DJ Trancedance's 7 note irregular temperament on acoustic lyre.

I've made the tuning of my 7 string acoustic lyre more stable and improved the tone (though it could still be improved on both counts) and tried Michael DJ TranceDance's 7 note scale again. This scale has been designed to minimise the maximum deviation from the intervals 6/5, 5/4, 3/2, 7/5, 16/9 and 9/5 while keeping the octave at exactly 2. The scale (as he gave it) is 1, 28/25, 6/5, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125, 2. It is an irregular temperament of rank 6. Now that the lyre is improved, Michael's temperament sounds really really great to me on it. This solves a problem in that I was having trouble finding tunings that make the most of the 7 strings in chord playing (the strings are only played open so I only have 7 notes availlable in each tuning). To my ear, every major, minor and diminished triad and each of these with a 7th added sound great in this tuning. I intend to upload a recording of the lyre to youtube soon. Another thing to try would be to turn Michael's tuning on it's head since this would be different but still have the same dyad accuracy. The next thing to work out is how to tune the lyre to this scale at gigs (I usually tune by ear, which is why I tend to tune my lyres to 5 limit just intonation. It's much easier than tuning to a tempered scale in the absence of reference pitches.) Other tunings I have liked on lyre include 1, 16/15, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 8/5, 15/8 on 7 string lyre and 1, 16/15, 6/5, 4/3, 64/45, 8/5 on 6 string lyre.

is there a way we can hear it?

Chris

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Mark <mark.barnes3@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I've made the tuning of my 7 string acoustic lyre more stable and improved the tone (though it could still be improved on both counts) and tried Michael DJ TranceDance's 7 note scale again.

Mark,

First of all, glad you enjoyed it so much and thank you for planning to use it
live and going through the trouble of tuning it on a real-world instrument. :-)

>"The scale (as he gave it) is 1, 28/25, 6/5, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125, 2.
>It is an irregular temperament of rank 6."
I believe this is the version of my scale that approximate 1/4 comma
meantone. So it should sound good to just about anyone who likes the high
dyadic (and triadic) accuracy of 1/4 comma meantone. I'm glad you finally gave
it credit for being high rank and not some single-generator-type construct on
bastardized version of 1/4 comma meantone (as many have in the past).

>"To my ear, every major, minor and diminished triad and each of these with a 7th
>added sound great in this tuning."
This is the advantage of this subset mode of my greater "Dimension"
tuning...it's designed to be competitive with just about anything far as
traditional Western intervals, including 53TET, 31TET, 1/4 comma meantone...but
with minimax dyadic (as opposed to, say, triadic) accuracy among all dyads and
not favoring accuracy of any one dyad over any other. In other words it doesn't
try to get the purest 5th, 3rd, 6th etc. ...it tries to minimize the maximum
dissonance for any of the above and thus make nothing at all "sour", though
nothing "100% perfectly sweet".

However, I must add it's part of a larger puzzle designed to optimize both
those dyads and things like 12/11, 11/10, 11/6 and more Arab-style intervals.
Easy example, if you swap 224/125 with 97/53 (about 11/6)...you get the
"hybrid" mode (my favorite) of my scale. That mode contains only one semi-tone
(not two).
What this means musically is it mixes ability to do good 1/4 comma meantone
emulation with ability to makes strong Arabic-style 11-limit chords including
clusters like 10:11:12. Plus it includes a diminished 5th around 22/15 that
echoes its use in medieval music as a replacement for the traditional 5th for a
new (though not completely as pure) kind of consonance for the 5th. My Untwelve
music entry used both modes extensively.

>"Another thing to try would be to turn Michael's tuning on it's head since this
>would be different but still have the same dyad accuracy."
Interesting, now how exactly would you do that; rotate the mode (same order
of intervals but starting at a different root tone in the order)?

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

Mark:
> >"The scale (as he gave it) is 1, 28/25, 6/5, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125, 2.
> >"Another thing to try would be to turn Michael's tuning on it's head since this
> >would be different but still have the same dyad accuracy."
Michael: Interesting, now how exactly would you do that; rotate the mode (same order
> of intervals but starting at a different root tone in the order)?
Mark: Basically, every time you would normally go up in pitch you go down instead. The simplest way to do this mathematically is to turn all the fractions on their heads, multiply them all by 2 and then arrange them in ascending order: 1, 125/112, 1000/837, 4/3, 1000/669, 5/3, 25/14, 2. I am also very interested in your larger scales of which the 7 note scale is a subset. Do you have a link to a list of the pitches for your scales, please?

