Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Books

I swear....sad thing is we microtonalists often miss a huge audience of
people who could understand lots of microtonality quite well if we simply stated
things in terms of fractions, dyadic errors, octave reduced generators, and tone
classes (IE neutral being between major and minor, diminished being smaller than
minor and so on).
Much of what we do can ultimately be summed up in basic algebra and
fractions...even at a level many Freshmen high school students could easily
understand...no need for fancy matrices/wedgies/vectors/tempering out
commas/etc.

I agree John did an excellent job at putting things in
"no-more-complex-than-absolutely-necessary" format...rather than showing off to
the audience how much math he knows...

________________________________
From: Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>
To: makemicromusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 12:14:30 PM
Subject: [MMM] Books

I read John's book, and congratulate him on coming up with his own concept for
tunings, and taking the time to write about it. This is not insignificant, and I
hope he sends it all over the place. For myself, I think there's a titanic need
for musician friendly books/papers about tunings...many musicians are not
mathematicians, but the basic ideas/concepts of tuning theory can easily be
presented without complex math. I have written a short paper "19 Tones:A New
Beginning," which, I believe, does exactly that. And I explain tuning ideas to
many of my students, some of them young, and they are able to understand what
I'm talking about...to some degree, anyway. And there was an Arabic violinist on
the list for a while...he stated that he knew illiterate musicians who didn't
"intellectually" understand anything about tuning theory, but could play very
tiny and intricate intervals on their axes very well.

I think the book "Tuning In," by Scott Wilkinson, is perhaps the best entry
level book on tunings I've yet read. There's a lot of info, from acoustics to
history to what makes a tuning system work, and it's easy to read and
understand...I recommend it highly, available on Amazon...Hstick
www.microstick.net

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

🔗john777music <jfos777@...>

Thanks Michael,

it seems to me that you are basing your statement on the earlier PDF version of my book which was available free in the Files sections of Tuning and MMM. This earlier version had several serious errors in it and only dealt with Blue Just and said nothing about Blue Temperament.

The new published version of my book is an improvement on the earlier version and (hopefully) all the errors have been corrected. Blue Temperament is also covered.

John.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> I swear....sad thing is we microtonalists often miss a huge audience of
> people who could understand lots of microtonality quite well if we simply stated
> things in terms of fractions, dyadic errors, octave reduced generators, and tone
> classes (IE neutral being between major and minor, diminished being smaller than
> minor and so on).
> Much of what we do can ultimately be summed up in basic algebra and
> fractions...even at a level many Freshmen high school students could easily
> understand...no need for fancy matrices/wedgies/vectors/tempering out
> commas/etc.
>
> I agree John did an excellent job at putting things in
> "no-more-complex-than-absolutely-necessary" format...rather than showing off to
> the audience how much math he knows...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>
> To: makemicromusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 12:14:30 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Books
>
>
>
> I read John's book, and congratulate him on coming up with his own concept for
> tunings, and taking the time to write about it. This is not insignificant, and I
> hope he sends it all over the place. For myself, I think there's a titanic need
> for musician friendly books/papers about tunings...many musicians are not
> mathematicians, but the basic ideas/concepts of tuning theory can easily be
> presented without complex math. I have written a short paper "19 Tones:A New
> Beginning," which, I believe, does exactly that. And I explain tuning ideas to
> many of my students, some of them young, and they are able to understand what
> I'm talking about...to some degree, anyway. And there was an Arabic violinist on
> the list for a while...he stated that he knew illiterate musicians who didn't
> "intellectually" understand anything about tuning theory, but could play very
> tiny and intricate intervals on their axes very well.
>
>
> I think the book "Tuning In," by Scott Wilkinson, is perhaps the best entry
> level book on tunings I've yet read. There's a lot of info, from acoustics to
> history to what makes a tuning system work, and it's easy to read and
> understand...I recommend it highly, available on Amazon...Hstick
> www.microstick.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

But but but

It wasn't until the last couple weeks of the last semester of theory that meantone was talked about to any depth.

People use 12 edo every day without know what it tempers or any algebra.

What I would want to know and what sethares did on a radio show I heard in the 80's was explain you can have differt notes per octave or otherwise and here is why (music plays) and this tuning as you heard lends itself to (list of emotions / styles)

Who cares about the rest? Its all about the music you can make.

Respectfully

Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:40:13
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Books

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Much of what we do can ultimately be summed up in basic algebra and
> fractions...even at a level many Freshmen high school students could easily
> understand...no need for fancy matrices/wedgies/vectors/tempering out
> commas/etc.

I think that you're going to have a hard time explaining anything
about microtonal music without going into tempering out commas, but
good luck. The linear algebra stuff could probably be simplified.

