Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Request for advice on a Just tuning system

Hi Folks

I'm posting to both lists in the hope of finding some advice on a tuning
system I'm trying to set up.

For a start I have a "core" pentatonic : 1/1 8/7 4/3 3/2 7/4 2/1,
to which I have added 7/6 and 12/7 to give two more pentatonics :-

1/1 8/7 4/3 3/2 12/7 2/1 and 1/1 7/6 4/3 3/2 7/4 2/1.

As I'm interested in modal modulation I've expanded on the pentatonics
melodically by selecting 14 tetrachords I want to use, up to the
19-limit. I haven't yet fully explored the harmonic resources of all the
tetrachords taken together. Before I splatter the page with all these
ratios, I'd like to ask first if anyone has expanded Partch's successful
11 limit system through 13,17 and 19, and used the system in actual
melodic and harmonic music with acoustic instruments. Once I know this I
can get on to my next questions.

I notice in "The Just Intonation Primer" that the author is sceptical or
unsure as to the efficacy of ratios involving 17 and 19. I interpret
this as relating to harmonic music. I personally have no doubt as to
their usefulness in melodic music. Again I'd be interested to hear
from/of musicians who have used the higher primes successfully.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Kind Regards

🔗kalleaho <kalleaho@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@...>

Hello, there, Alison, and please let me try to answer your question
about JI in large part from experience, first giving just a bit of
background on Partch and also Kathleen Schlesinger.

An important caution, which I add after reading your question again, is
that my experience is with synthesized sound rather than acoustical
instruments -- a very big distinction that should be pointed out early and
often. However, Kathleen Schlesinger built flutes using her arithmetic
series, as well as tuning some of the ratios on piano, while Partch's
interest in a 17-limit system was connected with his experiences with
custom instruments and tunings also.

Here I find it important to mention that while Harry Partch often
focused on an 11-limit system of 43 notes, he also produced some
beautiful diagrams for a 17-limit system which I saw in a recent
collection from his manuscripts and correspondence.

Kathleen Schlesinger, in her _The Greek Aulos_ (1939), describes
arithmetic divisions using many ratios with these higher factors, and
people like Erv Wilson and Jacky Ligon have developed these ideas
further.

Turning now to my own musical experience, an appropriate main focus
for MMM, I can say that just ratios such as 14:17:21 or 46:56:69
(23:28 below, 56:69 above) are beautiful and very musically effective
in the kind of style I often favor. Also, I love melodic steps such as
14:13 (~128.30 cents) for a large semitone or "2/3-tone," nicely
contrasting with small semitones or thirdtones such as 28:27 (~62.96
cents).

In my view, the "debate" here is mostly theoretical: is there
something "special" about a large minor or small neutral third at
precisely 17:14 (~336.13 cents), in contrast for example to 63:52
(~332.21 cents) or to 28:23 (~340.55 cents)? Or are they all examples
of a general kind of interval around 330-341 cents, say, without any
special significance for the exact integer ratios.

Either way, they can be used to make some beautiful music, so I
wouldn't be too concerned about this kind of theoretical question --
maybe I'd consider it while making and enjoying the music, a curious
kind of contemplation.

Please note that in using these just ratios, I tune a subset of them
rather than a complete system of the kind that Partch describes for
ratios of 11 or 17.

Also, I'm often looking at certain categories of ratios from either a
melodic or harmonic point of view. Thus something like 14:17:21
suggests to me a three-voice sonority often resolving to a stable
fifth, while 14:13 suggests a melodic step, although it might also be
used as a vertical interval, as I use 13:7 (~1071.70 cents).

Anyway, Alison, please let me lend you lots of encouragement in
exploring these higher just ratios.

For my own music, I already have a certain historical paradigm in
13th-14th century European music -- but one subject to lots of
revisions and additions. Devising a music with these ratios involving
fewer stylistic preconceptions -- if that's possible -- could be a
very interesting direction, with Erv Wilson's CPS kind of approach as
one example.

Also, in reference to Harry Partch's system, I would caution that
Partch's music is far more than just ratios or JI theory -- it's music
with its own custom instruments as well as the presence of the
performers and often the element of the text, and so forth.

In other words, if the question is whether one can and should make
beautiful music with just ratios having factors such as 13, 17, 19,
23, and so forth, I would say "Yes!"

Exactly how or why this music can be so beautiful, I leave to a more
theoretical discussion, emphasizing that theoretical explanations are
at best partial and imperfect.

Most appreciatively, with peace and love,

Margo

🔗graham@...

In-Reply-To: <a67tsg+83c1@...>
jacky_ligon wrote:

> I was able to show/play him several tunings made up of only
> superparticular step sizes, and while doing this the topic of MOS
> scales came up, and I tuned up a few MOS scales too. An interesting
> consensus between us, was that the MOS tunings were a melodic let-
> down when played side-by-side with the just tunings, having many
> different step sizes.

What size MOS were you using? Meaning both the number of notes, and the
ETs they subset/approximate.

