Looking for a list...

Hi folks,

Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music? This list and the main tuning list are devoted to discussions of microtonal theory, acoustics, and all that stuff, which makes sense, since that was their mission statements, I'm sure. They are practically identical!

Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and (most importantly) listen to people's work.

I'm sure someone has a list like this somewhere!

Cheers,
Jon

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:44 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music? This list and the main tuning list are devoted to discussions of microtonal theory, acoustics, and all that stuff, which makes sense, since that was their mission statements, I'm sure. They are practically identical!
>
> Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and (most importantly) listen to people's work.
>
> I'm sure someone has a list like this somewhere!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hahaha. Well, I tried to make a discussion just about the actual
music, but I guess this is where it ended up going :)

-Mike

I think you'll find a much more musically oriented forum here:
http://www.notonlymusic.com/board/viewforum.php?f=23
Some really great support and feedback from everyone, and a lot of music is posted there.

John

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music? This list and the main tuning list are devoted to discussions of microtonal theory, acoustics, and all that stuff, which makes sense, since that was their mission statements, I'm sure. They are practically identical!
>
> Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and (most importantly) listen to people's work.
>
> I'm sure someone has a list like this somewhere!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Hey Jon,

I do believe your irony is showing! But I digest...

I am in fact up to my neck in a 7et techno piece atm, & am pleasantly
surprised so far at this tuning's virtues. Have some other items
simmering on the back burners as well (I have the bad habit of starting
several works simultaneously).

Best,
jls

---Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion
forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music?

[snip]

> Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned
with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and (most
importantly) listen to people's work.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Hmm, actually I thought that microtonal theory and acoustics are to be discussed in the main tuning list while this list here is precisely focused on the actual creation of microtonal music. But apparently, in practice there is often the same stuff on both...

As for actually listening, yes, this is not so well supported by this list. The already mentioned forum on NotOnlyMusic offers better support for direct listening.

BTW, the the xenharmonic alliance on Ning (http://xenharmonic.ning.com/) appears to be finally gone by now - can anybody still access it?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or
> discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of
> microtonal music? This list and the main tuning list are devoted to
> discussions of microtonal theory, acoustics, and all that stuff,
> which makes sense, since that was their mission statements, I'm
> sure. They are practically identical!
>
> Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned
> with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and
> (most importantly) listen to people's work.
>
> I'm sure someone has a list like this somewhere!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Carl kicks the crackpots off the main Tuning list, and they come here now.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 15, 2010, at 3:44 AM, "jonszanto" <jszanto@cox.net> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music? This list and the main tuning list are devoted to discussions of microtonal theory, acoustics, and all that stuff, which makes sense, since that was their mission statements, I'm sure. They are practically identical!
>
> Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and (most importantly) listen to people's work.
>
> I'm sure someone has a list like this somewhere!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>

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

On 15 September 2010 14:34, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:

> Carl kicks the crackpots off the main Tuning list, and they come here now.

The bald monkey speaks :)
I'm not aware of anybody else who took place in the recent, constructive to
some, discussions on this list was banned by carl of the tuning list.
So you must be referring to me as "crackpots".

First of all, those discussions took place allready before I contributed to
them, and my contribution was only minor (though hopefully helpfull to
some). Rediculous to lay blame on me for what you percieve to be an off
topic discussion (which I don't agree with btw).

Secondly, who're you calling a "crackpots"? You crackpot.
Last time I checked you couldn't tune shit and apparently have bananas in
your ears or something to be able to stand your own out of tune nonsense.
Try tuning some common practice music and then do a blind test with my
retuned common practice music and lets see who is the crackpot here.

Btw.. I'm sure everybody on this list considers your message to be very
on-topic and leading to a very constructive on-topic new discussion..

Marcel

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

Does this list have ANY moderators?

If it does...can you PLEASE ban this wind-bag who has never written a piece of microtonal music in his life and probably never will? Who seems to exist solely to bad-mouth the actual music made by other members because it doesn't adhere to his arcane standards of what "JI" is? Every single discussion he ever partakes in follows the same path:

Marcel: "My JI system is the one true logic behind music! Listen the most recent attempts to retune a piece of music somebody else wrote (though I'll probably post corrections to it ad infinitum as I discover error after error in my calculations)!"

