Any suggestions for converting an electric to micro?

I just purchased a used Fender Squire strat copy ($60) in order to make a microtonal electric. My intent is to use the Dante Rosati method of super gluing wire to use as frets. (Which I found out about via Andrew Heathwaite)

So does anyone have any suggestions - and one thing I need to find is the microtonal guitar fret placement calculator.

Thanks,

Chris

PS - anyone know anything about this reference from the evil wikipedia?

In order to perfectly solve all intonation problems of guitars; or allow guitarists to use a variety of different musical temperaments (or to play microtonal music) it is necessary for the frets on the guitar to be adjustable. Work in this field has already been done in the 19th century, when Thomas Perronet Thompson (1783–1869) wrote a work on the "Enharmonic Guitar"[30], with ideas which were used by Panormo[31]. Lacote also built a "guitare enharmonique"[32] with movable frets.

PPS - here is the guitar

http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=401&t=1

Just get Ron Sword to refret it to 22-ET. Done. Why mess
around with wire, etc?

-Carl

At 04:38 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>I just purchased a used Fender Squire strat copy ($60) in order to
>make a microtonal electric. My intent is to use the Dante Rosati
>method of super gluing wire to use as frets. (Which I found out about
>via Andrew Heathwaite)
>
>So does anyone have any suggestions - and one thing I need to find is
>the microtonal guitar fret placement calculator.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Chris
>
>PS - anyone know anything about this reference from the evil wikipedia?
>
>In order to perfectly solve all intonation problems of guitars; or
>allow guitarists to use a variety of different musical temperaments
>(or to play microtonal music) it is necessary for the frets on the
>guitar to be adjustable. Work in this field has already been done in
>the 19th century, when Thomas Perronet Thompson (1783­1869) wrote a
>work on the "Enharmonic Guitar"[30], with ideas which were used by
>Panormo[31]. Lacote also built a "guitare enharmonique"[32] with
>movable frets.
>
>PPS - here is the guitar
>
>http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=401&t=1
>
>

$$$$ is the issue.

I can't expect Ron to work for free.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Just get Ron Sword to refret it to 22-ET. Done. Why mess
> around with wire, etc?
>
> -Carl
>
>
> At 04:38 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
> >I just purchased a used Fender Squire strat copy ($60) in order to
> >make a microtonal electric. My intent is to use the Dante Rosati
> >method of super gluing wire to use as frets. (Which I found out about
> >via Andrew Heathwaite)
> >
> >So does anyone have any suggestions - and one thing I need to find is
> >the microtonal guitar fret placement calculator.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >PS - anyone know anything about this reference from the evil wikipedia?
> >
> >In order to perfectly solve all intonation problems of guitars; or
> >allow guitarists to use a variety of different musical temperaments
> >(or to play microtonal music) it is necessary for the frets on the
> >guitar to be adjustable. Work in this field has already been done in
> >the 19th century, when Thomas Perronet Thompson (1783�1869) wrote a
> >work on the "Enharmonic Guitar"[30], with ideas which were used by
> >Panormo[31]. Lacote also built a "guitare enharmonique"[32] with
> >movable frets.
> >
> >PPS - here is the guitar
> >
> >http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=401&t=1
> >
> >
>
>
>

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

Chris wrote:

>$$$$ is the issue.
>
>I can't expect Ron to work for free.

Ah, well I think his rates are pretty reasonable, but I don't
remember them off the top of my head. You might want to ask him
just to be sure. Even on a $60 axe, real frets are going to be
better than glued-ons. I can't find Dante's page at the moment,
but my recollection is that he's only done classical guitars.
Strat actions tend to be pretty low... is there room, or are you
planning to route out, or...?

-Carl

I plan to experiment and work it out.

When I decide on a fretting scheme I really like I will then save up the
money for an proper axe from Ron.
But I can't see soaking hundreds of $$$ into a guitar I bought for $60.

And yes, I inquired as to his rates. Very reasonable for a top notch pro
luthier.

