Anxiously Orbiting in Andromeda in John O'Sullivan's "Bad" Tuning

Here's my little ditty in John O'Sullivan's "bad" tuning. It's a spacey-jazzy little number, piano bass drums horns and vibraphone, in 5/8 (sort of).

/makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Anxiously%20Orbiting%20in%20Andro.mp3

I found this tuning a bit less challenging than Michael's, as there were quite a few good intervals hiding out in various places. I found what felt somewhat like a 4:5:7 chord on F, which looks like about 0-383-568 cents on closer inspection of the scale (so, not quite 4:5:7, but close enough to spit at it), and a nice Pythagorean min7 (no 5) chord on the tonic C, a very nice 14:16:21 triad on the Eb, and lots of very colorful alterations here and there. I really liked how some of the chromatic melodic passages came out, and the "cat walking on a piano" solo after the first chorus is just...spine-tingling.

Comments welcome.

-Igs

I like this piece a lot!! I think it is substantially better
than the piece for Michael's tuning. Whether that is the tuning
or the composition I know not. Probably it is both. -Carl

At 06:31 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
>Here's my little ditty in John O'Sullivan's "bad" tuning. It's a
>spacey-jazzy little number, piano bass drums horns and vibraphone, in
>5/8 (sort of).
>
>/makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/A
>nxiously%20Orbiting%20in%20Andro.mp3
>
>I found this tuning a bit less challenging than Michael's, as there
>were quite a few good intervals hiding out in various places. I found
>what felt somewhat like a 4:5:7 chord on F, which looks like about
>0-383-568 cents on closer inspection of the scale (so, not quite
>4:5:7, but close enough to spit at it), and a nice Pythagorean min7
>(no 5) chord on the tonic C, a very nice 14:16:21 triad on the Eb, and
>lots of very colorful alterations here and there. I really liked how
>some of the chromatic melodic passages came out, and the "cat walking
>on a piano" solo after the first chorus is just...spine-tingling.
>
>Comments welcome.
>
>-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I like this piece a lot!! I think it is substantially better
> than the piece for Michael's tuning. Whether that is the tuning
> or the composition I know not. Probably it is both. -Carl

Well, this one actually had some thought put in it--I found the tuning a bit trickier to do straight improv with, so it's actually based on a few simple repeating chord progressions. Also, I think it's a bit more rhythmically interesting, too. I'll put similar effort into the next piece, in Michael's "bad fifths" scale (which looks to be quite the challenge).

-Igs

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

> Well, this one actually had some thought put in it--I found the tuning a bit trickier to do straight improv with, so it's actually based on a few simple repeating chord progressions.

How do you manage if you try to compose in something like 31et? Or do you?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> How do you manage if you try to compose in something like 31et? Or do you?
>
Depends. Currently, I am limited to 12-note subsets, since I use Apple Logic, but as far as my experience goes, 12 is more than enough for me. Sometimes it is too much, if the scale is too uneven. I compose more by feel than by theory, and if I have too many notes available I lose my ability to "feel" my way forward--too many decisions to make at any given moment causes brain-lag and I can't keep up enough forward momentum.

I'm not sure if this is a strength or a weakness for me as a composer; I'd fail miserably if I ever attempted to write even basic counterpoint, but I seem to have a knack for minimalism. When I did take a stab at 31-EDO on guitar, it was a nightmare, though not as bad as the Catler 12-tone Ultra Plus (which takes 12-tET and adds 7th, 11th, and 13th harmonics to every note). I had to play everything in the same key (A, specifically), as the thought of modulating even in the diatonic scale was too intimidating. Even playing in Pajara[10] in 22-EDO took quite a bit of mental agility for me. Which is probably why I have very different taste in scales than you do--the temperaments you use (and quite skillfully, may I add) would stymie me, no doubt about it. Surely you've noticed that the scales I love all have one thing in common: they're simple!

-Igs

Let's make it a rule hereforth to include the scale used in every
musical file presented.