Mark>"Basically, every time you would normally go up in pitch you go down
instead. The simplest way to do >this mathematically is to turn all the
fractions on their heads, multiply them all by 2 and then arrange them in
>ascending order: 1, 125/112, 1000/837, 4/3, 1000/669, 5/3, 25/14, 2."

Ah, so you are essentially using the fractions to define string lengths
instead of frequencies (inverting the order)?

>"1, 28/25, 6/5, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125, 2" (1/4 comma meantone like
>mode)
>"Do you have a link to a list of the pitches for your scales, please?"

To get it, simply add 11/9 and 97/53 to the list you have to get
1, 28/25, 6/5,11/9, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125,97/53, 2

This will give you all the pitches for the tuning (which I call "dimension" as
it rotates around itself in many ways), enabling the new modes of

1, 28/25, 6/5, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 97/53, 2 (hybrid mode/scale 1...one
semitone)
1, 28/25, 11/9, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125, 2 (hybrid mode/scale 2...one
semitone)
1,28/25, 11/9, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 97/53, 2 (arabic/ptolemy-homalon-like)
scale (no semitones, smallest dyadic interval around 12/11)

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> >"The scale (as he gave it) is 1, 28/25, 6/5, 669/500, 3/2, 837/500, 224/125, 2.
> >It is an irregular temperament of rank 6."
> I believe this is the version of my scale that approximate 1/4 comma
> meantone.

It's not an approximation of 1/4 comma meantone except in the very general sense of being an irregularly tuned diatonic. It has one JI fifth, and the other perfect fifths are considerably flat of the 1/4-comma fifth. The circle of thirds is nice, with two just major thirds and one just minor third, with another major third only slightly sharp.

So it should sound good to just about anyone who likes the high
> dyadic (and triadic) accuracy of 1/4 comma meantone. I'm glad you finally gave
> it credit for being high rank and not some single-generator-type construct on
> bastardized version of 1/4 comma meantone (as many have in the past).

"Credit"? It's not an accomplishment, and the same basic idea could easily be implemented in 5 limit JI.

This discussion seems to be off-topic for MMM, and I suggest we move it to the main list if anyone wants to continue it.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> So it should sound good to just about anyone who likes the high
> > dyadic (and triadic) accuracy of 1/4 comma meantone. I'm glad you finally gave
> > it credit for being high rank and not some single-generator-type construct on
> > bastardized version of 1/4 comma meantone (as many have in the past).
>
> "Credit"? It's not an accomplishment, and the same basic idea could easily be implemented in 5 limit JI.

I think he meant in the sense that he sees it as being rank-3 or
something, whereas people say it's just a detuned rank-2 meantone.

> This discussion seems to be off-topic for MMM, and I suggest we move it to the main list if anyone wants to continue it.

Yerp.

-Mike

Gene>"It's not an approximation of 1/4 comma meantone except in the very general
sense of being an irregularly tuned diatonic."

That's what I meant...it's a rather standard diatonic scale (IE one fit for
common practice music). The other modes in my tuning are anything but
diatonic. Now if you're talking a mere 4 cents off on a fifth as "dreadfully
flat"...than you're right it's not an approximation...but I think MUSICALLY (IE
in actual practice and beyond tuning math), people without uncommonly well
trained ears will find the two scales quite similar.

>"It has one JI fifth, and the other perfect fifths are considerably flat of the
>1/4-comma fifth."

Like I said, it treats purity of all intervals equally, rather than favoring
(as often happens) the fifth. It also depends what you hold to as "considerably
flat"...to me 7 cents is not considerably flat and above 8 cents is around the
limit of error where things begin to sound "off"...though it seems you beg to
differ. This is all calculated by an original computer program testing all
possible combinations for each type of interval within 2 octaves, and not by
some chain of fifths, thirds, etc. (or any combination of the above)

Me>> I'm glad you finally gave
>> it credit for being high rank and not some single-generator-type construct on

>> bastardized version of 1/4 comma meantone (as many have in the past).
Gene>"Credit"? It's not an accomplishment, and the same basic idea could easily
be implemented in 5 limit JI.

