Self-Destructing Mechanical Forest (Another "Worst")

In my continuing exploration of anti-optimal tunings (and the 3rd featuring a scale by Michael S., aka djtrancendance), I give you the most techno-esque song I've probably ever written: "Self-Destructing Mechanical Forest"

/makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Self-Destructing%20Mechanical.mp3

The scale is as follows:

0.00000
137.32199
274.16863
411.01527
547.86191
651.12570
788.44769
925.29433
1062.14097
1200.00000

(sorry for the lack of Scala formatting)
Unlike all the previous scales I've worked with in this ongoing compositional experiment, this one is a moment of symmetry scale, virtually identical to a scale from 35-EDO. The generator is the 137-cent interval. Mapped to C-D#-Eb-E-F-Gb-Ab-A-Bb.

It's actually not a terribly dissonant scale. By far the easiest of the bunch, on account of the fact that there are four 7-EDO-style fifths, many very nice 7/6s, and even a few near-5/4s. All told, I found four chords that were plenty consonant, which (because this is a 9-note scale) had both major and minor flavors, and that seemed to be enough to bring out a very normal-sounding song.

This piece doesn't really explore the harmonic depths of this scale, so I may attempt another one later on. But I think it definitely shows how strong this scale can sound.

-Igs

Igs,

This is much better than the typical Techno I run into. I mean you have real
changes and all :-)
I like what you've done here! That lead that almost a soprano lead that
wiggles in such an exotic way rules!!

Chris

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:41 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> In my continuing exploration of anti-optimal tunings (and the 3rd featuring
> a scale by Michael S., aka djtrancendance), I give you the most techno-esque
> song I've probably ever written: "Self-Destructing Mechanical Forest"
>
>
> /makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/Self-Destructing%20Mechanical.mp3
>
> The scale is as follows:
>
> 0.00000
> 137.32199
> 274.16863
> 411.01527
> 547.86191
> 651.12570
> 788.44769
> 925.29433
> 1062.14097
> 1200.00000
>
> (sorry for the lack of Scala formatting)
> Unlike all the previous scales I've worked with in this ongoing
> compositional experiment, this one is a moment of symmetry scale, virtually
> identical to a scale from 35-EDO. The generator is the 137-cent interval.
> Mapped to C-D#-Eb-E-F-Gb-Ab-A-Bb.
>
> It's actually not a terribly dissonant scale. By far the easiest of the
> bunch, on account of the fact that there are four 7-EDO-style fifths, many
> very nice 7/6s, and even a few near-5/4s. All told, I found four chords that
> were plenty consonant, which (because this is a 9-note scale) had both major
> and minor flavors, and that seemed to be enough to bring out a very
> normal-sounding song.
>
> This piece doesn't really explore the harmonic depths of this scale, so I
> may attempt another one later on. But I think it definitely shows how strong
> this scale can sound.
>
> -Igs
>
>
>

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

Igs>"It's actually not a terribly dissonant scale. By far the easiest of the
bunch, on account of the fact that there are four 7-EDO-style fifths"

Firsty, I'm going to trust my ears before my math...and 90% of this song
SOUNDED PERFECTLY STABLE TO ME. :-D Plus the mood is very...demo-scene...and
smart...would do well in a Doom (the video game) level mod. :-D

As for the unstable parts...for example at 1:12 2:46 and a few other
spots...the repeating chord (what exactly is that chord, ratio-wise?) doesn't
sound quite right...and around 3:03 3:15...the solo seems to drift out of key
and sound a bit confused to me...but the parts that "go off" are generally short
and quickly resolved...and most of the song is "close enough" that the sense of
stability is kept...

And....man...considering the scale was generated by two fifths (one about 20
cents flat and one around 16/11)...I had no clue it would create any fifths
other than the ones used to generate the scale.
Speaking of that...the 1.515 fifth (that really wasn't supposed to be able to
be there, LOL) is, indeed, a pretty good fifth...not at all wolf like the
1.485-ish and 1.4545-ish generator fifths I used. And the chords, dare I say
it...do sound dastardly clear and stable (doh!). Lesson learned...alternating
between two types of fifth CAN create a third type of fifth (doh!) :-D

Seriously...for my other bad scale composition you made...things were
blaring out at me that reminded me how unstable the ratios are...but for this
one there are so few...it almost sounds 19TET-ish.

Almost makes me want to create another version of this...that aims to purify
those existing 7/6's and stretched 5ths you found and try to "turn it good"...
:-D

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> As for the unstable parts...for example at 1:12 2:46 and a few other
> spots...the repeating chord (what exactly is that chord, ratio-wise?) doesn't
> sound quite right...

Those are two different chords...I'm really confused, actually, because there sort of isn't a chord at 1:12, that's where the chorus ends and the bass-melody verse part begins. 2:46 is right in the middle of one of the chorus chords, but it's definitely one of the stable ones. So I don't know what you're talking about.