(Then some list members dutifully give it a listen, and reply): "Marcel, this tuning sounds like crap. I don't consider this JI and if this is what your theory produces, your theory is worthless."

Then Marcel proceeds to whine and moan about how we're all a bunch of tone-deaf monkeys and we're idiots for not accepting him as the one true savior of music, the only person in history who has understood how to properly tune anything.

Normally, I just avoid the lout, but talking smack to Dante Rosati is unforgivable. Dante has done things with JI on guitar that blow my mind, and has produced EASILY some of the best microtonal music I've ever heard. To call him a "bald monkey" who "can't tune shit" is unwarranted, childish, and really just pathetic. It's like a stunted dwarf of a teenager telling Shaquille O'Neil that he doesn't know how to play basketball.

-Igliashon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> On 15 September 2010 14:34, Dante Rosati <danterosati@...> wrote:
>
> > Carl kicks the crackpots off the main Tuning list, and they come here now.
>
>
>
> The bald monkey speaks :)
> I'm not aware of anybody else who took place in the recent, constructive to
> some, discussions on this list was banned by carl of the tuning list.
> So you must be referring to me as "crackpots".
>
> First of all, those discussions took place allready before I contributed to
> them, and my contribution was only minor (though hopefully helpfull to
> some). Rediculous to lay blame on me for what you percieve to be an off
> topic discussion (which I don't agree with btw).
>
> Secondly, who're you calling a "crackpots"? You crackpot.
> Last time I checked you couldn't tune shit and apparently have bananas in
> your ears or something to be able to stand your own out of tune nonsense.
> Try tuning some common practice music and then do a blind test with my
> retuned common practice music and lets see who is the crackpot here.
>
> Btw.. I'm sure everybody on this list considers your message to be very
> on-topic and leading to a very constructive on-topic new discussion..
>
> Marcel
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Well, I don't know if you noticed, but I did reply to your thread with basically my "bag of tricks" that I use to get good sounds out of "low-accuracy" temperaments. I think my reply was the only one that DIDN'T get a response, unless you count the one from Michael S.

I really hoped more people would take my bait to "talk shop" on working with those tunings. But I guess now that Dan Stearns isn't around, I'm probably the only one here who thinks that tunings like 8-EDO and 13-EDO sound pretty.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:44 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music? This list and the main tuning list are devoted to discussions of microtonal theory, acoustics, and all that stuff, which makes sense, since that was their mission statements, I'm sure. They are practically identical!
> >
> > Anyway, just looking to see if there are any venues less concerned with what the ingredients are, and more about how to do it and (most importantly) listen to people's work.
> >
> > I'm sure someone has a list like this somewhere!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> Hahaha. Well, I tried to make a discussion just about the actual
> music, but I guess this is where it ended up going :)
>
> -Mike
>

On 9/15/2010 12:44 AM, jonszanto wrote:
> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of microtonal music?

That's what this forum is supposed to be!

Yeah, a lot of the recent discussion is sounding theoretical and a bit boring... I haven't seen people pointing to musical examples much recently. :-)

Rick

Does this list have ANY moderators?
>

Yes it does, and they're wiser than you.
Besides, I'm not the one that started with name calling. I'm the one that
responded to unprevoked agression.

>
> If it does...can you PLEASE ban this wind-bag who has never written a piece
> of microtonal music in his life and probably never will? Who seems to exist
> solely to bad-mouth the actual music made by other members because it
> doesn't adhere to his arcane standards of what "JI" is? Every single
> discussion he ever partakes in follows the same path:
>
> Marcel: "My JI system is the one true logic behind music! Listen the most
> recent attempts to retune a piece of music somebody else wrote (though I'll
> probably post corrections to it ad infinitum as I discover error after error
> in my calculations)!"
>

It's a process that I wish more people would follow as it leads to progress.