Strat actions are adjustable. Thus why I didn't go acoustic. Though a 17 edo
classical would rock.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> >$$$$ is the issue.
> >
> >I can't expect Ron to work for free.
>
> Ah, well I think his rates are pretty reasonable, but I don't
> remember them off the top of my head. You might want to ask him
> just to be sure. Even on a $60 axe, real frets are going to be
> better than glued-ons. I can't find Dante's page at the moment,
> but my recollection is that he's only done classical guitars.
> Strat actions tend to be pretty low... is there room, or are you
> planning to route out, or...?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> I plan to experiment and work it out.
>
> When I decide on a fretting scheme I really like I will then save up the
> money for an proper axe from Ron.
> But I can't see soaking hundreds of $$$ into a guitar I bought for $60.
>
> And yes, I inquired as to his rates. Very reasonable for a top notch pro
> luthier.
>
> Strat actions are adjustable. Thus why I didn't go acoustic. Though a 17 edo
> classical would rock.

What are you going to try? 22-edo? I think once I stop having an
anxiety attack over the ridiculously wide fifths I'll do that next.

-Mike

I'm thinking 17 edo first. Its is not too dramatic from 12.

This may take a couple or three months to complete. As everyone else
there are other irons in the fire as well.

But 22 is beautiful as well!

Chris

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
>
> What are you going to try? 22-edo? I think once I stop having an
> anxiety attack over the ridiculously wide fifths I'll do that next.
>
> -Mike
>

Gotcha. Without dissing the wire idea, which could produce fine
results I'm sure, you might consider doing a regular refret yourself.
It's not all that hard. I've posted John Starrett's howto in the
files section:

/makemicromusic/files/carl/

-Carl

At 05:08 PM 6/8/2010, Chris wrote:

>I plan to experiment and work it out.
>
>When I decide on a fretting scheme I really like I will then save up the
>money for an proper axe from Ron.
>But I can't see soaking hundreds of $$$ into a guitar I bought for $60.
>
>And yes, I inquired as to his rates. Very reasonable for a top notch pro
>luthier.
>
>Strat actions are adjustable. Thus why I didn't go acoustic. Though a 17 edo
>classical would rock.

Don't forget 19 in the 'not too dramatic from 12' dept.

17 is great for melody, I find, but not that great for harmony.

-Carl

At 05:19 PM 6/8/2010, Chris wrote:

>I'm thinking 17 edo first. Its is not too dramatic from 12.
>
>This may take a couple or three months to complete. As everyone else
>there are other irons in the fire as well.
>
>But 22 is beautiful as well!
>
>Chris
>

Well, I do want something that is xenharmonic "forcing" - so I'm
thinking  I'd go to 22 actually instead of 19.

Now this is the opinion of someone who hasn't had a real micro axe in
my hands so that may all change.

I do think that beyond 22 may be too much for me to deal with - again
I don't know for a fact which is why I'm going to experiment.

My expectations is that real guitar will allow for more expression
than my GR-20 - no matter how much I love that bird.

Chris

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't forget 19 in the 'not too dramatic from 12' dept.
>
> 17 is great for melody, I find, but not that great for harmony.
>
> -Carl
>

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I do want something that is xenharmonic "forcing" - so I'm
> thinking  I'd go to 22 actually instead of 19.
>
> Now this is the opinion of someone who hasn't had a real micro axe in
> my hands so that may all change.
>
> I do think that beyond 22 may be too much for me to deal with - again
> I don't know for a fact which is why I'm going to experiment.
>
> My expectations is that real guitar will allow for more expression
> than my GR-20 - no matter how much I love that bird.
>
> Chris

Have you considered Bohlen-Pierce? The next guitar I refret is going
to be that. It's an amazingly beautiful tuning, and the frets are
actually wider than 12-tet, so you aren't going to run into
playability issues at high octaves. I mean tritaves. Furthermore, if
you're really clever, you can get octaves with it anyway, by how you
tune the strings.

-Mike

Chris wrote:

>Well, I do want something that is xenharmonic "forcing" - so I'm
>thinking I'd go to 22 actually instead of 19.

There's plenty of crazy stuff in 19, like hanson and so on, but
22 certainly is more forcing. You also get a lot more 7- and
11-limit for a paltry 3 extra notes. In my view, 22 is the
xenharmonic guitar tuning to beat.

>I do think that beyond 22 may be too much for me to deal with - again
>I don't know for a fact which is why I'm going to experiment.

It really depends on the style of playing but for what I'd consider
'normal' guitar work (no such thing exists but work with me here),
26 or 27 (at standard scale length) is around where things start
getting worse instead of better. Neil has done great work with
his 34-tone axes, and Eduardo Sabat-Girabaldi (after whom giribaldi
temperament is named) had a school of 53-tone guitarists in. But
the playing in those cases tended to have a bit less polyphony
than 'normal'.

