Re: [MMM] Evaluating Scales

Igs wrote:

>What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good scales, but
>rather instructions on how to use them. Compositional theory,
>basically. The number one objection to microtonality I encounter
>among regular musicians is that they have no idea how to integrate new
>intervals and new scales into intelligible music.

Good point. You're right, I think the scales aren't holding us
back. Instruments are definitely getting there. Examples of music
for people to get into are getting there. There's almost no
practical theory. Generally I think instruments and music examples
are more important, but all the ingredients are part of the solution.

-Carl

theory is supposed to follow practice. first write effective music, then the
theoreticians can look at what's going on. when theory is prescriptive, like
in serial or set theory music, well, you see what the outcome is. Wagner
wrote the Tristan chord just because it sounds good and theorists are still
arguing about what to call it.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Igs wrote:
>
> >What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good scales, but
> >rather instructions on how to use them. Compositional theory,
> >basically. The number one objection to microtonality I encounter
> >among regular musicians is that they have no idea how to integrate new
> >intervals and new scales into intelligible music.
>
> Good point. You're right, I think the scales aren't holding us
> back. Instruments are definitely getting there. Examples of music
> for people to get into are getting there. There's almost no
> practical theory. Generally I think instruments and music examples
> are more important, but all the ingredients are part of the solution.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

examples of music i think are better than theories.
most styles are best when people are working them out,
once they have been figured out they turn to boredom.

/^_,',',',_ //^/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 11/01/11 10:03 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Igs wrote:
>
> >What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good > scales, but
> >rather instructions on how to use them. Compositional theory,
> >basically. The number one objection to microtonality I encounter
> >among regular musicians is that they have no idea how to > integrate new
> >intervals and new scales into intelligible music.
>
> Good point. You're right, I think the scales aren't holding us
> back. Instruments are definitely getting there. Examples of music
> for people to get into are getting there. There's almost no
> practical theory. Generally I think instruments and music examples
> are more important, but all the ingredients are part of the > solution.
>
> -Carl
>
>

My observation is that within the confines of popular music, music theory
is under used and probably is not a factor in holding back adoption of
microtonalism.

Within the confines of more cerebral genres, classical and jazz say, the
composers have the skill to work out microtonal chord progressions if they
desire and many have. Remember at one time common practice *wasn't* common
practice. Composers like Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Wagner and especially
Debussy made stuff up in their head that worked and then later was
explained by the theorists as to how it worked after the fact.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Igs wrote:
>
> >What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good scales, but
> >rather instructions on how to use them. Compositional theory,
> >basically. The number one objection to microtonality I encounter
> >among regular musicians is that they have no idea how to integrate new
> >intervals and new scales into intelligible music.
>
> Good point. You're right, I think the scales aren't holding us
> back. Instruments are definitely getting there. Examples of music
> for people to get into are getting there. There's almost no
> practical theory. Generally I think instruments and music examples
> are more important, but all the ingredients are part of the solution.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

Dante wrote:

At 03:21 PM 1/10/2011, you wrote:
>theory is supposed to follow practice. first write effective music, then the
>theoreticians can look at what's going on. when theory is prescriptive, like
>in serial or set theory music, well, you see what the outcome is. Wagner
>wrote the Tristan chord just because it sounds good and theorists are still
>arguing about what to call it.

As you know I don't buy prescriptive theory, but I think descriptive
theory has value. Hard to say how much - plenty of great musicians
skipped theory completely - but it definitely is taught in music
school, by many guitar teachers, piano teachers, etc. etc. There's
probably a modest feedback from good descriptive theory into musical
practice. Igs' observation that basically none exists for microtonal
music strikes me as a good one. I won't complain if somebody wants
to take a stab at it.

-Carl

I once mapped out all the traditional chord movements according to common practice and found going backwards was the most musically rewarding thing i could do.

/^_,',',',_ //^/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 11/01/11 10:46 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Dante wrote:
>
> At 03:21 PM 1/10/2011, you wrote:
> >theory is supposed to follow practice. first write effective > music, then the
> >theoreticians can look at what's going on. when theory is > prescriptive, like
> >in serial or set theory music, well, you see what the outcome > is. Wagner
> >wrote the Tristan chord just because it sounds good and > theorists are still
> >arguing about what to call it.
>
> As you know I don't buy prescriptive theory, but I think > descriptive
> theory has value. Hard to say how much - plenty of great musicians
> skipped theory completely - but it definitely is taught in music
> school, by many guitar teachers, piano teachers, etc. etc. There's
> probably a modest feedback from good descriptive theory into > musical
> practice. Igs' observation that basically none exists for > microtonal
> music strikes me as a good one. I won't complain if somebody wants
> to take a stab at it.
>
> -Carl
>
>

Dante>"theory is supposed to follow practice. first write effective music, then
the theoreticians can look at what's going on."