Btw, in the recent discussion I did not call my JI system the only correct
system etc and refer to it like that.
I was refering to a theoretical "true JI", in relation to where the "color"
of tuning should be to make musical sense.

>
> (Then some list members dutifully give it a listen, and reply): "Marcel,
> this tuning sounds like crap. I don't consider this JI and if this is what
> your theory produces, your theory is worthless."
>

Well, so far nobody has produced anything better than what I did.
And I did not get a single reply that my tuning is out of tune.
The only negative reply was that the pure JI harmonies sound harsh with the
particular midi sound I used.
Have a listen yourself: www.develde.net
And compare my JI version to 12tet and classic 5-limit JI.
I think it's very audible that my theory is anything but worthless.

But I'm actually not expecting much from you.
Your post have shown a very low understanding of issues in tuning.
And I sincerely hope nature has not disadvantaged any other people with such
mismade ears and that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet
are "pretty".

Marcel

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

OK, some of my microtonal works are here:

Euphony I: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=2386664

Euphony II: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4520464

Cosmopolitan Music: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4522646

Moravian Meditation: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4522821

Orbis Fictus: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4522832

Preludio Metallico: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4523534

Musica ex machina: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4523941

Ekmelic Music 1: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4622236

Musica per Piazza nel campo: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=5041820

Fudoo Myoo e no inori: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=2386392

Syntphonies part 1: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4520390

Syntphonies part 2: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4520370

Seven Microtonal Studies: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=2386820

My pages on Soundclick (for more works and interview):

www.soundclick.com/forrotronics

Unfortunately after Netnewmusic also Xenharmonic on ning.com looks dead now... So my works are now only on Soundclick.

Daniel Forro

On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:13 AM, Rick McGowan wrote:

> On 9/15/2010 12:44 AM, jonszanto wrote:
>> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or >> discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of >> microtonal music?
>
> That's what this forum is supposed to be!
>
> Yeah, a lot of the recent discussion is sounding theoretical and a bit
> boring... I haven't seen people pointing to musical examples much > recently. :-)
>
> Rick

Hello again moron,

ban this wind-bag who has never written a piece of microtonal music in his
> life and probably never will?

I forgot to reply to this part :)
I have made microtonal music, but I only posted one piece I think.
The computer algorithm output, it was well received even though it was ment
theoretically and not as serious music.

I'm making a distinction between music to make audible theoretical things,
and music made for pleasure.
I'll post a lot a microtonal music for pleasure in the future, but only when
I do it'll be good and enjoyable by many.
I see absolutely no point in posting amateuristic ploink ploink out of tune
crap like you do.

Marcel

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

Thanks Daniel, I've saved this message and will check these pieces out.

If you ever need some web hosting for your work I'd be glad to provide you
with a folder on http://micro.soonlabel.com
and an FTP account into it as well if needed.

Of course there is always www.notonlymusic.com as well.

The advantage of FTP is that it allows you to do things en masse.

Chris

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Daniel Forr� <dan.for@...> wrote:

>
>
> OK, some of my microtonal works are here:
>
> Euphony I: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=2386664
>
> Euphony II: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4520464
>
> Cosmopolitan Music: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4522646
>
> Moravian Meditation: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4522821
>
> Orbis Fictus: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4522832
>
> Preludio Metallico: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4523534
>
> Musica ex machina: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4523941
>
> Ekmelic Music 1: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4622236
>
> Musica per Piazza nel campo: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=5041820
>
> Fudoo Myoo e no inori: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=2386392
>
> Syntphonies part 1: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4520390
>
> Syntphonies part 2: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=4520370
>
> Seven Microtonal Studies: http://soundclick.com/share?songid=2386820
>
> My pages on Soundclick (for more works and interview):
>
> www.soundclick.com/forrotronics
>
> Unfortunately after Netnewmusic also Xenharmonic on ning.com looks
> dead now... So my works are now only on Soundclick.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:13 AM, Rick McGowan wrote:
>
> > On 9/15/2010 12:44 AM, jonszanto wrote:
> >> Do any of you know of, and can recommend, a mailing list or
> >> discussion forum that is focused on the actual creation of
> >> microtonal music?
> >
> > That's what this forum is supposed to be!
> >
> > Yeah, a lot of the recent discussion is sounding theoretical and a bit
> > boring... I haven't seen people pointing to musical examples much
> > recently. :-)
> >
> > Rick
>
>
>

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

Thanks, Chris, for your kind offer. I will consider it when necessary...