-Mike

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"I think that you're going to have a hard time explaining anything about
>microtonal music without going into tempering out comma"

Well, isn't it true that for many EDO-based scales....all you need to do
A) To recreate the scale from scratch is (generator^x)/(2^y)
B) To recreate the TET tuning is 2^(x/c) where c is constant and x is a variable
less than or equal to c

Sure...the generator in generator to the x may need to be tempered to fit
the octave...but is that really so important, say, for a musician to know that
(3/2)^12 misses the octave by 81/80 AKA the syntonic comma?

Why not just, if anything, say "it's about sharp of the octave 21.5
cents...where 100 cents is a semitone on your keyboard"?

Now if later on they want to know that amount of error is "tempered out"...you
can explain algebraically how a stacked circle of 12 fifths of 700 cents
intersects (2/1)^7 IE exactly seven octaves. The point is, while this is
interesting to us who make tunings...I doubt many typical musicians care about
things like "tempering out"...they just want to know quickly where the
scales/chords...are and what the microtonal equivalents are for things they
already know in 12TET IE supramajor triads in 17TET in place of major triads in
12TET...

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 1:40:13 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Books

I think that you're going to have a hard time explaining anything
about microtonal music without going into tempering out commas, but
good luck. The linear algebra stuff could probably be simplified.

-Mike

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"I think that you're going to have a hard time explaining anything about
> >microtonal music without going into tempering out comma"
>
> Well, isn't it true that for many EDO-based scales....all you need to do
> A) To recreate the scale from scratch is (generator^x)/(2^y)
> B) To recreate the TET tuning is 2^(x/c) where c is constant and x is a variable
> less than or equal to c

Yes.

> Sure...the generator in generator to the x may need to be tempered to fit
> the octave...but is that really so important, say, for a musician to know that
> (3/2)^12 misses the octave by 81/80 AKA the syntonic comma?

If you're in 16-tet, you're going to run around the circle of fifths
and suddenly be at a minor third. If you're in 12-tet, the same motion
will put you at a major third. If you're in 22-tet, the same motion
will put you at a supermajor third. So yes, it's important! You could
probably dodge around explaining it with fractions, if you think it'll
put people off, but there's more to it than a bunch of people
intellectually masturbating over numbers.

> Why not just, if anything, say "it's about sharp of the octave 21.5
> cents...where 100 cents is a semitone on your keyboard"?

Because the whole point of it is to show you how the generator turns
into other dyads, and where those dyads are placed, how they turn into
triads, how you can use the whole thing to develop a tonal system,
etc.

> Now if later on they want to know that amount of error is "tempered out"...you
> can explain algebraically how a stacked circle of 12 fifths of 700 cents
> intersects (2/1)^7 IE exactly seven octaves. The point is, while this is
> interesting to us who make tunings...I doubt many typical musicians care about
> things like "tempering out"...they just want to know quickly where the
> scales/chords...are and what the microtonal equivalents are for things they
> already know in 12TET IE supramajor triads in 17TET in place of major triads in
> 12TET...

It's not about tuning error so much as complexity. If you're in
15-tet, there's more to blackwood than just "oh, the fifths are
sharp."

-Mike

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > Sure...the generator in generator to the x may need to be tempered to fit
> > the octave...but is that really so important, say, for a musician to know that
> > (3/2)^12 misses the octave by 81/80 AKA the syntonic comma?
>
> Wrong comma. And even if you don't know about the commas, it is helpful to know about the comma pumps IMHO. That's not to say people didn't get along fine with diatonic not thinking in that way.

I say they knew all about the comma pumps. I say they just didn't
think in terms of tempered intervals. But if we're describing a book
that hypothetically explains the basic of microtonal music to
musicians, we should at least cover the concept, whether tempered
intervals are involved or not.

But what language can you come up with to describe the concept most
broadly that doesn't involve numbers? Maybe describing the simplest
intervals that are equated in a given tuning system is the way to go.
It's a lot easier to understand mavila when you realize that the
interval between 5/4 and 4/3, and the one between 4/3 and 3/2, end up
becoming the same thing.

-Mike

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

Hi Mike

I guess I was thinking the book was aimed at beginners. I probably didn't follow the thread close enough. Sorry.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 14:54:31
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Books

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:50 PM, <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> It wasn't until the last couple weeks of the last semester of theory that meantone was talked about to any depth.
>
> People use 12 edo every day without know what it tempers or any algebra.

It's an interesting idea. I guess if you wanted, you could just work
people through the different EDOs, how to use them, different things
you can do with each one, etc, kind of like the Armodue paper was with
16 - not going into temperament at all. That's more like what Igs was
saying he's working on and is probably another type of book that
should exist.

> What I would want to know and what sethares did on a radio show I heard in the 80's was explain you can have differt notes per octave or otherwise and here is why (music plays) and this tuning as you heard lends itself to (list of emotions / styles)
>
> Who cares about the rest? Its all about the music you can make.