The question seems to be how to you get past the huge walls of numeric
possibilities IE the millions and more of possible scale within the octave to
find something that works?

This is the "problem", IMVHO, with microtonality...unlike the innovators of
fixed-tone systems IE 12,31, etc., to some extent, we don't have the excuse of
saying "the palette is limited so there, I did the just about best possible
innovation with my limited palette". It more like, "oh you used 31TET, but in
this one part I think an interval only in 15TET would sound better" and so on
and so forth.

Granted, if I had such a great ear that I could just randomly doodle around
on a fretless and come up with both very new feeling and easily interpretable
scales just by looking back at the compositions...I'd gladly just to that with
microtonal music. Problem is, I don't, and I'd be very interested/amazed to see
people who play not trying to match any scale or pre-determined set of interval
whatsoever and end up with very coherent music (especially...containing chords)
on a fretless instrument.

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

Igs said > "What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good scales, but rather instructions on how to use them."

I recently posted a comprehensive list of all "good" chords two octaves or less wide that can be used in my Blue Temperament tuning system in all twelve keys.

John.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Igs wrote:
>
> >What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good scales, but
> >rather instructions on how to use them. Compositional theory,
> >basically. The number one objection to microtonality I encounter
> >among regular musicians is that they have no idea how to integrate new
> >intervals and new scales into intelligible music.
>
> Good point. You're right, I think the scales aren't holding us
> back. Instruments are definitely getting there. Examples of music
> for people to get into are getting there. There's almost no
> practical theory. Generally I think instruments and music examples
> are more important, but all the ingredients are part of the solution.
>
> -Carl
>

Carl>"There's almost no practical theory"

Simply put, I believe I agree about lack of music theory for microtonality.
Two large elements are having readily available, well documented music theory
and having the theory work in a form that is easily learn-able.

Far as the ability to make theory easy to learn...I've been trying to make
the theory simpler by making relatively small scales with very few "bad" chords
so very little "theory" is hopefully needed to hit sweet spots (chords,
melodies, etc.) when making music with said scales.

However, there is also the issue of how theory in microtonal scales works.
Things like what makes things like a chord progression work over time IE what
patterns of interval BETWEEN (and not within) chords make for tension and
resolve.
And this is something I admittedly have not thought about much yet, but am
setting on the path toward...and hopefully it will lead toward some progress on
making microtonal theory much easier to document...if not also make it easier to
find scales which have corresponding theories which are easier to learn and/or
rewarding enough per-musician-effort to be worth it to them.

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

It seems the simplest is if you has MOS subsets those scales that have the most common tones, like in a cycle of fifths are the first one might investigate.
then one can try jumping to further ones as one gets a good feel for these.
If nothing else it really gets the sound of the tuning in your ear and shows you the simplest modification.

/^_,',',',_ //^/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 11/01/11 10:46 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Dante wrote:
>
> At 03:21 PM 1/10/2011, you wrote:
> >theory is supposed to follow practice. first write effective > music, then the
> >theoreticians can look at what's going on. when theory is > prescriptive, like
> >in serial or set theory music, well, you see what the outcome > is. Wagner
> >wrote the Tristan chord just because it sounds good and > theorists are still
> >arguing about what to call it.
>
> As you know I don't buy prescriptive theory, but I think > descriptive
> theory has value. Hard to say how much - plenty of great musicians
> skipped theory completely - but it definitely is taught in music
> school, by many guitar teachers, piano teachers, etc. etc. There's
> probably a modest feedback from good descriptive theory into > musical
> practice. Igs' observation that basically none exists for > microtonal
> music strikes me as a good one. I won't complain if somebody wants
> to take a stab at it.
>
> -Carl
>
>

it could be that descriptive theory just boils down to how tension is
created using dissonance and then released using consonance. This would
apply no matter what the tuning system. different tunings just give
different flavors of dissonance to resolve into various relative or absolute
consonances.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
> As you know I don't buy prescriptive theory, but I think descriptive
> theory has value. Hard to say how much - plenty of great musicians
> skipped theory completely - but it definitely is taught in music
> school, by many guitar teachers, piano teachers, etc. etc. There's
> probably a modest feedback from good descriptive theory into musical
> practice. Igs' observation that basically none exists for microtonal
> music strikes me as a good one. I won't complain if somebody wants
> to take a stab at it.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> The question seems to be how to you get past the huge walls of numeric
> possibilities IE the millions and more of possible scale within the octave to
> find something that works?

what "works" or "doesn't work" is one's musical imagination, not the
scale or tuning one is using.