Daniel Forro

On 16 Sep 2010, at 12:53 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Thanks Daniel, I've saved this message and will check these pieces > out.
>
> If you ever need some web hosting for your work I'd be glad to > provide you
> with a folder on http://micro.soonlabel.com
> and an FTP account into it as well if needed.
>
> Of course there is always www.notonlymusic.com as well.
>
> The advantage of FTP is that it allows you to do things en masse.
>
> Chris

>"Marcel: "My JI system is the one true logic behind music! Listen the most
>recent attempts to retune a piece of music somebody else wrote (though I'll
>probably post corrections to it ad infinitum as I discover error after error in
>my calculations)!"

I don't think Marcel's theory sounds bad (actually it sounds pretty good to
me)....though I can understand how others would. Also, for the record, I think
discovering errors in one theories is part of the gradual process of improving
them. However, I do question just how many people are interested in theories
that supposedly "merge toward the true nature of existing classical works'
intentions"...especially considering Marcel, for example, is NOT Beethoven nor
his prophet. :-D

My stance has always been this. If you don't like something, don't reply to
it. And If you find a somewhat scientific basis (yes that includes surveying a
few listeners to see if they agree with a subjective opinion of yours) for
saying someone's theory is faulty, that's fine as well.

>"Normally, I just avoid the lout, but talking smack to Dante Rosati is
>unforgivable."
But by replying to that person and saying "you're wrong, but I can't say why
other than I don't find your work valid", their human response is likely to be
"oh yeah...I've worked X amount of time on this...and it sure is valid...now all
I have to do is prove it to you (and you'll be willing to show interest)!" It
gets even more this way, I swear, when you say talking smack...as if to say
"your opinion doesn't matter, even if I can't guess disprove it, simply because
the other person has a stronger reputation in community. Yes, you're right: it
does have an aire of being "like a stunted dwarf of a teenager telling
Shaquille O'Neil that he doesn't know how to play basketball"...but at the same
time it has the aire of Shaq going up to middle school student who practices a
lot and it getting better and saying "give it up already and stop trying to get
any respect for you're basketball skills: you are nothing": you'd be surprised
how many kids would say "oh yeah...I'm going to keep getting better...wait until
I'm in college ball maybe even as an NBA prospect and you're just an old has
been!".

When people get consistently ignored on a topic, they eventually give up.
Heck, I've dropped topics quickly when people don't respond within, say, a
week. I doubt Marcel is so ignorant as to go hammering along on a topic with no
interest shown either. The other thing you can do is go around starting
interesting topics that indirectly make other people ignore Marcel's topics
more. But I don't think flaming Marcel is going to help anything...beside get
him more steamed up and more eager to prove you wrong.

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

Marcel>"Well, so far nobody has produced anything better than what I did.
And I did not get a single reply that my tuning is out of tune."
While a lot of what you did sounded good...that 40/27 dyad in your tuning, for
example, really didn't sound very confident to me.
No matter what you do, people are going to dislike certain intervals in your
scales (I know this from experience).
One good musical goal then seems to become how do you get as many possible
intervals-chords you and a good few others like per added note?...though of
course there are others.

>"that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet are "pretty"."
That's a catch 22 question. I don't think there are "pretty vs. ugly"
tunings, but are some where it is easier to comes across more chords and others
where it's harder but the chords are more unique and, to some, more expressive.
8TET and 13TET seem to fall into the latter category.

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

Marcel>"I see absolutely no point in posting amateuristic ploink ploink out of
tune crap like you do."
Now it seems you two have stooped to an equally low level.
Dude...who cares who's music is better than whose?
Isn't the point simply to make music that's better than what you've managed to
make before?
What you're doing by torturing each other isn't going to make either of you
better musicians or any more productive....I can virtually guarantee that....so
what's the point?