>My expectations is that real guitar will allow for more expression
>than my GR-20 - no matter how much I love that bird.

Definitely.

-Carl

17 is very "unforcing" as far as xenharmonicity goes, on guitar anyway. With the exception of its neutral intervals, it feels like just a kinda more "rough" 12-tone, i.e. major and minor chords sound less "smooth" and "resolved". Unless you like the neutral stuff or are okay getting repeatedly sucked back into diatonic patterns, I'd recommend staying away from 17 on a guitar.

My strong, STRONG recommendation is to compare tunings by their scalar structures (MOS scales especially), NOT just their harmonic properties. Compared to 17, 19 actually has more interesting alternative tonal structures, IMHO, even though it has a rep for being "not very different from 12". Take a minute to work out the various MOS scales (and their harmonic properties) in both 19 and 17 and I think you'll agree. I particularly like 19's "augmented second"-based MOS at 9 notes, coming out to LsLsLsLsL...really xenharmonic, yet you still have 7 out of 9 triads with perfect fifths. Gives you access to the "third-tone" quality of 19 as well.

I still think 23 gives the most xenharmonic bang for the buck, but the lack of a fifth really throws people off. MOS-wise, though, it's LOADED with the "xenest of the xen": the LLsLLsLs scale from 13 and 18 (Father?), the LsLsLsLsL scale from 14 and 19 (Beep?), the LLLsLLLLs scale from 16 (Mavila?), the LssLsLs scale from 10 and 17 (Beatles/Mohajira?)...not to mention Herman Miller's "Superpelog" scale. And in fact most of its intervals are very near-Just, and can sound very smooth when approached with understanding (instead of trying to shoe-horn it into common-practice). But hey, it's probably also not a good place to start your xenguitar journey, either. Even I'm still a bit intimidated by it.

Anyway...yeah, I'd suggest 19 over 17, and maybe even over 22. 22 looks the best harmonically, but MOS/temperament-wise, it's somewhat poor. Beyond Erlich's Pajara decatonics, Orwell, and Porcupine, it's not got much going for it in b $10-note MOS scales. I am telling you this because my biggest regret in all the time and money I've put into microtonal guitars is that for the first several guitars I had made, I chose tunings based on harmonic properties instead of based on the alternative tonal structures they made possible. Maybe it's because I'm intimidated by chromaticism in general and prefer the rigidity of MOS scales, and maybe you're different. But this is what I've experienced.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I do want something that is xenharmonic "forcing" - so I'm
> thinking  I'd go to 22 actually instead of 19.
>
> Now this is the opinion of someone who hasn't had a real micro axe in
> my hands so that may all change.
>
> I do think that beyond 22 may be too much for me to deal with - again
> I don't know for a fact which is why I'm going to experiment.
>
> My expectations is that real guitar will allow for more expression
> than my GR-20 - no matter how much I love that bird.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't forget 19 in the 'not too dramatic from 12' dept.
> >
> > 17 is great for melody, I find, but not that great for harmony.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>

Hi Igs,

Mike Battaglia suggested going to BP. And seeing what Elaine does with it -
there is a compelling argument if I ever heard one.

All of the tuning theory you stated is still pretty much beyond me - I can
say though that I'm ok with chromaticism, though that is hardly used in a
rock idiom.

Perhaps the best thing to do is continue my tuning survey - which of course
dovetails into this purchase.