> Granted, if I had such a great ear that I could just randomly doodle around
> on a fretless and come up with both very new feeling and easily interpretable
> scales just by looking back at the compositions...I'd gladly just to that with
> microtonal music. Problem is, I don't, and I'd be very interested/amazed to see
> people who play not trying to match any scale or pre-determined set of interval
> whatsoever and end up with very coherent music (especially...containing chords)
> on a fretless instrument.

even if you are not trying to match pitches, your ear cannot help but
be guided by A) acoustics and B) everything you've ever heard before.
chords are hard on a fretless instrument which is why i dont play
fretless: the thing that drew me to microtonality is harmonic colors
rather than just melodic step sizes.

I don't think there's necessary some new theory of composition for
microtonal music, why. All composers for centuries - be it Machaut,
Scarlatti, Chopin, Stravinski or Ligetti - had to solve same basic
tasks and fighted with same problems when creating music. These are
independent from music style, or used material. Some of them:

- to select proper basic material for the work and find its features,
what it offers and how long or how much or deep we can exploit it
without recycling or information redundance (but even redundance can
be used intentionally!)

- to found the optimal way how to work with selected material (but
even wrong work with material can be used intentionally!)

- to found proper form for selected material and best balance between
form and contents. Too much emphasized skeleton fo work is same
painful like too detailed work with micromotifs without any frame.

- to found proper relation and balance between rational and emotional
elements in music. Both extremes mean boring music, too much
mechanically constructive or too much improvisational and amorph.
(But both those extremes can be used intentionally on higher
compositional level to get planned impact.)

- to found proper relation between chaos (randomness) and order. Both
extremes mean boring music, too much random music (aleatorics or free
improvisation) can sound very similar like too much organized music
(multiserialism, computer music). Again - both extremes are sometimes
applicable.

- to found proper balance between smooth processes or sudden changes
and contrasts. Both is necessary, and can be combined in many ways.
Or work can use only one of these structural principles.

- to found proper balance between known (older) and unknown (new,
original) elements and parameters. Two much known means eclecticism
(recycling) and danger that listeners will be bored from information
redundance, two much new means danger that listeners will be shocked
and tired from density of new information.

- to found optimal way for given work how to distribute information
and its density, in all music parameters which we use in that work
(not all of them must be always present)

- to try to be original, unique among the other composers of same
times, try to bring something new, original, unique, some personal
voice, something which differs us from the other.

Maybe someboidy will find more items...

From this is clear that the most important sciences for composer are
information theory and psychology.

From this point of view it's clear that in music composition
material is not so important, anything can be used as a base. Much
more important is what we do with this material in time, how we work
with it in the context.

All this started to be extremely important in 20th century, when all
individual music parameters were deeply exploited to their extreme
limits, and it seemed no older rules are usable for contemporary
music and nothing new or surprising is possible to invent. Composers
started to combine everything, and create individual and special form
for each new work depending on used material.

Despite similar basic attitude the situation and position of
contemporary composer is much more complex then situation of Mozart.
He had one and the only mainstream style of its times, defined by
clear, simple and strict rules for all music parameters, and a lot of
space to forget about rules and invent something quite new (which he
did in certain aspects, but not so much as experimenting innovative
composers like for example Gesualdo, Scarlatti, Rejcha, Debussy or
Schönberg). It was much easier to be genius those times.

Nowadays (exactly said after 70ies when the last significant music
style in contemporary music came into the use) we have lot of music
styles to our disposal, but almost nothing new to invent (oh sorry,
there's a microtonality). So we can use all previous historical music
styles and their rules including Multiserialism (50ies), Aleatorics &
Timbre music (60ies), Electronic & computer music (since end of
40ies), Minimalism (since 60ies), New simplicity (70ies) plus some
usable and interesting elements of all pop music styles and world
ethnic music styles. We can only try to combine all this.

This all is valid also for music using microtonality. We have to
select basic material, found an optimal way how to work with it, and
make some music from it. That's all, so simple it is. It's enough to
use information theory, psychology and common sense.

Terms like "effective cadences", "resolving chord progressions", "non
diatonic scales", "tonal center", "resolution" still are valid and
can be used even for microtonal music, but not always. Why microtonal
music should use tonal center when somebody will use something like
atonal, dodecaphonic tone rows attitude? Also it doesn't mean such
microtonal "music will sound bad", why?