And I've enjoyed songs from each of your guys...although yes, it would be nice
if I heard more than Marcel's one algorithmic example (which was still quite
beautiful). Wow I must be psycho for liking such "bad musicians" then! (lol)
:-)

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

Hi Micheal,

While a lot of what you did sounded good...that 40/27 dyad in your tuning,
> for
> example, really didn't sound very confident to me.
>

Can you tell the piece and the time at which the 40/27 dyad you're referring
to occurs?
There are a lot of 40/27 dyads in all 3 pieces I posted in MJI on
www.develde.net

Marcel

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

> BTW, the the xenharmonic alliance on Ning (http://xenharmonic.ning.com/) appears to be finally gone by now - can anybody still access it?

I think you're right, I can't access it anymore either. Sigh...

Marcel>"Can you tell the piece and the time at which the 40/27 dyad you're
referring
to occurs? There are a lot of 40/27 dyads in all 3 pieces I posted in MJI
onwww.develde.net"

For example, at about 16 and 24 seconds in Drei Equale something sounds off.
At those point the 12TET version sounds significantly better to me....though the
first instance at 16 seconds sounds more like a 4th than a 5th (IE perhaps it's
not a 40/27...but it still has the same sort of off-5th flavor).

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

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

> I'll post a lot a microtonal music for pleasure in the future, but
> only when I do it'll be good and enjoyable by many.

Right, I forgot. You're actually a European super-producer in disguise as an amateur music theorist. When the "future" arrives, be sure to let us know. Until then, you're a nobody, even worse than an amateur.

> I see absolutely no point in posting amateuristic ploink ploink out of > tune crap like you do.

Given what you've demonstrated of your taste in tuning and music, ridicule from you is more flattering than praise. If you liked anything I'd created, THEN I'd be insulted!

-Igliashon

On 09/15/2010 04:48 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
> Well, I don't know if you noticed, but I did reply to your thread with basically my "bag of tricks" that I use to get good sounds out of "low-accuracy" temperaments. I think my reply was the only one that DIDN'T get a response, unless you count the one from Michael S.
>
> I really hoped more people would take my bait to "talk shop" on working with those tunings. But I guess now that Dan Stearns isn't around, I'm probably the only one here who thinks that tunings like 8-EDO and 13-EDO sound pretty.
>
> -Igs
> Hi Igliashon,
you are not alone, I think too that low-edo tunings sound pretty. In fact I know it.
To your bag of tricks:
First - what do you mean "GM sounds"? Is Scala bound somehow to GM? There are many good synthetic sounds/samples/virtual instruments that can be mapped to GM. Some music sound very good with cheap/crappy sounds.
Second - generally yes, octave doubling can help in many cases. But e.g. in 11edo strong consonance of octaves compared with the character of all other intervals is disturbing for me.
Third - I agree.
Fourth - interesting, I must try to compare 13edo and 14edo sometime.
Fifth - yes, yes, yes....
Best
Milan

Hi MIchael,

For example, at about 16 and 24 seconds in Drei Equale something sounds off.
>
> At those point the 12TET version sounds significantly better to
> me....though the
> first instance at 16 seconds sounds more like a 4th than a 5th (IE perhaps
> it's
> not a 40/27...but it still has the same sort of off-5th flavor).
>

Are you talking about Drei Equale no1?
There are no 40/27 at the places (or even near them) you talk about.
Both at 16 and at 24 seconds there's a dominant 7th of 1/1 5/4 3/2 16/9.

