Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Fwd: Re: some personal revelation experiences with "atonal" or other complex harmony in JI (Feldman & Messiaen)

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
--- In tuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:
> I suppose a lot of this will be obvious to many on this list, but
others
> may find points of empathy, and/or interest.
>
>
> A while ago, I posted this String Orc piece on metatuning:
>
> http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/sounds/medit.c.mp3
>
> Paul Erlich remarked:
> >this sounds
> > like it would be
> > exceptionally well-suited to a john
> > delaubenfels adaptive tuning
> > treatment, run in 19-limit otonal mode . . .
>
>
> I at first was skeptical about this idea, since it had seemed to me
up to
> then that atonality (or what I had thought of as "atonality) was
really
> not suited to be "converted" or even composed originally, in JI.
JI
> seemed to be a wholly "tonal" basis for composition. I figured
atonality
> was best suited for an ET. This was based on some (obviously very
> spotty) experiments I had done.
>
> But after doing some more recent experiements, I've completely
changed my
> mind.
>
> I mentioned, for example, that tuning up the set "014" (in forte's
> set-theory notation) seemed pointless---- 1/1: 16/15 : 5/4 just
didn't
> seem that exciting. This is the kind of thing I had tried in my
initial
> experiments.
>
> Paul suggested 16:17:20 (I believe)

yes.

> , and I thought about this. The
> most powerful aural experiences I had had with JI were when I could
really
> hear the caressing "buzz" of partials locking in together.

i think it's really the 'locking' of the combinational tones and the
virtual pitch, produced by the fundamentals and the partials, not
the 'locking' of the partials themselves. for if it were, a utonal
chord like 1/(16:17:20) would lock just as well -- it doesn't.

>
> so anyway, I took one of the chords from my string orc piece, namely
>
> Eb3, G3, Bb3, F4, A4, E5, F#5.
>
> (4=middle C octave.)
>
> I tried to make every tone an overtone of Eb. Hence,
>
> 4:5:6:9:11:17:19
>
> It worked!! It totally locked in. by ear, I could tell that this
is what
> I was trying to achieve in 12Tet.

cool! just as i suspected.

> In fact, I realized that in spacing out all the chords in this
piece, I
> was just composing out selections of the overtone series, often with
> (seemingly random) higher overtones (i.e. 13+)!! It was a
depressing and
> cool revelation at the same time!! I thought I had some sort of
unique
> sense of harmony, but no, I'm just an overtone guy!!

i'm glad i intuited your compositional motives correctly.

> fun fun fun. more experiments. more music. yay.

so glad i could push you in this direction, which is so different
from my own interests. i no longer feel like i'm wasting my time on
this list.
--- End forwarded message ---

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>you may note that that message was forwarded from the tuning list -- it >was not written on *this* list.

Totally confusing - there is no way to look at the headers and know *where* it is from, even if one *were* to notice that it was forwarded. Be very careful when forwarding or cross-posting in these situations (not that *this* one caused a problem, but in a touchy subject area a slip like this can wreak unintended yuckiness...)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

On 2/27/02 3:44 AM, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why Paul thinks he might be wasting his time on
> any of these lists.
>

Not answering for Paul.

I think it maybe gets tedious considering the amount of time it actually
takes to exchange complete ideas. Lately, as I've just gotten back into
posting frequently again. Now I'm thinking, it alleviates a little of the
alienation, brought about by moving through the microtonal realm, by
communicating with similar brainforms. Without that kind of attitude
though, I only saw it as eating my time up and taking away from research,
writing and production in general. But it seems like about 80 percent of
the things I've come up with theory wise, by staying in my sterile vacuum
and banging my head against the wall, are nearly identical to what everyone
else winds up doing. Including everyone who's been in their own vacuum.
Like what I just posted to Tuning about having thought of the "v ^"
inflection for syntonic commas in notation. It's not even a matter of who's
idea anything is or who thought of something first, I just think it's
amazing sometimes when people think of exactly the same things I have in
exactly the same way. Makes it seem like we're maybe all converging to one
overall vision. Or at least identical separate visions. :X

I just worry more in terms of wasting everyone else's time by not being sure
what I'm talking about sometimes.

Marc

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

>But it seems like about 80 percent of
> the things I've come up with theory wise, by staying in my sterile vacuum
> and banging my head against the wall, are nearly identical to what everyone
> else winds up doing. Including everyone who's been in their own vacuum.