> and around 3:03 3:15...the solo seems to drift out of key
> and sound a bit confused to me...but the parts that "go off" are generally short
> and quickly resolved...and most of the song is "close enough" that the sense of
> stability is kept...

Yeah, most of the solo is over roots of the "bad" chords, so it sounds pretty f'ed up in parts. It's tricky, because all of the chords have both major and minor "3rds"--this makes soloing very strange.

> And....man...considering the scale was generated by two fifths (one about 20
> cents flat and one around 16/11)...I had no clue it would create any fifths
> other than the ones used to generate the scale.

That's really funny that you generated the scale with two fifths, because you could just as well have generated it with one interval--the near-13/12 interval around 137 cents. There are really only two step-sizes in the scale, one at around 137 cents and one at around 104 cents (8 of the large step, 1 of the small, or 8L+1s in MOS terms).

> Speaking of that...the 1.515 fifth (that really wasn't supposed to be able to
> be there, LOL) is, indeed, a pretty good fifth...not at all wolf like the
> 1.485-ish and 1.4545-ish generator fifths I used.

Huh? Where does that fifth appear? All the good chords I used relied on the 1.485-ish fifth. And at any rate, that fifth is not much more out-of-tune than 1.515.

> And the chords, dare I say
> it...do sound dastardly clear and stable (doh!). Lesson learned...alternating
> between two types of fifth CAN create a third type of fifth (doh!) :-D

The fifths beat, but to my ears with the saw and square waves I used it just sounds like the usual vibrato one hears in techno tracks.

> Seriously...for my other bad scale composition you made...things were
> blaring out at me that reminded me how unstable the ratios are...but for this
> one there are so few...it almost sounds 19TET-ish.

Probably because of the slightly-flat fifths, and the 13/12-ish melodic steps aren't very different from the 14/13's in 19-EDO.

> Almost makes me want to create another version of this...that aims to purify
> those existing 7/6's and stretched 5ths you found and try to "turn it good"...
> :-D

You won't get much better than this one, if you can believe it. The more in-tune you get the 7/6's, the more out the fifths get. It's essentially a Moment-of-Symmetry scale, and it will retain its melodic character as long as the generator is between (and not including) 133.333 and 150 cents. At around 140 cents, the fifths are basically Just, but the 7/6's are way over-shot into 13/11 territory. Just a little sharper than your generator, at around 138.46 cents, you basically have 26-EDO, and while the 3/2's and 7/4's are more in-tune, the major 3rd of 5/4 is further off. Also, interestingly enough, this scale can approximate both 5/4 and 7/4 quite well, but you can't get them together in a chord.

-Igs

>"Those are two different chords...I'm really confused, actually, because there
>sort of isn't a chord at 1:12,"

Argh...media player classic screws up the timing (it also says the song is 10
minutes long!!!)...so i tried finding it in Audacity instead...
....The "sour" chord is at about 1:04...

>"Huh? Where does that fifth appear? All the good chords I used relied on the
>1.485-ish fifth. And at any rate, that fifth is not much more out-of-tune than
>1.515."

I believe you said the 5TET fifth...which actually is 1.515. So turns
out...said 1.515 fifth isn't there after all. :-D

Anyhow to explain...my ear tells me going sharp of a fifth is much more
easily tolerated than going flat of one...despite the fact the error of both of
those "wolf" fifths from a perfect fifth is similar. Try the dyads yourself
individually IE 1.485 vs. 1.115.

This is another area where my ear-beats-math thought process becomes
controvertial to a lot of people (lol).
Another counter example of "the same amount of error means the same things in
all directions (above or below) from all dyads:....try 16/11 vs. 22/15...huge
difference in mood and they are only some 15 cents or so away from each other!

>"The fifths beat, but to my ears with the saw and square waves I used it just
>sounds like the usual vibrato one hears in techno tracks."

I think you're right...you had me fooled! Even though I make dance tracks
all the time and think raw saw/square waves or detuned versions are often
terribly overused and usually avoid them...they work well here.

>"It's essentially a Moment-of-Symmetry scale"
But doesn't anything with two different sized generators that meet at
2/1,3/1,etc. form an MOS?

>"At around 140 cents, the fifths are basically Just, but the 7/6's are way
>over-shot into 13/11 territory. Just a little sharper than your generator, at
>around 138.46 cents, you basically have 26-EDO, and while the 3/2's and 7/4's
>are more in-tune, the major 3rd of 5/4 is further off."

It seems like the only real "plague" interval of this scale is the bad
fifths...and you seem to have got away with it by using it as a vibrato effect.
:-D
Maybe I should rename it the "bad fifths...but good lots of other things"
scale... :-D

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Igs,
>
> This is much better than the typical Techno I run into. I mean you have real
> changes and all :-)

It drove me up the wall, but techno usually does. I doubt it had much to do with the scale. So basically, just ignore me except I'm serious about my challenge.