Marcel

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

Not all tunings are created equal.
there are eagles and there are pigeons.
and allot of dodos

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

>> "that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet are "pretty"."
> That's a catch 22 question. I don't think there are "pretty vs. ugly"
> tunings, but are some where it is easier to comes across more chords and others
> where it's harder but the chords are more unique and, to some, more expressive.
> 8TET and 13TET seem to fall into the latter category.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I once played ockehem requiem in my centaur tuning and the tonic chord had such an animal in it. I thought it fit the mood of the piece, which also by the way was in Major. ( not suggesting it for others)
The music defines what is good and not. not theory which discusses music in it most neutered form, without purpose or meaning.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 16/09/10 3:39 AM, Michael wrote:
> Marcel>"Can you tell the piece and the time at which the 40/27 dyad you're
> referring
> to occurs? There are a lot of 40/27 dyads in all 3 pieces I posted in MJI
> onwww.develde.net"
>
> For example, at about 16 and 24 seconds in Drei Equale something sounds off.
> At those point the 12TET version sounds significantly better to me....though the
> first instance at 16 seconds sounds more like a 4th than a 5th (IE perhaps it's
> not a 40/27...but it still has the same sort of off-5th flavor).
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I am amazed that a little 40/27 can sound bad and 8 and 13 are OK.
I only object cause it makes no sense.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 16/09/10 4:24 AM, aum wrote:
> On 09/15/2010 04:48 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
>> Well, I don't know if you noticed, but I did reply to your thread with basically my "bag of tricks" that I use to get good sounds out of "low-accuracy" temperaments. I think my reply was the only one that DIDN'T get a response, unless you count the one from Michael S.
>>
>> I really hoped more people would take my bait to "talk shop" on working with those tunings. But I guess now that Dan Stearns isn't around, I'm probably the only one here who thinks that tunings like 8-EDO and 13-EDO sound pretty.
>>
>> -Igs
>>
> Hi Igliashon,
> you are not alone, I think too that low-edo tunings sound pretty. In
> fact I know it.
> To your bag of tricks:
> First - what do you mean "GM sounds"? Is Scala bound somehow to GM?
> There are many good synthetic sounds/samples/virtual instruments that
> can be mapped to GM. Some music sound very good with cheap/crappy sounds.
> Second - generally yes, octave doubling can help in many cases. But e.g.
> in 11edo strong consonance of octaves compared with the character of all
> other intervals is disturbing for me.
> Third - I agree.
> Fourth - interesting, I must try to compare 13edo and 14edo sometime.
> Fifth - yes, yes, yes....
> Best
> Milan
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hey Daniel,

Thanks for these links, I'll give them a listen.

Best,
jls

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>
wrote:
>
> OK, some of my microtonal works are here:<

At 09:00 AM 9/15/2010, you wrote:
>Thanks, Chris, for your kind offer. I will consider it when necessary...
>
>Daniel Forro

No time like the present... I, at least, have a really hard
time using SoundClick. -Carl

Hey there Carl,

Since I am now using SoundClick to host my mp3s, it is a concern that
you're having problems...could you elaborate?
Might be we can figure it out. My link should take you directly to a
songlist, and clicking on the "hi-fi" play button should automatically
load the song in the embedded player.

Best,
jls

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>... I, at least, have a really hard
> time using SoundClick. -Carl
>

Hi Jon,

I don't do embedded players. Also they ask (or did in the past)
for an e-mail address, which I don't like giving. Finally, I find
the site incredibly hard to navigate. But, to each his own.

-Carl

>Hey there Carl,
>
>Since I am now using SoundClick to host my mp3s, it is a concern that
>you're having problems...could you elaborate?
>Might be we can figure it out. My link should take you directly to a
>songlist, and clicking on the "hi-fi" play button should automatically
>load the song in the embedded player.
>
>Best,
>jls

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> It's a process that I wish more people would follow as it leads to progress.

Progress? Really? May "Bob" strike me down if I can actually hear an audible difference between any of your 100,000 versions of Drei Equale.

> The only negative reply was that the pure JI harmonies sound harsh with the
> particular midi sound I used.
> Have a listen yourself: www.develde.net
> And compare my JI version to 12tet and classic 5-limit JI.
> I think it's very audible that my theory is anything but worthless.

Much as I may dislike your attitude, I'm always willing to give music a fair chance. Truly, I was hoping that your pomposity could at least be backed up by a good-sounding tuning.