I found merits in this example. Maybe acclimitization into the beat
groove is masking any plausible distaste in tuning, or there is none
left after listening to so much microtonal music. Well! As I believe
always, it's not the scale alone (and probably has little to do with),
it's the composer and his merits that counts.

All in all, the music sounds agreeable to good.

What do standardist consonantists have to say?

Cordially,
Oz.

> --
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
> Here's my little ditty in John O'Sullivan's "bad" tuning. It's a spacey-jazzy little number, piano bass drums horns and vibraphone, in 5/8 (sort of).
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Anxiously%20Orbiting%20in%20Andro.mp3
>
> I found this tuning a bit less challenging than Michael's, as there were quite a few good intervals hiding out in various places. I found what felt somewhat like a 4:5:7 chord on F, which looks like about 0-383-568 cents on closer inspection of the scale (so, not quite 4:5:7, but close enough to spit at it), and a nice Pythagorean min7 (no 5) chord on the tonic C, a very nice 14:16:21 triad on the Eb, and lots of very colorful alterations here and there. I really liked how some of the chromatic melodic passages came out, and the "cat walking on a piano" solo after the first chorus is just...spine-tingling.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> -Igs
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

I pretty much have been already. At the very least, when the
composition is worthy. it is on my blog.
Or in the case of John O'Sullivan's piece it is in the folder.

http://micro.soonlabel.com/bad/

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Let's make it a rule hereforth to include the scale used in every
> musical file presented.
>
> I found merits in this example. Maybe acclimitization into the beat
> groove is masking any plausible distaste in tuning, or there is none
> left after listening to so much microtonal music. Well! As I believe
> always, it's not the scale alone (and probably has little to do with),
> it's the composer and his merits that counts.
>
> All in all, the music sounds agreeable to good.
>
> What do standardist consonantists have to say?
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> > --
> >
> > ✩ ✩ ✩
> > www.ozanyarman.com
>
> > Here's my little ditty in John O'Sullivan's "bad" tuning. It's a spacey-jazzy little number, piano bass drums horns and vibraphone, in 5/8 (sort of).
> >
> > /makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Anxiously%20Orbiting%20in%20Andro.mp3
> >
> > I found this tuning a bit less challenging than Michael's, as there were quite a few good intervals hiding out in various places. I found what felt somewhat like a 4:5:7 chord on F, which looks like about 0-383-568 cents on closer inspection of the scale (so, not quite 4:5:7, but close enough to spit at it), and a nice Pythagorean min7 (no 5) chord on the tonic C, a very nice 14:16:21 triad on the Eb, and lots of very colorful alterations here and there. I really liked how some of the chromatic melodic passages came out, and the "cat walking on a piano" solo after the first chorus is just...spine-tingling.
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
> > -Igs
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Carl>"I like this piece a lot!! I think it is substantially better than the
piece for Michael's tuning."

In both pieces to use of timbre (specifically the inharmonic tone/inharmonic
timbre matching) and arrangement is tantalizingly smart. I keep on thinking
"Setharesian"...even though I recall you/Igs are in disbelief on Sethares'
theories.
But this song, as opposed to the one based on my "bad" tuning, sounds a
substantially more layered and playful...and those playful drifting solos are
icing on the cake! This one is "close enough to tuned" that even when "stable"
chords "aren't there"...the are close enough my mind fills in the blanks...as if
said chords are in the background even though they are not.
Did I mention the drum arrangement here is awesome?...just when you think the
beat is about to lose momentum you throw in a drum...keeping the listener "on
the edge of moving" and getting a good sense of motion with very few drum kits
and lots of rotations.

The solos, the drums, the hazy strings, the chords you can't hear but your
mind fills in for you...everything just screams "abstract intelligence".

Fantastic work!

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

Igs>"I'll put similar effort into the next piece, in Michael's "bad fifths"
scale (which looks to be quite the challenge)."