But, in that case, couldn't you say the same thing about 5-limit JI, 1/4
comma meantone, 31TET and 53TET diatonic subsets, etc.?
Ok, down to business. What makes the scale unique, as I can tell, is

A) The way it handles mini-max, which is deliberately different than how 1/4
comma meantone is generated to do so. It's simply not calculated the same way
31TET, 1/4 comma meantone, 5-limit JI scales...are.

Yes, it does aim for purity of the same dyadic ratios the diatonic scale
under 1/4 comma meantone does, but it does so without bias toward any dyad IE
the maximum any type of dyad is "off" by is about 7 cents. Yes, some of. the
fifths are a bit more off than usual, but the maximum dyadic error is lower.
B) The way it fits into a larger framework that can also be used for
Arabic-type modes and in-between type modes within only 9 nodes...One which
mini-max optimizes (in the same way described above) NOT only the standard
diatonic scale, but also versions with one semi-tone and zero semi-tones
(stacked 11/10-like sized dyadic). The fact 7 to 8 out of the 9 tones are in
common to any of the two scales, IMVHO, makes it an accomplishment.
-----------------------

What does this mean to the musician?
A) Access to a very pure common-practice-capable scale that has an in many ways
more predictable feel than many so called "similar 5-limit JI-like" tempered
scales...because no dyad is ever off by more than 8 cents. The difference
between the most sweet and sour parts is made smaller.
B) Access to an Arabic-like mode that maximizes purity of dyads again to a
maximum of 8 cents (including close approximations of few new exotic dyads like
11/9, 22/15, 11/8, and 18/11).
C) Access to 2 hybrid modes that combine characteristic of A) and B)
D) The fact ALL these Mini-max modes are available within only 9 notes...and one
can VERY easily modulate between the modes, of which any two have at least 5
notes in common (and many have 6 notes in common). This, supposedly, also makes
it simpler to map to instruments and simpler for a musician to handle (9 notes
instead of, say, 31 or 53).

If you still doubt this is an accomplishment...you might be very surprised to
hear my Untwelve music/song entry and what it manages to do with this irregular
tuning system...loaded with modulations between all 9 notes and showcasing what
can be done with dyadic purity under every single mode.

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

Gene>> "Credit"? It's not an accomplishment, and the same basic idea could
easily be implemented in 5 limit JI.

MikeB>"I think he meant in the sense that he sees it as being rank-3 or
something, whereas people say it's just a detuned rank-2 meantone."

Gene>"This discussion seems to be off-topic for MMM, and I suggest we move it to
the main list if anyone wants to continue it."

MikeB>"Yerp."

Excuse me...This discussion STARTED about the USE OF THIS TUNING on
instruments and its USE IN PRODUCING MUSIC in general. Since it's music
production related, you'd better believe it DOES belong on this list.
Note that when I replied (unlike Gene did) I went in detail about how the
tuning could be used musically vs. related tunings...and meanwhile Gene went on
a tangent and started comparing it to 5-limit JI in regards to tuning accuracy
without discussing music production.

Now I can understand if Gene and Mike want to make a spin-off on this
discussion about how they thing my tuning relates to rank 3,4,etc. generation on
the Tuning or Meta-Tuning lists...but it really does bug me that the original
music instrument and music production related thread supposedly has to die in
the process.

There is NO surface point I see to saying how well/badly my scale conforms
(or not) to related methods...the point (yet again) for musicians is
A) The system can be used in a diatonic mode that, to many ears, is fairly close
to 1/4 comma meantone with excellent mini-max dyadic clarity and yet a few added
benefits of having certain intervals available to musicians that are clearer
than in 1/4 comma meantone because it's NOT created the same way.
B) The system can be used for an Arabic style interval mode with excellent
mini-max dyadic clarity
C) The system can be used for 2 Arabic/Western style interval modes with
excellent mini-max dyadic clarity
......and this means lots of modulation possible within only 9 notes and lots of
questions, trials, etc. ....about if this can be used to combine Arabic and
Western style chords and playing styles into a single integrated system to
provide new types of flexibility for musicians in a small, simple, way fairly
easily mappable onto acoustic instruments (as, in part, Mark has done with his
lyre).

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

Is there anything in the wild where we can point to anything even remotely related to multiple ranks.
How many examples of rank three? if any
I am afraid i am not following the plot, if there is one

/^_,',',',_ //^/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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Now I can understand if Gene and Mike want to make a spin-off on this
> discussion about how they thing my tuning relates to rank 3,4,etc. generation on
> the Tuning or Meta-Tuning lists...but it really does bug me that the original
> music instrument and music production related thread supposedly has to die in
> the process.