However, both versions sounded better to me than yours on a blind listening test, though I dare say it was painfully obvious which version was yours. The "traditional JI" was more stable and pleasant, and in 12-tET the character of the chords was more apparent. Your version sounded like someone had "mashed" the other two versions together, and added several wolf fifths just to be silly. I don't know HOW you can presume that you have discovered "the logic by which common-practice music works".

> But I'm actually not expecting much from you.
> Your post have shown a very low understanding of issues in tuning.

And your posts have shown a very low understanding of logic, of aesthetics, of social skills, and especially of music. But arrogance? That is something you understand quite well.

> And I sincerely hope nature has not disadvantaged any other people with such
> mismade ears and that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet
> are "pretty".

Yes, because having the gift to find beauty where others see only ugliness is truly a disadvantage. How cursed I am to experience more beauty in the world than you ever will!

-Igliashon

Look igs..
I don't like you, you don't like me.
Let's leave it at that and stop bothering this list with it.
I replied at first because I'm fed up with people calling me names and
thought what the hell I'm going to return the favor.
But I'm not willing to go into endless flame wars here.
So if you have anything else to say to me please do so offlist.

Marcel

On 16 September 2010 02:37, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

> Progress? Really? May "Bob" strike me down if I can actually hear an
> audible difference between any of your 100,000 versions of Drei Equale.
>
> > The only negative reply was that the pure JI harmonies sound harsh with
> the
> > particular midi sound I used.
> > Have a listen yourself: www.develde.net
> > And compare my JI version to 12tet and classic 5-limit JI.
> > I think it's very audible that my theory is anything but worthless.
>
> Much as I may dislike your attitude, I'm always willing to give music a
> fair chance. Truly, I was hoping that your pomposity could at least be
> backed up by a good-sounding tuning.
>
> However, both versions sounded better to me than yours on a blind listening
> test, though I dare say it was painfully obvious which version was yours.
> The "traditional JI" was more stable and pleasant, and in 12-tET the
> character of the chords was more apparent. Your version sounded like someone
> had "mashed" the other two versions together, and added several wolf fifths
> just to be silly. I don't know HOW you can presume that you have discovered
> "the logic by which common-practice music works".
>
>
> > But I'm actually not expecting much from you.
> > Your post have shown a very low understanding of issues in tuning.
>
> And your posts have shown a very low understanding of logic, of aesthetics,
> of social skills, and especially of music. But arrogance? That is something
> you understand quite well.
>
>
> > And I sincerely hope nature has not disadvantaged any other people with
> such
> > mismade ears and that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and
> 13tet
> > are "pretty".
>
> Yes, because having the gift to find beauty where others see only ugliness
> is truly a disadvantage. How cursed I am to experience more beauty in the
> world than you ever will!
>
> -Igliashon
>

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

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:37 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> > And I sincerely hope nature has not disadvantaged any other people with such
> > mismade ears and that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet
> > are "pretty".
>
> Yes, because having the gift to find beauty where others see only ugliness is truly a disadvantage. How cursed I am to experience more beauty in the world than you ever will!
>
> -Igliashon

Haha, that's deep, cuzz. I'll respond to your post here about the
original topic later, it got lost in the sea of discussion about
psychoacoustics.

-Mike

Hi Carl,

I relate to your issues with embedded players & e-mail addresses. As far
as I can see though, using the link I provide doesn't require you to
provide an e-mail, but since I'm a member maybe I'm not seeing it?
...there is also a "download" option if you don't use the player. As I
said, the link *should* take you directly to the songlist page.

If anyone else trying to get to my SoundClick download/playlist page has
similar problems, kindly alert me.

Best,
jls

PS to Carl: if you'd like me to send new mp3s to you *directly*, I can
e-mail them with no problem...unless you have disk-space considerations.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> I don't do embedded players. Also they ask (or did in the past)
> for an e-mail address, which I don't like giving. Finally, I find
> the site incredibly hard to navigate. But, to each his own.
>
> -Carl

Thanks Jon, but I think I have all your stuff already. Looking
forward to the next batch, at which point I'm willing to give
SoundClick a 2nd chance.