As per habit....
My goal with my "good" scales (as John does with his scales) is to make all
dyads from all possible roots (and not just things like 5ths) pure relative to a
list of dyads I like the sound of individually...so my goal with my bad scales
it to make all dyads from all possible roots approach a list of dyads I think
sound miserably impure!

Best luck but, again, I predict my definition of a "bad scale" is going to
make your "job" as a composer much more tricky than dealing with any other "bad"
scale (though not impossible, of course)...and hopefully at least in part hint
that my "good" scales should have the opposite effect... We'll have to see what
happens when you mess with "Dimension^2", my "good" scale, as well...

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

Igs> Well, this one actually had some thought put in it--I found the tuning a
bit trickier to do straight improv with, so it's actually based on a few simple
repeating chord progressions.

This seems to hint at one of my main theories...the "bad" tunings have a
much shorter list of strong chords available than "good" tunings do...even if
you really know what you are doing with the "bad" tunings.

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

Ozan>"What do standardist consonantists have to say?"

As I said before...I really like the piece. The only thing I've said negative
is about the chord progression (few chords and "chord moods" used) feeling a bit
narrow...but Igs mostly eliminates that narrowness by doing a whole lot of
solos.

I think the "badness" in the scale forced Igs away from using a lot of
different chords as the scale seems to have limited Igs's "strong chord" list to
just a few chords. Which, in turn, seems to have limited Igs to doing a piece
based on the emotional option the few chords leave open: one of abstract
improvization. And Igs "got smart" and took a road of "abstract jazz" that
actually made such limitations sound intentional.

Summary...the tuning gave Igs few strong compositional options and few
choices in mood...but he identified the few options well and ran with them,
giving the impression he wanted that mood rather than was partly forced into it
by the tuning.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> In both pieces to use of timbre (specifically the inharmonic tone/inharmonic
> timbre matching) and arrangement is tantalizingly smart. I keep on thinking
> "Setharesian"...even though I recall you/Igs are in disbelief on Sethares'
> theories.

Man, I've been going to great lengths NOT to use timbres that mask the tunings. In the piece I wrote for your tuning, I used sampled guitar harmonics--you can't get more "pure harmonic" than that!--as well as strings (w/no vibrato) and some kind of calliope-esque sound. In the piece for John's scale, I used a piano, an electric bass, and a friggin' BRASS HORN sample (again w/NO vibrato). About the only timbres I can think of that are LESS masking of the tuning would be pure square and saw waves, which sound bad on their own!

I don't disbelieve Sethares' theory, all he's on about is eliminating beating by tuning all the partials to match all the possible fundamental notes in the tuning. I just don't believe that the elimination of beating has any more than a negligible effect in actual music. As long as beating is kept either below or above a particular "sour zone", everything seems to sound fine.

But anyway, glad you like it. I'm enjoying the 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th, depending on where you're counting from) "bad" tuning you suggest right now, I think you'll dig what I'm doing with it. Unlike the others, this one's an MOS scale (which is a plus), virtually identical to one from 35-EDO with a generator of around 137 cents and a period of the octave. It works somewhat like 9-EDO but with more contrast. And four very usable fifths of almost 4/7ths of an octave.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> This seems to hint at one of my main theories...the "bad" tunings have a
> much shorter list of strong chords available than "good" tunings do...even if
> you really know what you are doing with the "bad" tunings.

Well, duh! Bit of a tautology there, isn't it? But "knowing what you are doing" with the bad tunings doesn't mean "knowing how to find all the good chords in them", it means knowing how to effectively use the weak chords.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > How do you manage if you try to compose in something like 31et? Or do you?
> >
> Depends. Currently, I am limited to 12-note subsets, since I use Apple Logic, but as far as my experience goes, 12 is more than enough for me.

There are plenty of scales I think would be better to work with than what you get by throwing darts.