> When we heard them one after the other, we both agreed that there was
> something bland about the MOS, where the harmonic fragment tunings
> sustained our interest and made us just want to keep on improvising.
>
> Now - don't get me wrong. I really do like MOS subsets (from ETs),
> and consider them to be one of the three most important properties of
> ETs, yet for melodic based music, JI shines in ways that MOS might
> not.

That's a strange caveat. If JI shines for *melodic* music, when MOS is a
melodic property, it can't be so important after all. Are you getting
carried away by the "there are no bad scales" dogma?

I'm also interested that you consider it a property of ETs. I use MOS
tunings that aren't ET subsets, and I think the melody works better that
way.

> I realize that all the above is somewhat subjective, but there was
> one other person in the room, who felt the shock and aural let-down
> of when we shifted our single note melodic instruments to MOS. (Even
> though - I still find them useful for harmony.)

Of course it's subjective! All the most important things are.

Graham

🔗kalleaho <kalleaho@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗graham@...

In-Reply-To: <a68ast+q30l@...>
Me:
> > What size MOS were you using? Meaning both the number of notes,
> and the
> > ETs they subset/approximate.

Jacky:
> Can't recall them all, as it wasn't really an experiment, but just a
> couple of friends trying out scales. I do recall that the first one
> was the 7 tone MOS from 17 ET, based on the Neu-3rd generator. And
> this was quite surprising to me too - since this is one of my
> favorite ETs and MOS patterns.

That's a small number of notes from a small ET, as I suspected. I find
small ETs do sound bland, so the solution is to use subsets of larger ETs.

Neutral third scales are a strange case, because I find the sameness of
the intervals to be an advantage. You get the familiar sound of a 7 note
octave, but it's bleached out which is perfect for expressing alienation
and emotional disengagement. Exactly what I wanted when I originally
found these scales. The harmonic terrain of good fifths with bad thirds
adds to the effect.

> > I'm also interested that you consider it a property of ETs. I use
> MOS tunings that aren't ET subsets, and I think the melody works
> better that way.
>
> Oh yes. I also do what you are talking about quite frequently as
> well, and I realize there can be any IEO that one desires. That's
> basic stuff.

Yes, but it does relate to the issue here. An MOS should get spicier if
it isn't a subset of a small ET. And you can also take non-MOS subsets of
an MOS keyboard mapping. I'm interested in linear temperaments precisely
as a way of putting a keyboard out of equal tuning without losing
predictable chord patterns. I don't find I lose anything compared to JI.
As I'm currently using temperaments close to JI, I usually can't tell the
difference for melody anyway.

> > Of course it's subjective! All the most important things are.
>
> Graham - yes it's all subjective, and read nothing much into what I
> say here. This kind of reaction is bound to happen when one is
> exposed to a bunch of different tunings in one setting, whilst
> enjoying a good Merlot. Every now and then I feel compelled to remind
> my dear friends, that I like myriad of kinds of scales. So far I've
> found few that I can't make some kind of music with. Even the ones
> that folks want to throw on the microtonal junk heap, I'll try out.
> Like that freaky 9 tone MOS from 22 ET - I like to take something
> like that to see what kind of music can be made from it.

You seem to have a much lower opinion of subjectivity to me. As you're a
talented musician, I read a lot into your subjective reactions. As I'm
me, I completely rely on my own.

One thing about this simple scales -> bland phenomenon is that it seems to
all but vanish when you start with a good melody. Obviously there have
been some great tunes written in 12-equal. Although they usually work
fine in various well temperaments, they don't improve much either compared
to electronically precise equality. The more interesting a tune is, the
less you listen to the tuning. If you're noodling, a lot of what you hear
is the tuning. I don't know if the inequality becomes a problem with
striking melodies (because it distracts from the melody itself) or the
bonus interest is always a good thing. I'll guess the latter, provided it
doesn't conflict with your modulations.

Gene's identified this 9/22 as Orwell. That's actually a cross between
22- and 31-equal, so not such an obscure choice. It also invites an
intermediate temperament, or a mixture of 22, 31 an everything in between.
And it leads to a new slogan -- "all tunings are equal, but some tunings
are more equal than others".

Graham

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗graham@...

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> Hmm. Well, I think this should be in Joe Monzo's list of equal
> temperaments. It's really 0 equal steps to infinity. You could define it
> as a linear temperament with a period of infinity and a generator of 0
> cents, but you could do the same thing with any equal temperament.

Obviously, you have a 5-limit temperament with wedgie [0,0,0], a
7-limit temperment with wedgie [0,0,0,0,0,0], and an 11-limit temperament with wedgie [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]. It is critically important to keep these distinct, and you should be more careful! Imagine the confusion of a performing musician, who has practiced for
[0,0,0,0,0,0] and is given a score for [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]; we want to avoid that at all costs.

Request for advice on a Just tuning system

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

🔗kalleaho <kalleaho@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@...>

🔗graham@...

🔗kalleaho <kalleaho@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗graham@...

🔗graham@...

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗graham@...

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>