Once more I emphasize there are no "good" or "bad" scales, chords,
chord progressions, motifs or anything like this. Everything in music
is context dependent. Even "chaotic structures" or "awkward sound" is
usable in musical context, beg you pardon. Also I don't know any
"strong" or "weak" chords, that's nonsense. It must be judged in
concrete musical context. Major triad with minor seventh will have
different impact when used as dominant chord in Baroque, combined
with tonic root in Classicism cadenzas, as subdominant chord in blues
or in Janacek or Martinu work, or as timbral mixture in chains in
some Debussy work.

Daniel Forro

On 11 Jan 2011, at 5:45 AM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
>
> What is lacking in the microtonal community is not good scales, but
> rather instructions on how to use them. Compositional theory,
> basically. The number one objection to microtonality I encounter
> among regular musicians is that they have no idea how to integrate
> new intervals and new scales into intelligible music. Anyone
> trained in classical music theory has to throw out everything they
> know to deal with microtonal scales outside of the meantone family,
> and they are reluctant to do that when there are no analogous
> guiding theories for these new microtonal scales. No one has
> worked out effective cadences or resolving chord progressions in
> non-diatonic scales, so even if you have a scale with lots of
> strong chords, if you don't know how to move between them in
> effective ways that create a sense of tonal center and a sense of
> resolution, the music will sound bad.
>
> This is why I think your "bad" scales work about as well as your
> "good" scales: the focus on dyads (or even triads) obscures the
> relationships between the chords, giving your scales an overall
> chaotic structure where chord progressions sound awkward. So
> regardless of how strong or weak individual chords are, what is
> more important is how to move between them--the overall web that
> connects the chords.
>
> Spend more time studying the connections in your scales, and also
> studying the structure of other good scales--map out all the
> triads, tetrads, pentads, and figure out the intervals that connect
> them. Then figure out how it "feels" to move by various
> intervals. Consider this: if you have two strong, pure major
> triads--the most basic consonance possible--it feels very different
> in terms of resolution if they are separated by a 4/3, by a 3/2, by
> a 5/4, by an 11/10, by a 7/6, etc. Movement by intervals like 7/6
> or 11/10 is weak in terms of creating resolution, even if you are
> going from one strong chord to another.

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

Daniel wrote:

>I don't think there's necessary some new theory of composition for
>microtonal music, why. All composers for centuries - be it Machaut,
>Scarlatti, Chopin, Stravinski or Ligetti - had to solve same basic
>tasks and fighted with same problems when creating music. These are
>independent from music style, or used material. Some of them:
>

It has been found that progressions by 5ths are less severe
or intense or disruptive than progressions by 3rds. This was
discovered quickly and, because everyone was using the same
tuning, became immediately known and observed by all - even by
musicians who don't know at all of 5ths or 3rds, but rather
just learn to play music they've heard.

When every musician is using a unique tuning, this goes out
the window. What if your tuning has no 5ths and 3rds? It
would be handy to at least start talking of these things.
In something like 19-ET there are a staggering number of
possible chords and scales compared to 12-ET. One person
probably will not cover it all in a lifetime. If Igs finds
something he thinks sounds cool, I would like to have him tell
me so I can try it too.

-Carl

Carl>"It has been found that progressions by 5ths are less severe or intense or
disruptive than progressions by 3rds. This was discovered quickly and, because
everyone was using the same tuning, became immediately known and observed by all
- even by
musicians who don't know at all of 5ths or 3rds, but rather just learn to play
music they've heard."

Exactly! Such patterns aren't common among all "artists" of music and
compositional uses...but they are among the most common ones, and apparently
even by pure human instinct (IE even among completely untrained musicians).

The other larger question seems to be...if why aren't going for some sort of
somewhat mathematical optimization or at least pattern (be it drawable back to a
specific science or not IE purely shown to have artistic value and nothing
else)...what on earth are we trying to improve?

In other words...if Daniel's theory holds as I understand it....there should
be just one type of music group, a "composition" group...and microtonality
should just be left alone and thrown in rather than attempted to be optimized.
However, at least from personal experience, I see too much increase in the
amount of emotion I can show doing such "pointless optimizations" that I feel
compelled to keep working at "optimizing microtonallity"...and at the same time
of course realize that different people will find different type (both from mine
and each other's) of optimization ultimately useful in composing.

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

I'm not sure what do you mean by optimization. To me for example 19ET or 84ET is just 19ET and 84ET. I can use it just as it is. There's nothing in it which can be improved or optimized, at least as I understand it. Step size is fixed. The same is truth about any other tuning or scales. There are many of them, some with interesting features which I can use or emphasize in my music or I can go against them and use tuning or scale some other way. For me tuning is only basic material, and it's necessary to work with it on higher compositional level. What is interesting for me are for example processual or sudden changes in size of intervals, steps used for melodic motifs or for building the chords. I can create melody which uses different step sizes in some very fine tuning like 84ET, for example 3-6-9-13-8-5-21-11 (some of them upwards, some downwards), and when this motif is used later in composition, it can be expanded for example to 6-9-12-16-11-8-24-14 (by adding 3), or compressed to 1-4-7-11-6-3-19-9 (by subtracting 2)...

