldn't be called "Just??"
>
> That's being a little "dogmatic," isn't it.. woof woof ?? :)

not if you prefer to have some chords with max. 0 cent errors instead
of 3 cent errors . . .

anyway, some would say that a 7- or 12-tone meantone has more just
concordances than the same number of notes in just intonation (yes,
some would). but in the latter context, just intonation specifically
refers to tunings where 81:80 is not tempered out, and remains about
21.5 cents. this latter definition of just intontation is very
important, perhaps the most important one, if you take the entire
history of the term 'just intonation' into account.

yes, this whole definitional business is really confusing, and so
very many 'dogmas' come into play . . . so i avoid the whole 'just'
label as much as i can . . .

i like wendy carlos' use of 'super-just' to describe a harmonic
series transposed to all the fundamentals of 12-tone equal
temperament. perhaps something similar could be apropos for
blackjack . . . perhaps 'hyper-just' . . . ? (shoot me now)

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
>
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2324
>
> > I was surprised to discover just how much more harmony a
> microtemperament like hemiennealimmal adds to the JI universe of
the
> Genesis scale. In practice, that suggests pursuit of the real thing
> misses out on some real possibilities.
> >
>
> ***I would vote that, however you do it, if you add *more
Justness*
> to "just plain Justness" you get *even MORE Justness* not less... :)
>
> jp

i think it's important that gene, along with dave keenan, graham
breed, and others, begin to publish their discoveries in these areas.
these ideas, which i tend to refer to as the 'middle path' (since
usually neither equal temperament nor just intonation [ri] are
meant), are vastly underappreciated by the tuning world. you can see
this deficit at work already in most basic theory texts you can pull
off the shelf -- they mention pythagorean, just intonation, and 12-
equal, and that's it -- no meantone. this is totally perverse! at
least kyle gann gets it right here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html

kyle describes meantone as 'europe's most successful tuning, if
endurance can be equated with success.' no s**t!

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2373

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
> wrote:
> >
> > /makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2257
> >
> >
> > > You're no idiot! I have NOOOOO idea what Joe P saw in it, I was
> > just making a joke about the wisdom of including a drum solo!
What
> > next: a *bass* solo??? :)
> > >
> >
> >
> > ***Well, I thought Paul said that he was "overlayering" something
> in
> > 5 or so against something in 6 in the "drum solo."
> >
> > How can it be a "solo" if he's layering something over it??
> >
> > Just a joke...
>
> hmm . . . well in jazz very often the other instruments will play
an
> ostinato during the drum solo . . . while a horn solo often has all
> the bass, piano, drums, and even guitar actually *improvising* at
the
> *same time* . . . perhaps there's a different, *classical*
definition
> of 'solo' you're thinking of . . . (yeah, i think there is) . . .

***Yes, that's right, Paul. It was only a little joke, coming from
*my* direction, but I understand things are done differently in
jazz...

best,

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Let's say I want a scale of 5 notes, and I want those 5 notes to be
in
> tune, rational pitches. I'll tune them that way.

ok, let's say we're talking about 1/1 9/8 5/4 3/2 5/3.

> I won't make some large
> number temperament

large number temperaments are not the issue. neither miracle, nor
meantone, nor hemiennealimmal have any number of notes associated
with them. just a single generating interval, and a period.

> and pick 5 notes out of it that are so close to those
> pitches that no one can tell. That seems to me laughable.

that's not what gene was talking about at all. the analogy here would
be to take the 5 note scale above and tune it in meantone. that way
the '5/3' and the '9/8' become consonant with one another, while all
the consonances that were there already are preserved.

this is not only not laughable, but is the basis of western tuning
practice for most of its history (see the kyle gann link if you wish).

as a composer, you're free to take it or leave it (and by golly, i
don't know where you get off accusing gene of assuming composer z
will choose option b over option a), but don't you dare laugh at it.

it's amazing how stupid you can paint people, jon.

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>ok, let's say we're talking about 1/1 9/8 5/4 3/2 5/3.

Fine. Works for me. No need to look further...

> > I won't make some large
> > number temperament
>
>large number temperaments are not the issue.

Bad use of the language on my part: I meant a large number of pitches generated in some fashion...