There's a lot of truth in that, but there's another aspect--getting in contact with other people suggests problems you would not have come up with on our own, and directions to take which *will* be genuinely new.

> I just worry more in terms of wasting everyone else's time by not being sure
> what I'm talking about sometimes.

I usually just fire away anyway. I figure it's self-correcting. :)

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@...>

On 2/27/02 4:05 AM, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
>> But it seems like about 80 percent of the things I've come up with theory
>> wise, by staying in my sterile vacuum and banging my head against the wall,
>> are nearly identical to what everyone else winds up doing. Including
>> everyone who's been in their own vacuum.
>>
> There's a lot of truth in that, but there's another aspect--getting in contact
> with other people suggests problems you would not have come up with on our
> own, and directions to take which *will* be genuinely new.
>

Yeah really. It's a combination of seeing people go through things and
being able to just page through the development without really having to
think about it, plus there's plenty of times when people's high level
temperament and harmonic MATHEMATICAL TYPOS are corrected.

I remember a certain 8 months where the whole bunch of us thought that 31
plus 34 was 67 because someone "said so." We won't talk about that though.

>> I just worry more in terms of wasting everyone else's time by not being sure
>> what I'm talking about sometimes.
>>
> I usually just fire away anyway. I figure it's self-correcting. :)
>

Yeah even better :) I think this year I'll be heading more that way.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_2263.html#2329

wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
> >But it seems like about 80 percent of
> > the things I've come up with theory wise, by staying in my
sterile vacuum
> > and banging my head against the wall, are nearly identical to
what everyone
> > else winds up doing. Including everyone who's been in their own
vacuum.
>
> There's a lot of truth in that, but there's another aspect--getting
in contact with other people suggests problems you would not have
come up with on our own, and directions to take which *will* be
genuinely new.
>
> > I just worry more in terms of wasting everyone else's time by not
being sure
> > what I'm talking about sometimes.
>
> I usually just fire away anyway. I figure it's self-correcting. :)

****I agree absolutely with Gene here.

All the time we see people "modifying" their ideas and theories,
especially on the *big theory* list, after discussing them with other
knowledgeable people. In fact, at this very moment, George Secor is
considering modifying his beloved "Saggital" notation that he's been
laboring on for several years, because of certain suggestions by Dave
Keenan.

It happens all the time. It's when art can be, hopefully, like
science... a full collaboration!

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2263.html#2328

> On 2/27/02 3:44 AM, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> >
> > I'm still trying to figure out why Paul thinks he might be
wasting his time on
> > any of these lists.
> >
>
> Not answering for Paul.
>
> I think it maybe gets tedious considering the amount of time it
actually
> takes to exchange complete ideas. Lately, as I've just gotten back
into
> posting frequently again. Now I'm thinking, it alleviates a little
of the
> alienation, brought about by moving through the microtonal realm, by
> communicating with similar brainforms. Without that kind of
attitude
> though, I only saw it as eating my time up and taking away from
research,
> writing and production in general. But it seems like about 80
percent of
> the things I've come up with theory wise, by staying in my sterile
vacuum
> and banging my head against the wall, are nearly identical to what
everyone
> else winds up doing. Including everyone who's been in their own
vacuum.
> Like what I just posted to Tuning about having thought of the "v ^"
> inflection for syntonic commas in notation. It's not even a matter
of who's
> idea anything is or who thought of something first, I just think
it's
> amazing sometimes when people think of exactly the same things I
have in
> exactly the same way. Makes it seem like we're maybe all
converging to one
> overall vision. Or at least identical separate visions. :X
>
> I just worry more in terms of wasting everyone else's time by not
being sure
> what I'm talking about sometimes.
>
>
> Marc

***I can only speak for *myself* but I feel that the time spent on
both *this* list and on the *biggie theory* one has been time
exceptionally well spent.

In two years, I learned some of the fundamentals of tuning theory.
In fact, I was even *fuzzy* about *meantone* before I joined the
lists ... something I was hoping to explore more at a future time.

So, in addition to my overall understanding of tuning theory, I also
gained materials for (hopefully) advancing my music, since I was
rather tiring of 12-tET. All this came from the *big* list. I
couldn't possibly *ask* for more.

Now on *THIS* list, I'm learning to listen to and process electronic
music in *much* more sophisticated ways than ever before.

A waste of time? "You" gotta be joking.... (not *you* personally,
Marc.)