Chris

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:08 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> 17 is very "unforcing" as far as xenharmonicity goes, on guitar anyway.
> With the exception of its neutral intervals, it feels like just a kinda more
> "rough" 12-tone, i.e. major and minor chords sound less "smooth" and
> "resolved". Unless you like the neutral stuff or are okay getting repeatedly
> sucked back into diatonic patterns, I'd recommend staying away from 17 on a
> guitar.
>
> My strong, STRONG recommendation is to compare tunings by their scalar
> structures (MOS scales especially), NOT just their harmonic properties.
> Compared to 17, 19 actually has more interesting alternative tonal
> structures, IMHO, even though it has a rep for being "not very different
> from 12". Take a minute to work out the various MOS scales (and their
> harmonic properties) in both 19 and 17 and I think you'll agree. I
> particularly like 19's "augmented second"-based MOS at 9 notes, coming out
> to LsLsLsLsL...really xenharmonic, yet you still have 7 out of 9 triads with
> perfect fifths. Gives you access to the "third-tone" quality of 19 as well.
>
> I still think 23 gives the most xenharmonic bang for the buck, but the lack
> of a fifth really throws people off. MOS-wise, though, it's LOADED with the
> "xenest of the xen": the LLsLLsLs scale from 13 and 18 (Father?), the
> LsLsLsLsL scale from 14 and 19 (Beep?), the LLLsLLLLs scale from 16
> (Mavila?), the LssLsLs scale from 10 and 17 (Beatles/Mohajira?)...not to
> mention Herman Miller's "Superpelog" scale. And in fact most of its
> intervals are very near-Just, and can sound very smooth when approached with
> understanding (instead of trying to shoe-horn it into common-practice). But
> hey, it's probably also not a good place to start your xenguitar journey,
> either. Even I'm still a bit intimidated by it.
>
> Anyway...yeah, I'd suggest 19 over 17, and maybe even over 22. 22 looks the
> best harmonically, but MOS/temperament-wise, it's somewhat poor. Beyond
> Erlich's Pajara decatonics, Orwell, and Porcupine, it's not got much going
> for it in b $10-note MOS scales. I am telling you this because my
> biggest regret in all the time and money I've put into microtonal guitars is
> that for the first several guitars I had made, I chose tunings based on
> harmonic properties instead of based on the alternative tonal structures
> they made possible. Maybe it's because I'm intimidated by chromaticism in
> general and prefer the rigidity of MOS scales, and maybe you're different.
> But this is what I've experienced.
>
> -Igs
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I do want something that is xenharmonic "forcing" - so I'm
> > thinking I'd go to 22 actually instead of 19.
> >
> > Now this is the opinion of someone who hasn't had a real micro axe in
> > my hands so that may all change.
> >
> > I do think that beyond 22 may be too much for me to deal with - again
> > I don't know for a fact which is why I'm going to experiment.
> >
> > My expectations is that real guitar will allow for more expression
> > than my GR-20 - no matter how much I love that bird.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't forget 19 in the 'not too dramatic from 12' dept.
> > >
> > > 17 is great for melody, I find, but not that great for harmony.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> > >
> >
>
>
>

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

At 08:08 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:

>Anyway...yeah, I'd suggest 19 over 17, and maybe even over 22. 22
>looks the best harmonically, but MOS/temperament-wise, it's somewhat
>poor. Beyond Erlich's Pajara decatonics, Orwell, and Porcupine, it's
>not got much going for it

Don't forget magic. Also, it's worth noting that porcupine may be
the best 5-limit system after meantone. There's also superpyth,
and a few others I'm forgetting.

-Carl

Hi Chris,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> All of the tuning theory you stated is still pretty much beyond me - I can
> say though that I'm ok with chromaticism, though that is hardly used in a
> rock idiom.

Wow, what tuning theory did I state that was beyond you? I thought MOS scales were a pretty entry-level concept, but maybe you entered by a different door than I did. I'd be happy to clarify, if you're curious. It's simple theory that I can explain in probably less than a paragraph. Unless you're perfectly familiar with MOS scales and it was that ascii mess that threw you off, the random characters that displayed when I tried to type in a "less than or equal to" symbol.

> Perhaps the best thing to do is continue my tuning survey - which of course
> dovetails into this purchase.

Definitely. But it might help you to delve a little into the theory behind the scales you explore to get a better understanding of how they relate to each other and to various EDOs.

-Igs

On 9 June 2010 04:27, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> Gotcha.  Without dissing the wire idea, which could produce fine
> results I'm sure, you might consider doing a regular refret yourself.
> It's not all that hard.  I've posted John Starrett's howto in the
> files section:
>
> /makemicromusic/files/carl/

It may not be that hard if you have the right tools and know what
you're doing. It isn't that easy either. After trying it once, I'll
leave it to a professional next time.

Tying on fishing line is very easy. The only tool you need is a
penknife, for cutting it, and pulling the old frets out. It doesn't
work very well, but that's life. I'm sure thicker line would be
better. (80lbs, which would be 40kg, doesn't sound that much. But I
don't remember what I had.) Also a more even surface to the
fretboard. As the guitar in question's more expensive than the one I
played with maybe it's worth doing a better job, but the fishing
line's still great for trying out frettings.

About these curved fretboards: when I refretted my strat copy I had to
put the frets in flat. I was using a coping saw instead of a proper
fretsaw, which may have been the problem. But the slots were too wide
and so the frets didn't bend. The result is still a lot better than
the cheap guitar with fishing line.

Graham