> > and pick 5 notes out of it that are so close to those
> > pitches that no one can tell. That seems to me laughable.
>
>that's not what gene was talking about at all. the analogy here would
>be to take the 5 note scale above and tune it in meantone. that way
>the '5/3' and the '9/8' become consonant with one another, while all
>the consonances that were there already are preserved.

Wait a minute: I picked the five pitches for my particular musical reasons. I may not want it "tuned in meantone". At the bottom of all of these discussions, I suppose, this is what I constantly wonder about: why do you - or anyone - feel that those five pitches need to be improved upon for someone else's music?

>this is not only not laughable, but is the basis of western tuning >practice for most of its history (see the kyle gann link if you wish).

What if I want to do something different? It is my non-comprehension of someone wanting to make my choice for me, or constantly want to tweak my choice, that I find "laughable". And not in an ugly way, simply that it has gone on for so long that I can only laugh to ease the craziness.

>as a composer, you're free to take it or leave it (and by golly, i don't >know where you get off accusing gene of assuming composer z will choose >option b over option a), but don't you dare laugh at it.

See above. And if I'm free to take it or leave it, why is there always the chorus of "no, you should do it *this* way"? You, or anyone, could certainly paint the positives of those choices without the good, better, best implications!

>it's amazing how stupid you can paint people, jon.

Well, Paul, if it comes off that way then I assure you, the only one looking stupid is me. And I have all my good friends to let me know about it, don't I?

Cheers,
Jon (who assumes that your message was for my benefit, and I'm not upset about it...)

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >ok, let's say we're talking about 1/1 9/8 5/4 3/2 5/3.
>
> Fine. Works for me. No need to look further...
>
> > > I won't make some large
> > > number temperament
> >
> >large number temperaments are not the issue.
>
> Bad use of the language on my part: I meant a large number of
pitches
> generated in some fashion...

fine -- i meant a large number of pitches is not the issue.

> > > and pick 5 notes out of it that are so close to those
> > > pitches that no one can tell. That seems to me laughable.
> >
> >that's not what gene was talking about at all. the analogy here
would
> >be to take the 5 note scale above and tune it in meantone. that way
> >the '5/3' and the '9/8' become consonant with one another, while
all
> >the consonances that were there already are preserved.
>
> Wait a minute: I picked the five pitches for my particular musical
reasons.
> I may not want it "tuned in meantone".

no one is saying you should!

> At the bottom of all of these
> discussions, I suppose, this is what I constantly wonder about: why
do you
> - or anyone - feel that those five pitches need to be improved upon
for
> someone else's music?

i don't, and i haven't seen anyone try to impose such a view on
others. is merely suggesting it to people who may not have thought of
it themselves (i don't think i could have), so that they can make up
their own minds, such a crime?

you'll probably insist that there's a certain 'tone' that certain
people take when discussing these matters, etc. etc. . . . well, i
think that just reflects your own bias, and i personally feel that
that 'tone' sounds like a teddy bear compared with the 'red meat' bit
and all the polemical bs on the other side of the issue.

> >this is not only not laughable, but is the basis of western tuning
> >practice for most of its history (see the kyle gann link if you
wish).
>
> What if I want to do something different?

then do it!

> It is my non-comprehension of
> someone wanting to make my choice for me, or constantly want to
tweak my
> choice, that I find "laughable".

that's not what you said. look again.

why is merely suggesting a tuning that could, may, might be an
_audible_ improvement, for some composers, based on certain
historically well-established criteria, 'laughable', while insisting
on distinctions based on _inaudible_ criteria 'philosophical'? if
you'd prefer to make your music based on inaudible criteria, fine,
but don't laugh at those who are actually concerned with what is
*heard*.

> >as a composer, you're free to take it or leave it (and by golly, i
don't
> >know where you get off accusing gene of assuming composer z will
choose
> >option b over option a), but don't you dare laugh at it.
>
> See above. And if I'm free to take it or leave it, why is there
always the
> chorus of "no, you should do it *this* way"?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

really, now . . . 'always'?

if you wish, let's take this off-list and examine gene's post that
you found so 'predictable' . . . my impression is that you read every
word of it through highly, HIGHLY prejudicial glasses, filtering out
most of its actual content entirely, and the only thing predictable
was your response to anything by someone named gene.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I can pick out, easily, just one of the things I like about you: you are
> very predictable. For instance, I make a statement about something I like,
> and you proceed to show me that what I like is a foolish decision, lacking
> in some critical way.