Who, other than you, claims it has to die?

>
> There is NO surface point I see to saying how well/badly my scale conforms
> (or not) to related methods...

Then why does Michael bring up the issue? Why should your views on what is worthwhile to discuss trump his views, my views, or Mike Battaglia's views? My only point was that discussion of the nature and merits of the tuning, and discussion of the method Michael used to get to it, seems to be off-topic on MMM, and so might better be discussed elsewhere.

the point (yet again) for musicians is
> A) The system can be used in a diatonic mode that, to many ears, is fairly close
> to 1/4 comma meantone with excellent mini-max dyadic clarity and yet a few added
> benefits of having certain intervals available to musicians that are clearer
> than in 1/4 comma meantone because it's NOT created the same way.

Sorry, but it's not all that close to 1/4-comma meantone.

> B) The system can be used for an Arabic style interval mode with excellent
> mini-max dyadic clarity

You've not defined "Arabic style interval mode", nor "mini-max dyadic clarity", and you are doing precisely what you claimed should not be done, namely discussing the scale in terms of tuning.

> C) The system can be used for 2 Arabic/Western style interval modes with
> excellent mini-max dyadic clarity

And what are these alleged "Arabic/Western style interval modes", and what makes them Arabic? The scale has a circle of thirds which in major mode goes roughly 5/4 m 5/4 m 6/5 5/4 m, where m is flat of 6/5 by around 7 cents. Is this supposed to be some sort of Rast?

> ......and this means lots of modulation possible within only 9 notes and lots of
> questions, trials, etc.

We were discussing a 7-note diatonic scale.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
>
> Is there anything in the wild where we can point to anything
> even remotely related to multiple ranks.
> How many examples of rank three?

5-limit just intonation is rank three. So is marvel temperament, starling temperament, breed temperament etc etc and etc.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> Who, other than you, claims it has to die?

Sorry, I thought this posting was from someone else.

> > There is NO surface point I see to saying how well/badly my scale conforms
> > (or not) to related methods...
>
> Then why does Michael bring up the issue?

Yes, why did you bring up the issue if it is pointless?

Hi Gene~
Just because you have a different chain of fifths spaced by being linked by 5 intervals.
So a 7 limit would be another rank?
My inclination would be to think of such a series as a single linear chain with variations in much the way one creates a harmonic template when one maps onto a keyboard.
So ii guess i would only accept a higher rank if and only if i could also interpret it in this fashion. Since most of the research you seem to have done put up on the wiki page is toward the lower end of ranks i assume you have some of your own limits you are working within?

/^_,',',',_ //^/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 26/11/10 5:52 PM, genewardsmith wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>, Kraig Grady > <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is there anything in the wild where we can point to anything
> > even remotely related to multiple ranks.
> > How many examples of rank three?
>
> 5-limit just intonation is rank three. So is marvel > temperament, starling temperament, breed temperament etc etc > and etc.
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gene~
> Just because you have a different chain of fifths spaced by
> being linked by 5 intervals.
> So a 7 limit would be another rank?

Calling it rank six wasn't my idea. The point is, the smallest number of generators which can express every note of the scale is six; you can regard it as a scale of the {2, 3, 5, 7, 31, 223} JI subgroup of the 223-limit. But that's on paper; the 223-limit doesn't have much connection to what people hear; in fact, the 23-limit is pushing it. The basic features of the scale are in place if you retune it using three generators, so if you are going to try to classify scales by ranks Mike Battaglia's idea of calling it rank three seems to have some justice.

> My inclination would be to think of such a series as a single
> linear chain with variations in much the way one creates a
> harmonic template when one maps onto a keyboard.

Which is the linear chain--the chain of seconds, the chain of thirds, the chain of fifths? All are worth looking at.

> Since most of the
> research you seem to have done put up on the wiki page is toward
> the lower end of ranks i assume you have some of your own limits
> you are working within?

Ranks one, two and three are clearly useful. Except for 7-limit JI, it's not so clear rank four is. Beyond that it's more dubious yet.

>> > There is NO surface point I see to saying how well/badly my scale conforms
>>
>> > (or not) to related methods...
>>
>> Then why does Michael bring up the issue?
>Yes, why did you bring up the issue if it is pointless?