Now if I could only hear some of this at burning man!! -Carl

At 05:41 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote:
>In my continuing exploration of anti-optimal tunings (and the 3rd
>featuring a scale by Michael S., aka djtrancendance), I give you the
>most techno-esque song I've probably ever written: "Self-Destructing
>Mechanical Forest"
>
>/makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/S
>elf-Destructing%20Mechanical.mp3
>
>The scale is as follows:
>
>0.00000
>137.32199
>274.16863
>411.01527
>547.86191
>651.12570
>788.44769
>925.29433
>1062.14097
>1200.00000
>
>(sorry for the lack of Scala formatting)
>Unlike all the previous scales I've worked with in this ongoing
>compositional experiment, this one is a moment of symmetry scale,
>virtually identical to a scale from 35-EDO. The generator is the
>137-cent interval. Mapped to C-D#-Eb-E-F-Gb-Ab-A-Bb.
>
>It's actually not a terribly dissonant scale. By far the easiest of
>the bunch, on account of the fact that there are four 7-EDO-style
>fifths, many very nice 7/6s, and even a few near-5/4s. All told, I
>found four chords that were plenty consonant, which (because this is a
>9-note scale) had both major and minor flavors, and that seemed to be
>enough to bring out a very normal-sounding song.
>
>This piece doesn't really explore the harmonic depths of this scale,
>so I may attempt another one later on. But I think it definitely
>shows how strong this scale can sound.
>
>-Igs
>
>
>

Actually, I *have* played your stuff there, but my boombox
was not projecting it very far. -C.

>Now if I could only hear some of this at burning man!! -Carl
>
>At 05:41 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote:
>>In my continuing exploration of anti-optimal tunings (and the 3rd
>>featuring a scale by Michael S., aka djtrancendance), I give you the
>>most techno-esque song I've probably ever written: "Self-Destructing
>>Mechanical Forest"
>>
>>/makemicromusic/files/Igliashon%20Jones/S
>>elf-Destructing%20Mechanical.mp3
>>
>>The scale is as follows:
>>
>>0.00000
>>137.32199
>>274.16863
>>411.01527
>>547.86191
>>651.12570
>>788.44769
>>925.29433
>>1062.14097
>>1200.00000
>>
>>(sorry for the lack of Scala formatting)
>>Unlike all the previous scales I've worked with in this ongoing
>>compositional experiment, this one is a moment of symmetry scale,
>>virtually identical to a scale from 35-EDO. The generator is the
>>137-cent interval. Mapped to C-D#-Eb-E-F-Gb-Ab-A-Bb.
>>
>>It's actually not a terribly dissonant scale. By far the easiest of
>>the bunch, on account of the fact that there are four 7-EDO-style
>>fifths, many very nice 7/6s, and even a few near-5/4s. All told, I
>>found four chords that were plenty consonant, which (because this is a
>>9-note scale) had both major and minor flavors, and that seemed to be
>>enough to bring out a very normal-sounding song.
>>
>>This piece doesn't really explore the harmonic depths of this scale,
>>so I may attempt another one later on. But I think it definitely
>>shows how strong this scale can sound.
>>
>>-Igs
>>
>

Igs,

I enjoyed this very much; you did wonderfully with this tuning of
Michael's. Nice breakaway from the usual 4/4 box as well.

As it turns out, I had been working on a couple of tunes some weeks
past, using a subset scale of (I thought at the time) my own devising,
not dissimilar to Michael's:

0: 1/1
1: 138.462 cents
2: 276.923 cents
3: 415.385 cents
4: 553.846 cents
5: 692.308 cents
6: 830.769 cents
7: 969.231 cents
8: 1107.692 cents
9: 2/1

...which is a subset of the primary scale I devised, called " Odd
Tambur", itself a subset of 52-tet:

0: 1/1
1: 69.231 cents
2: 138.462 cents
3: 207.692 cents
4: 276.923 cents
5: 346.154 cents
6: 415.385 cents
7: 484.615 cents
8: 553.846 cents
9: 623.077 cents
10: 692.308 cents
11: 761.538 cents
12: 830.769 cents
13: 900.000 cents
14: 969.231 cents
15: 1038.462 cents
16: 1107.692 cents
17: 2/1

I was looking for a Persian-like tuning that employed a 3/4 -tone scale
step as a primary melodic interval. (PS...Michael, looks like something
was in the air the past 6 weeks!)

Best to all,
jls

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...>
wrote:
>
> In my continuing exploration of anti-optimal tunings (and the 3rd
featuring a scale by Michael S., aka djtrancendance), I give you the
most techno-esque song I've probably ever written: "Self-Destructing
Mechanical Forest"
>
>
> The scale is as follows:
>
> 0.00000
> 137.32199
> 274.16863
> 411.01527
> 547.86191
> 651.12570
> 788.44769
> 925.29433
> 1062.14097
> 1200.00000
>