Actually, I think you are more predictable, since you decided not to like what I said, despite my pointing out a possible logical route to your preferred position by looking at the structural aspects of harmony and not just the vertical ones. Since your preference can't be defended on vertical grounds, it needs something else, and here is one possibility.

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > I can pick out, easily, just one of the things I like about you:
you are
> > very predictable. For instance, I make a statement about
something I like,
> > and you proceed to show me that what I like is a foolish
decision, lacking
> > in some critical way.
>
> Actually, I think you are more predictable, since you decided not
>to like what I said, despite my pointing out a possible logical
>route to your preferred position by looking at the structural
>aspects of harmony and not just the vertical ones. Since your
>preference can't be defended on vertical grounds, it needs something
>else, and here is one possibility.

absolutely.

i think this discussion needs to move somewhere else, as it's an
important and fascinating one.

and i truly believe the individuals involved are wonderful human
beings with the best of intentions. i hope they come to see these
qualities in one another, as i have in them.

ok folks, let's get back to Making Microtonal Music!

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> if you wish, let's take this off-list and examine gene's post that
> you found so 'predictable' . . . my impression is that you read every
> word of it through highly, HIGHLY prejudicial glasses, filtering out
> most of its actual content entirely, and the only thing predictable
> was your response to anything by someone named gene.

The particular point which is not at all well known is the extent to which microtemperaments, by making extremely and in fact inaudibly slight adjustments to large JI scales such as Genesis increase can vastly increase its harmonic resources. This really did surprise me, and still does. I should examine it in greater detail, I think.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Hello Gene!
Many of us JI people would rather use a more complicated ratio at times than to have them all slightly complicated. I have a great love of the 32/21 and the 27/20 of allowing me to do things that you cant if all your fifths are near good, It is also structurally useful in that it helps define where you are in the whole, allowing
transposition of materials that are unsettled, pushing the music along to continue.
Philosophically there is a great "poetic" beauty is using pure ratios that a former poster (sadly missed) brought up.

genewardsmith wrote:

> The particular point which is not at all well known is the extent to which microtemperaments, by making extremely and in fact inaudibly slight adjustments to large JI scales such as Genesis increase can vastly increase its harmonic resources. This really did surprise me, and still does. I should examine it in greater detail, I think.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2221.html#2417

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > if you wish, let's take this off-list and examine gene's post
that
> > you found so 'predictable' . . . my impression is that you read
every
> > word of it through highly, HIGHLY prejudicial glasses, filtering
out
> > most of its actual content entirely, and the only thing
predictable
> > was your response to anything by someone named gene.
>
> The particular point which is not at all well known is the extent
to which microtemperaments, by making extremely and in fact inaudibly
slight adjustments to large JI scales such as Genesis increase can
vastly increase its harmonic resources. This really did surprise me,
and still does. I should examine it in greater detail, I think.

****Wasn't this, Gene, what Dave Keenan was concerned about let's say
a year ago?? Maybe it was before you came on the lists...

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Many of us JI people would rather use a more complicated ratio at times than to have them all slightly complicated. I have a great love of the 32/21 and the 27/20 of allowing me to do things that you cant if all your fifths are near good,

32/21 is 3/2 raised by a septimal comma, and 27/20 4/3 raised by a Didymus comma. In the 41, 46, 53 or 58 ets, these both are one step, and the effects in question would be quite natural to them. Similar comments apply to larger ets, such as 72.

> > The particular point which is not at all well known is the extent to which microtemperaments, by making extremely and in fact inaudibly slight adjustments to large JI scales such as Genesis increase can vastly increase its harmonic resources. This really did surprise me, and still does. I should examine it in greater detail, I think.

I rechecked my calculations, because this did seem weird, and it seems I've exaggerated. We do get "extra" harmonic resources (quite a lot more, for instance, in 72 et) but the microtemperaments aren't doing so much better. Jon can rest easy. :)

call for compositions (72-equal)

🔗paul@...

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>