My original response to Mark>"I'm glad you finally gave it credit for being high
rank and not some single-generator-type construct or bastardized version of 1/4
comma meantone (as many have in the past)."

Note that I was responding to Mark and that he, not I, brought up the idea
of it being a high rank tuning, so he (and not I) really started this.
Yes I did bring the scale up as not being 1/4 comma meantone but being
musically similar in potential use. I did so to avoid having people try to say
my entire system was based on a low-rank system and then speculating its musical
usages will be the same. In other words, I brought it up to AVOID anyone
starting up a low-to-mid-rank-musical properties discussion...however, it seems
you all are doing just that anyhow. :-(

Summary: my scale is not generated as a rank system nor should it be treated
as one...but it DOES happen to be not at all far from 1/4 comma mean-tone
(certainly much closer to it than it is to something like 12TET or JI diatonic)
and appears to be usable as an alternative for it, regardless of what "Holy
Tuning Laws" it may violate in the process. :-D

________________________________
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 26, 2010 1:07:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] DJ Trancedance's 7 note irregular temperament on acoustic
lyre.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:

> Who, other than you, claims it has to die?

Sorry, I thought this posting was from someone else.

> > There is NO surface point I see to saying how well/badly my scale conforms
>
> > (or not) to related methods...
>
> Then why does Michael bring up the issue?

Yes, why did you bring up the issue if it is pointless?

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

Sorry i won't pursuit this long on this list.

On 27/11/10 4:05 AM, genewardsmith wrote:>

Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
My inclination would be to think of such a series as a single
> linear chain with variations in much the way one creates a
> harmonic template when one maps onto a keyboard.

Which is the linear chain--the chain of seconds, the chain of thirds, the chain of fifths? All are worth looking at.

I have no problem with any interval size as as you imply it creates patterns/consistancy with the others.
usually when one sets up a constant structure or a periodicity block one is not thinking in a series of multiple chains.
So my reluctance comes down to the description divorced from the normal process.
one way one could get around this would be to number ranks by the number of members in a given chain so a 5-limit would be say 3/2 and 27/20 and one might call that 3.

A recurrent sequence though would require calling it a rank of n numbers in the scale as often no limit is repeated.

While you can call them temperaments I am also inclined to think of them as scales in themselves.
One wonders what one is tempering to a s if low limit intervals are supreme

/^_,',',',_ //^/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

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > Hi Gene~
> > Just because you have a different chain of fifths spaced by
> > being linked by 5 intervals.
> > So a 7 limit would be another rank?
>
> Calling it rank six wasn't my idea. The point is, the smallest > number of generators which can express every note of the scale > is six; you can regard it as a scale of the {2, 3, 5, 7, 31, > 223} JI subgroup of the 223-limit. But that's on paper; the > 223-limit doesn't have much connection to what people hear; in > fact, the 23-limit is pushing it. The basic features of the > scale are in place if you retune it using three generators, so > if you are going to try to classify scales by ranks Mike > Battaglia's idea of calling it rank three seems to have some > justice.
>
> > My inclination would be to think of such a series as a single
> > linear chain with variations in much the way one creates a
> > harmonic template when one maps onto a keyboard.
>
> Which is the linear chain--the chain of seconds, the chain of > thirds, the chain of fifths? All are worth looking at.
>
> > Since most of the
> > research you seem to have done put up on the wiki page is > toward
> > the lower end of ranks i assume you have some of your own > limits
> > you are working within?
>
> Ranks one, two and three are clearly useful. Except for > 7-limit JI, it's not so clear rank four is. Beyond that it's > more dubious yet.
>
>

Here's a video showing the lyre in action. Because I still find 7 string lyre very difficult I am not making the most of the instrument. I chose this song because I can play the chords to it fairly easily and it fits into the tuning (though I changed a major chord in the chorus to minor to make it fit). The middle section is an attempt to play all the major, minor and diminished triads and also all these chords with 7ths added. I would have been making better use of the tuning in my opinion if I had tried playing sustained 2nds and sustained 4ths and other more comlicated chords.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOqXyCVaQBs

Speeding up the audio to match video and processing the video mangles the audio a bit, so here's a link to pure audio of the song on reverbnation:

http://www.reverbnation.com/markbarnes

On Reverbnation the song is called "Got Any Marrows? on 7 string lyre"

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...t> wrote:
>
> Calling it rank six wasn't my idea. The point is, the smallest number of generators which can express every note of the scale is six; you can regard it as a scale of the {2, 3, 5, 7, 31, 223} JI subgroup of the 223-limit. But that's on paper; the 223-limit doesn't have much connection to what people hear; in fact, the 23-limit is pushing it. The basic features of the scale are in place if you retune it using three generators, so if you are going to try to classify scales by ranks Mike Battaglia's idea of calling it rank three seems to have some justice.