Because even in the 12-tet world, there was before I really knew about
music theory, and then after.

-Mike

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

MikeB>"If you're in 16-tet, you're going to run around the circle of fifths and
suddenly be at a minor third. If you're in 12-tet, the same motion
will put you at a major third. If you're in 22-tet, the same motion will put you
at a supermajor third."

Right, it makes a difference...but what sane musician thinks of how many fifths
in the circle of fifths they are when choosing chords? I just don't hear
musicians going "oh, I'm on the 'third fifth' AKA the major third"....

>"You could probably dodge around explaining it with fractions, if you think
>it'll put people off, but there's more to it than a bunch of people
>intellectually masturbating over numbers."

The way I see it, we're looking foremost for things with similar musical
PURPOSE as in 12TET. IE a neutral triad can function as a major or minor...a
supramajor triad can function like a major triad and point of resolve in a major
key...the "whole tone" in 22TET or 24TET feels much melodically like the
semitone in 12TET...etc.

Sure you could explain how much different TET's work with respect to, say,
the circle of fifths...but why not instead say "there is a circle of thirds in
10TET that works just like the circle of fifths in 12TET"...rather than trying
to explain how different 10TET and 12TET are in terms of fifths?

>"It's not about tuning error so much as complexity. If you're in 15-tet, there's
>more to blackwood than just "oh, the fifths are sharp."

Of course, but again...I'd stay away from things like trying to phrase
everything in terms of fifths or anything that can't quickly be applied to
something to musician could play. There's no emotional consensus to whether
people, say, always like/hate sharp fifths or what the math means far as
emotion...so a sound example comparing the fifth, fourth...in Blackwood vs.
12TET would likely give the composer a quick general overview of the feel of
Blackwood in 15TET,

But, if anything, I'd first try to focus on the chords in Blackwood and
their closest 12TET equivalents even...rather then go directly into a fair
amount of detail about how each of the dyads compares. At "worst" I'd say
things like "x dyad is between a 6th and 7th and can function as either....and
preferably give a sound sample of the 6th, 7th, and the "new" neutral in between
from 15TET as well.

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

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

You don't need to know how vectors and wedgies and vals and breeds etc. etc. work to know how to translate them into useful musical concepts like commas. Paul Erlich recently explained to me how easy it is to take two breeds (which are ET-specific mappings of ratios), wedge them together, and turn the corresponding wedge product into a comma, using nothing but basic arithmetic--not even ALGEBRA. And you can do the reverse just as easily: take two commas and get a breed out of them. No problem. I'm thinking about setting up a spreadsheet to do it just to save time.

Commas are so simple to understand and so useful it's a shame people don't know more about them. Commas tell you how intervals relate to each other, like if 64/63 is tempered out, it tells you (for instance) that two 4/3's equals a 7/4. Temperament arithmetic is sort of weird, it's basically saying 2*2=5, but it's internally consistent and it makes sense if you know what the commas mean. I mean, the way I look at temperaments is as a way of simplifying JI and reducing it to a manageable number of notes--you just take two ratios that are pretty close (or not so close) to each other, and make them equal. It gets a bit trickier when you're using Rank-2 temperaments of higher limits, because you're collapsing 4, 5, even 6 or 7 dimensions of JI down to two dimensions, so the lists of commas get pretty nutty, but when dealing with only 3 dimensions (i.e. 5-limit or subgroups of any three primes or ratios) it's dead simple and I'm so glad I get it (finally).

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > Much of what we do can ultimately be summed up in basic algebra and
> > fractions...even at a level many Freshmen high school students could easily
> > understand...no need for fancy matrices/wedgies/vectors/tempering out
> > commas/etc.
>
> I think that you're going to have a hard time explaining anything
> about microtonal music without going into tempering out commas, but
> good luck. The linear algebra stuff could probably be simplified.
>
> -Mike
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Right, it makes a difference...but what sane musician thinks of how many fifths
> in the circle of fifths they are when choosing chords? I just don't hear
> musicians going "oh, I'm on the 'third fifth' AKA the major third"....

Most musician I've met understand the circle of fifths very
intuitively. It matters when designing chord progressions. Here's a
chord progression that only works in tunings where 81/80 vanishes: ||:
Am7 Dm | Gm7 C7 | Fmaj | % :||. Go ahead, try that one in mavila.

> The way I see it, we're looking foremost for things with similar musical
> PURPOSE as in 12TET. IE a neutral triad can function as a major or minor...a
> supramajor triad can function like a major triad and point of resolve in a major
> key...the "whole tone" in 22TET or 24TET feels much melodically like the
> semitone in 12TET...etc.

What do you mean the whole tone in 22TET feels like the semitone in 12TET...?