Igs>"It works somewhat like 9-EDO but with more contrast. And four very usable
fifths of almost 4/7ths of an octave."
Dare I ask, what fractional values do the "usable" fifths have? :-D All the
fifths should be around 52/35 (1.485) and 17/11 (1.5454) since those were the
two generators...unless I made a mistake somewhere.

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

Me>"This seems to hint at one of my main theories...the "bad" tunings have a
much shorter list of strong chords > available than "good" tunings do...even if
you really know what you are doing with the "bad" tunings."

Igs>"Well, duh! Bit of a tautology there, isn't it? But "knowing what you are
doing" with the bad tunings doesn't mean "knowing how to find all the good
chords in them", it means knowing how to effectively use the weak chords."

Agreed and, yes, fairly obvious (if I have it right)...you are "trapped"
with fewer chords and need to find some other ways to get variety.

So it also should seem fairly obvious (at least for many people who do rely a
lot on chords for variety) that it presents more of a challenge...correct? Even
if it applies less so to composers like yourself who seem more adpet at find
other ways to get around it... It seems to hold a similar challenge to, say,
telling a musician used to composing with chord to hold interest with a
monophonic piece...although not quite as hard as that musician gets at least get
a few chords at his/her disposal.

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

Hi Igs,

thanks for having a go at my bad scale. In your piece there are a few tolerable chords and a few snippets of nice melodies but overall I could hear a lot of sour notes which, of course, was the point.

Swinging the other way, do you want to try my best scale: Blue Temperament?

John.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Here's my little ditty in John O'Sullivan's "bad" tuning. It's a spacey-jazzy little number, piano bass drums horns and vibraphone, in 5/8 (sort of).
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Anxiously%20Orbiting%20in%20Andro.mp3
>
> I found this tuning a bit less challenging than Michael's, as there were quite a few good intervals hiding out in various places. I found what felt somewhat like a 4:5:7 chord on F, which looks like about 0-383-568 cents on closer inspection of the scale (so, not quite 4:5:7, but close enough to spit at it), and a nice Pythagorean min7 (no 5) chord on the tonic C, a very nice 14:16:21 triad on the Eb, and lots of very colorful alterations here and there. I really liked how some of the chromatic melodic passages came out, and the "cat walking on a piano" solo after the first chorus is just...spine-tingling.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> -Igs
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Igs,
>
> thanks for having a go at my bad scale. In your piece there are a few tolerable chords and a few snippets of nice melodies but overall I could hear a lot of sour notes which, of course, was the point.
>

Indeed. And the master chef always takes care to balance the 5 tastes, not to excessively indulge in a single one. The sour flavor of this scale makes it less than ideal for everyday cooking, but it sure makes a great "apertif"!

> Swinging the other way, do you want to try my best scale: Blue Temperament?
>
> John.

Certainly, John. I'll give it a go after I finish Michael's "Bad Fifths" tuning, 14-EDO, and then Michael's "Dimension^2" tuning. I should warn you, though: just as I search out the good within the bad scales, for "Blue Temperament" and "Dimension^2" I'll be searching out the bad.

All of this is, of course, part of my quest to demonstrate that (at least up to a point) interval quality is far from the best indicator of the musical utility of a scale. As a taoist, I cannot help but insist on demonstrating that there is always a kernel of good within the bad (and a kernel of bad within the good), and furthermore that it is pathological to seek (and impossible to achieve) the eradication of either good or bad.

-Igs

>"All of this is, of course, part of my quest to demonstrate that (at least up to
>a point) interval quality is far from the best indicator of the musical utility
>of a scale."

Hmm...so the best indicator (on average, of course, as NOTHING in art is
completely without exception!) of musical utility, in your opinion, is?!

One safe bet seems to be "what matters most is how much the composer's
style matches the scale's abilities". But in such cases you'd think each
composer would gravitate toward different scales...which would eventually yield
more scales than any typical musician would know what to do with...which would
pretty much lead us to the state of microtonality we are in now...which is one
where explaining it to musicians quickly and within their attention spans is
pretty near impossible. And that, IMVHO, doesn't do much for any cause of
recruiting musicians to make microtonal compositions, but, rather, aids to
overwhelming a large percentage of them and scaring them off.