Perhaps it could be said to occupy a fractional rank between 2 and 3 -
I came up with a simple algorithm to determine what proportion of rank
2 and rank 3 features it might have, and got an overall fractional
rank 2.343. I'm not sure what a 2.343 dimensional space would look
like, but I guess it could exist.

I sense the wrath of Jon Szanto brewing on the horizon, so I made a
longer post about it at tuning-math:

/tuning-math/message/18385?var=0&l=1

-Mike

Excellent lyrics as usual. The lyre sounds good.

There's a very interesting instrument in the background on the right.

>"I sense the wrath of Jon Szanto brewing on the horizon, so I made a
longer post about it at tuning-math:
/tuning-math/message/18385?var=0&l=1"

Exactly...this "what rank is this scale?!" topic tangent simply isn't music
production related. Even on a purely mathematical ground, though, I wish people
would just treat it (far as musical use) as an attempt at a rather pure sounding
diatonic scale and leave it alone.

Especially since the scale was generated by no rotation of intervals (2nds,
5ths, or otherwise) but rather a computer program that tries all possible tone
combinations of dyads for all 7 tones, via brute force comparison, and selects
the one which conforms to a fixed set of dyads best within under 8 cents maximum
error for any dyad from any root tone.
Same goes for all the other modes in my 9-tone "Dimension" scale
system...there is no "rank" constant, only the fixed musical goal of complying
to a fixed list of dyads as well as mathematically possible.

Put it another way (in the more general musical sense), fans of the feeling
of the following dyads will likely enjoy my scale (the * marked intervals only
occur in the Arabic and/or hybrid modes):

15/14
---11/10
9/8
6/5
---11/9
5/4
4/3
---15/11
---11/8
7/5
---22/15
3/2
8/5
--18/11
5/3
7/4
8/5
----11/6
15/8

BTW, for those who haven't seen Mark's video of the song he made with the
scale it's at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOqXyCVaQBs
...and, at least to my ears, it sounds very very relaxed and hopefully will give
musicians some ideas for how that diatonic mode of my "Dimension" tuning system
can be used and, dare I mention, maybe even convince them to try the more exotic
Arabic-style and Hybrid Arab/Diatonic modes as well..

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

you brought up ranks, not me:)

/^_,',',',_ //^/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 27/11/10 11:01 AM, Michael wrote:
>
> >"I sense the wrath of Jon Szanto brewing on the horizon, so I > made a
> longer post about it at tuning-math:
> /tuning-math/message/18385?var=0&l=1 > </tuning-math/message/18385?var=0&l=1>"
>
> Exactly...this "what rank is this scale?!" topic tangent > simply isn't music
> production related. Even on a purely mathematical ground, > though, I wish people
> would just treat it (far as musical use) as an attempt at a > rather pure sounding
> diatonic scale and leave it alone.
>
> Especially since the scale was generated by no rotation of > intervals (2nds,
> 5ths, or otherwise) but rather a computer program that tries > all possible tone
> combinations of dyads for all 7 tones, via brute force > comparison, and selects
> the one which conforms to a fixed set of dyads best within > under 8 cents maximum
> error for any dyad from any root tone.
> Same goes for all the other modes in my 9-tone "Dimension" scale
> system...there is no "rank" constant, only the fixed musical > goal of complying
> to a fixed list of dyads as well as mathematically possible.
>
> Put it another way (in the more general musical sense), fans > of the feeling
> of the following dyads will likely enjoy my scale (the * > marked intervals only
> occur in the Arabic and/or hybrid modes):
>
> 15/14
> ---11/10
> 9/8
> 6/5
> ---11/9
> 5/4
> 4/3
> ---15/11
> ---11/8
> 7/5
> ---22/15
> 3/2
> 8/5
> --18/11
> 5/3
> 7/4
> 8/5
> ----11/6
> 15/8
>
> BTW, for those who haven't seen Mark's video of the song he > made with the
> scale it's at
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOqXyCVaQBs
> ...and, at least to my ears, it sounds very very relaxed and > hopefully will give
> musicians some ideas for how that diatonic mode of my > "Dimension" tuning system
> can be used and, dare I mention, maybe even convince them to > try the more exotic
> Arabic-style and Hybrid Arab/Diatonic modes as well..
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Thank you for this!