-Carl

At 06:06 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>
>I relate to your issues with embedded players & e-mail addresses. As far
>as I can see though, using the link I provide doesn't require you to
>provide an e-mail, but since I'm a member maybe I'm not seeing it?
>...there is also a "download" option if you don't use the player. As I
>said, the link *should* take you directly to the songlist page.
>
>If anyone else trying to get to my SoundClick download/playlist page has
>similar problems, kindly alert me.
>
>Best,
>jls
>
>
>PS to Carl: if you'd like me to send new mp3s to you *directly*, I can
>e-mail them with no problem...unless you have disk-space considerations.
>
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> I don't do embedded players. Also they ask (or did in the past)
>> for an e-mail address, which I don't like giving. Finally, I find
>> the site incredibly hard to navigate. But, to each his own.
>>
>> -Carl
>

In my humble opinion any tuning is usable if only composer knows how to use it in the music and get an emotional result from it. I don't mean to use it "properly" as such thing is subjective (pretty/ugly and similar esthetical cathegories). Anybody can use any tuning as he/she wants and feels, even against the rules which are behind that tuning. Theory is one thing, art is free. Creativity is borderless and should be so. The most important thing in any music is a proportional balance between contents and form.

Daniel Forro

On 16 Sep 2010, at 7:31 AM, Kraig Grady wrote:

> Not all tunings are created equal.
> there are eagles and there are pigeons.
> and allot of dodos
>
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
> <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> a momentary antenna as i turn to water
> this evaporates - an island once again
>
>>> "that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet are >>> "pretty"."
>> That's a catch 22 question. I don't think there are "pretty >> vs. ugly"
>> tunings, but are some where it is easier to comes across more >> chords and others
>> where it's harder but the chords are more unique and, to some, >> more expressive.
>> 8TET and 13TET seem to fall into the latter category.

Thanks for your interest, I can imagine how everybody of us here fights for some time for our own work, so there's hardly any extra time to listen music of the other and find a little bit time for discussion.

Daniel Forro

On 16 Sep 2010, at 8:33 AM, jsmith9624@... wrote:

> Hey Daniel,
>
> Thanks for these links, I'll give them a listen.
>
> Best,
> jls

i agree that any tuning is useful. I did not use the word ugly or beautiful BTW. On the other hand some tuning offer more aesthetic options than others.

The very basis of Western cultures superior musical stance over the rest of the world are those qualities that its 12 ET makes available. To imply that it could have done as much with 7 ET or 13 i think i cannot go along with.

[I might add that it use has blinded us to the developments others have made some just as significant. ]

That doesn't mean people should work in 13 if they feel fit.
In fact we don't know what is there until someone tries. Go for it.
I would hate to be stuck 10 years with it being all i would work with.

But it seems better to deal with what it is as opposed to pretending it is something it isn't.

i have my own likes and dislikes that is just as much about what art is about.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 16/09/10 11:36 AM, Daniel Forró wrote:
> In my humble opinion any tuning is usable if only composer knows how
> to use it in the music and get an emotional result from it. I don't
> mean to use it "properly" as such thing is subjective (pretty/ugly
> and similar esthetical cathegories). Anybody can use any tuning as he/
> she wants and feels, even against the rules which are behind that
> tuning. Theory is one thing, art is free. Creativity is borderless
> and should be so. The most important thing in any music is a
> proportional balance between contents and form.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 16 Sep 2010, at 7:31 AM, Kraig Grady wrote:
>
>> Not all tunings are created equal.
>> there are eagles and there are pigeons.
>> and allot of dodos
>>
>>
>> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
>> Mesotonal Music from:
>> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island<http://anaphoria.com/>
>>
>> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
>> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
>> <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>>
>> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>>
>> a momentary antenna as i turn to water
>> this evaporates - an island once again
>>
>>>> "that you're indeed the only one who thinks 8tet and 13tet are
>>>> "pretty"."
>>> That's a catch 22 question. I don't think there are "pretty
>>> vs. ugly"
>>> tunings, but are some where it is easier to comes across more
>>> chords and others
>>> where it's harder but the chords are more unique and, to some,
>>> more expressive.
>>> 8TET and 13TET seem to fall into the latter category.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>