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Hmm...so the best indicator (on average, of course, as NOTHING in art is
> completely without exception!) of musical utility, in your opinion, is?!

There isn't one. The question of whether a scale is good or bad is an invalid question, unless the question of "for what context?" is first answered.

> One safe bet seems to be "what matters most is how much the composer's
> style matches the scale's abilities". But in such cases you'd think each
> composer would gravitate toward different scales...which would eventually yield
> more scales than any typical musician would know what to do with...which would
> pretty much lead us to the state of microtonality we are in now...which is one
> where explaining it to musicians quickly and within their attention spans is
> pretty near impossible. And that, IMVHO, doesn't do much for any cause of
> recruiting musicians to make microtonal compositions, but, rather, aids to
> overwhelming a large percentage of them and scaring them off.

Why explain specific scales when people should be learning general principles of tuning? I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is a waste of time to seek a single tuning to succeed 12-tET. There are too many viable alternatives to select one, or even a handful. It is also impossible to explain why any of them would be desirable without explaining basic principles of tuning. Musicians should be empowered to choose among tunings, not led blindly from one to the next. Yes, there is a vast teeming plethora of tunings used in the microtonal world, but most microtonalists at least understand all of them, because we know the basic principles (which are really quite simple).

-Igs

At 05:44 AM 1/9/11 +0200, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>Let's make it a rule hereforth to include the scale used in every
>musical file presented.

If pitch is bent throughout, as in blues, how can that requirement be met?

-- Beco dos Gatinhos <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/music/pitch.html>

Is this your tune Igs? Did I miss it somehow?
*

-----Original Message-----
From: ALOE@...
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:16:54
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>; <pitch@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Anxiously Orbiting in Andromeda in John O'Sullivan's
"Bad" Tuning

At 05:44 AM 1/9/11 +0200, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>Let's make it a rule hereforth to include the scale used in every
>musical file presented.

If pitch is bent throughout, as in blues, how can that requirement be met?

-- Beco dos Gatinhos <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/music/pitch.html>

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

Igs composed this one. See message 24401.

Hey Igs, let me know when your ready to have a go at my best scale and I'll post you the tuning.

John.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Is this your tune Igs? Did I miss it somehow?
> *
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ALOE@...
> Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:16:54
> To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>; <pitch@yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Anxiously Orbiting in Andromeda in John O'Sullivan's
> "Bad" Tuning
>
> At 05:44 AM 1/9/11 +0200, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> >Let's make it a rule hereforth to include the scale used in every
> >musical file presented.
>
> If pitch is bent throughout, as in blues, how can that requirement be met?
>
> -- Beco dos Gatinhos <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/music/pitch.html>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I found it.

The part with strings before the solo I found to be awesome. That is the
progression at 1:30 up to the solo.

Nice work Igs.

chris

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:31 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> Here's my little ditty in John O'Sullivan's "bad" tuning. It's a
> spacey-jazzy little number, piano bass drums horns and vibraphone, in 5/8
> (sort of).
>
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Anxiously%20Orbiting%20in%20Andro.mp3
>
> I found this tuning a bit less challenging than Michael's, as there were
> quite a few good intervals hiding out in various places. I found what felt
> somewhat like a 4:5:7 chord on F, which looks like about 0-383-568 cents on
> closer inspection of the scale (so, not quite 4:5:7, but close enough to
> spit at it), and a nice Pythagorean min7 (no 5) chord on the tonic C, a very
> nice 14:16:21 triad on the Eb, and lots of very colorful alterations here
> and there. I really liked how some of the chromatic melodic passages came
> out, and the "cat walking on a piano" solo after the first chorus is
> just...spine-tingling.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> -Igs
>
>
>

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