I left a comment on youtube.

You really are making Micheal's tuning "sing"

Chris

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Mark <mark.barnes3@...> wrote:

>
>
> Here's a video showing the lyre in action. Because I still find 7 string
> lyre very difficult I am not making the most of the instrument. I chose this
> song because I can play the chords to it fairly easily and it fits into the
> tuning (though I changed a major chord in the chorus to minor to make it
> fit). The middle section is an attempt to play all the major, minor and
> diminished triads and also all these chords with 7ths added. I would have
> been making better use of the tuning in my opinion if I had tried playing
> sustained 2nds and sustained 4ths and other more comlicated chords.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOqXyCVaQBs
>
> Speeding up the audio to match video and processing the video mangles the
> audio a bit, so here's a link to pure audio of the song on reverbnation:
>
> http://www.reverbnation.com/markbarnes
>
> On Reverbnation the song is called "Got Any Marrows? on 7 string lyre"
>
>
>

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

Mark>"I would have been making better use of the tuning in my opinion if I had
tried playing

> sustained 2nds and sustained 4ths and other more complicated chords."

...And that's no coincidence...that mode (and in fact all modes in the tuning)
are built with the underlying goal all chords (and not just the typical major
and minor triads) should approach being equally matched.

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

>"you brought up ranks, not me:)"
Mark brought up ranks, saying it was rank 6, before I said anything. I
elaborated and said "good point, it's not low/mid rank, and shouldn't be
interpreted as such...but instead it's own method to minimize maximum dyadic
dissonance" (one to two sentence response from me, and nothing more, certainly
not an indicator to start a separate topic on it).

But then a whole bunch of people began talking about the low to mid rank
relationships I (and Mark, apparently) said people should avoid. And in the
last message I replied

>"the scale was generated by no rotation of intervals (2nds, 5ths, or otherwise)
>but rather a computer program that tries all possible tone combinations of
>dyads for all 7 tones, via brute force comparison, and selects
the one which conforms to a fixed set of dyads best within under 8 cents maximum
error for any dyad from any root tone."
...an obvious statement suggesting against sorting it or its chords by a rank
system due to its generation method. And yet people keep trying to do just
that, push it into a low/mid rank system...as if they somehow know more about
the scale than the person who created/generated it (IE me).

It's its own system, not derived from any rank system, in which the
mode/subset of it Mark used in his music. Musically though, it just happens to
be not too far from 1/4 comma meantone and has the added musical property of
approximating all dyads with near similar accuracy (so musicians can expect no
chords to be favored much in purity over other chords). And that's the rap, no
need to make it more complex (as people already have)...

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "ixlramp" <ixlramp@...> wrote:
>
> Excellent lyrics as usual. The lyre sounds good.
>
> There's a very interesting instrument in the background on the right.
>
Mark: Thank you. I think you mean this instrument:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7917252&l=184aabbb33&id=536589255

I built it back in 1996 when I was interested in sitar music and didn't have a sitar to play it on. In those days I couldn't recognise just intervals by ear in the way I can now, so I used to have trouble tuning it. I am now tempted to build a similar instrument, but with bolted on adjustable frets on exchangeable necks, possibly less drone strings and maybe with the sympathetic strings spread out so that they can be played like a lyre (also possibly with movable bridges to that the sympthetic strings can be tuned to a wider variety of pitches without going too floppy or too tight.).

After experimenting a lot in 1996 I decided that it may be better when making an electric sitar (or sitar like instrument) to have the sympathetic strings contained within a separate box and not on the instrument. They could in theory be driven by an electromagnet like an e bow. This would mean that the instrument itself could have better sustain. The signal from the instrument would be amplified and used to drive the sympathetic strings, which would have their own pick ups. This would also mean that you could add many more sympathetic strings without increasing the weight of the bit you play. Another feature of this set up would be that you could drive the sympathetic strings with a microphone or the output of another instrument. Unfortunately I don't know much about electromagnets and e bows and so far I have not managed to make the sympathetic string effect box I describe here.

> Mark: Thank you. I think you mean this instrument:

Yep that's it. Thanks. Your idea for a separate electrically-driven sympathetic string unit is excellent.

Mat Cooper