This is constructive attitude, real composing, writing things in the score and later try to record it from the score. It can be laborious process, so of course we can use microtonal material also in improvisation on instrument, record it, edit in MIDI or audio and made score from it ex post (if we want to have score - in many cases it's not so much necessary). Or use some combination of both approaches, partly prepared improvisation or partly written score with places reserved for improvisation. Like in any other contemporary compositional work. I don't see big differences in this basic attitude between 12 tone and microtonal music, or even music based only on noises or written only for drums and percussions. Composer must always solve similar tasks.

Daniel Forro

On 13 Jan 2011, at 1:00 AM, Michael wrote:

>
> The other larger question seems to be...if why aren't going for > some sort of
> somewhat mathematical optimization or at least pattern (be it > drawable back to a
> specific science or not IE purely shown to have artistic value and > nothing
> else)...what on earth are we trying to improve?
>
> In other words...if Daniel's theory holds as I understand > it....there should
> be just one type of music group, a "composition" group...and > microtonality
> should just be left alone and thrown in rather than attempted to be > optimized.
> However, at least from personal experience, I see too much increase > in the
> amount of emotion I can show doing such "pointless optimizations" > that I feel
> compelled to keep working at "optimizing microtonallity"...and at > the same time
> of course realize that different people will find different type > (both from mine
> and each other's) of optimization ultimately useful in composing.

Daniel>"I'm not sure what do you mean by optimization. To me for example 19ET
or 84ET is just 19ET and 84ET."

The obvious ones are around JI dyads and triads (IE by least means squared
error)...but other types exists IE around timbre via critical band ALA Sethares,
around Harmonic Entropy (dyadic or triadic), around equal-beating, around
repeating sequences ALA Jacques Dudon.... Not to mention around ideas of
symmetry around repeating intervals ALA Wilson's MOS scales with TETs, making a
scale "strictly proper" IE the same amount of intervals skipped on a keyboard
represents the same class of interval within a scale...and other methods to try
and make finding one's way around an instrument composition-ally easier.

I am sure people like Carl and Gene could throw a few thousand "optimization"
terms on top of these....but the point is among these different measures....show
examples of them all to just about any composer or listener and they will almost
certainly find a few that constantly make music or making music an easier and/or
better experience for them...although different musicians will obviously favor
different types of optimization. it's almost like trying to get a good set of
samples or instruments together before starting to write a song...in the case of
composing electronic music (where there is no orchestra pre-assembled and ready
to play your music and you have to "roll your own").

>"There's nothing in it which can be improved or optimized, at least as I
>understand it. Step size is fixed."
This explains much of the reason why much of what I do far as creating
and composing in scales is NOT in TET systems but instead in irregular
temperaments. The most obvious example I can think of how TET tunings can be
"improved" is to take MOS subsets of them which can often get similar amounts of
emotional flexibility using far fewer notes...thus making such TET systems
(especially huge ones) much easier to compose in for many composers. Although,
personal opinion....I find MOS a bit limited...which is why I usually end up
making irregular temperaments made to fit a fixed set of dyads which I think
"mix" well together so far as how they sound.

>"What is interesting for me are for example processual or sudden changes in
>size of intervals, steps used for melodic motifs or for building the chords."

Right...but the idea is using said above optimization techniques is like
giving yourself say, 20, very strong "pre-mixed colors" as a "pallette" to use
for such things in advanced...rather than having to do with hundreds of random
colors and try and mix them into strong colors as you go. The latter gives more
options...but the former often increases both the ease of composition and the
likelihood the finished result will sound cohesive. In the end, of
course...it's the composition/painting that decides the end result...but picking
a "strategic palette" often can help.

>"Like in any other contemporary compositional work. I don't see big differences
>in this basic attitude between 12 tone and microtonal music, or even music
>based only on noises or written only for drums and percussions. Composer must
>always solve similar tasks."

Of course...I guess you could say giving the musician a strategically
optimized tonal pallette is much like, say, giving a musician a pre-tuned,
pre-leveled, pre-filtered, pre-panned drum kit and set of instruments from a
professionally mixed song to start with. It would not "do the work for them" by
any means, but it would likely greatly increase their chances the end work would
sound cohesive/professional....

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