> Sure you could explain how much different TET's work with respect to, say,
> the circle of fifths...but why not instead say "there is a circle of thirds in
> 10TET that works just like the circle of fifths in 12TET"...rather than trying
> to explain how different 10TET and 12TET are in terms of fifths?

Because musicians for some reason like moving by fifth. I think it's
worthwhile to talk about circles of other intervals too.

> >"It's not about tuning error so much as complexity. If you're in 15-tet, there's
> >more to blackwood than just "oh, the fifths are sharp."
>
> Of course, but again...I'd stay away from things like trying to phrase
> everything in terms of fifths or anything that can't quickly be applied to
> something to musician could play. There's no emotional consensus to whether
> people, say, always like/hate sharp fifths or what the math means far as
> emotion...so a sound example comparing the fifth, fourth...in Blackwood vs.
> 12TET would likely give the composer a quick general overview of the feel of
> Blackwood in 15TET,

It doesn't have anything to do with the emotional impact of the fifths
being sharp. Blackwood is set up so that if you modulate upward by
five fifths, as in C-G-D-A-E-B, the fifths are all stretched out so
that the B at the end is actually tempered to be equivalent to a C
again. That's the whole point of blackwood, and it is an awesome
musical feature! I wouldn't talk about Blackwood without mentioning
this.

Or, if you're having trouble imagining this, it means that 256/243
vanishes, which means we're in 5-equal. Then you create a second
5-equal chain that's a 5/4 away, so now you end up with this
"symmetrical" diatonic-sounding scale in which there are major triads
everywhere and you can always modulate by fifth.

Put another way, if you move by fifth to C-G-D-A-E - that E on top is
now, actually, an F, in the sense that it's a 4/3 up from the root (in
an octave-equivalent sense). And that C-A is now closer to a 7/4.

That's important to know! If you don't exploit that feature every
chance you can get then you're missing out on the whole point of
blackwood.

> But, if anything, I'd first try to focus on the chords in Blackwood and
> their closest 12TET equivalents even...rather then go directly into a fair
> amount of detail about how each of the dyads compares. At "worst" I'd say
> things like "x dyad is between a 6th and 7th and can function as either....and
> preferably give a sound sample of the 6th, 7th, and the "new" neutral in between
> from 15TET as well.

Again, if you want to try and relate blackwood to the diatonic scale,
the whole point of it is really that it's a symmetrical diatonic
scale. You can keep stacking alternating major and minor thirds and
construct these huge linked 5-limit harmonies without ever hitting a
wall. I think that would be both more intuitive for new musicians to
understand, and more musically relevant, than talking about dyadic
error. If it weren't for that, why would we put up with these sharp
fifths?

-Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"Commas are so simple to understand and so useful it's a shame people don't
>know more about them. Commas tell you how intervals relate to each other, like
>if 64/63 is tempered out, it tells you (for instance) that two 4/3's equals a
>7/4."

IMVHO, it would be easier just to say
A) 4/3 = what you know as a "perfect fourth"
B) 16/9 = what happens when you stack two perfect fourths IE 4/3 * 4/3 (minor
seventh)
C) 7/4 = what happens when you take two flattened 4/3rds to get 7/4...which is
just a bit less than 16/9 (harmonic seventh...like a sweeter minor seventh)
D) 9/5 = what happens when you take two sharp 4/3rds to get 9/5 (minor
seventh)...which is just a bit greater than 16/9

And then show all the intervals on a number line. Then the pattern becomes
obvious...people make a generating interval larger to make intervals resulting
from chaining that interval together larger (duh)....

So if that musician is then choosing between scales and likes the 9/5 minor
seventh, he knows he can look for a sharp 4/3 generator for a chosen scale. Or
say he likes the minor third at 6/5 and quickly calculates 6/5 * 6/5 = 1.44
(about 13/9) but wants a diminished 5th sound (IE 22/15) and thus looks for a
scale with a sharpened 6/5 generator...or even a generator smack in between
because he wants the sound of both the "use" of 13/9 and 22/15 in different
chords IE "collapsing dimensions".

>"It gets a bit trickier when you're using Rank-2 temperaments of higher limits,
>because you're collapsing 4, 5, even 6 or 7 dimensions of JI down to two
>dimensions, so the lists of commas get pretty nutty, but when dealing with only
>3 dimensions (i.e. 5-limit or subgroups of any three primes or ratios) it's
>dead simple and I'm so glad I get it (finally). "

Well...in laymen's terms, it's using one thing in-between two to act as
either one...correct?

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

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

MikeB>"What do you mean the whole tone in 22TET feels like the semitone in
12TET...?"

Two scale steps in 22TET feels melodically like one scale step in 12TET...no
kidding, a scale step in 12TET is almost twice the size as in 22TET...

>"Blackwood is set up so that if you modulate upward by five fifths, as in
>C-G-D-A-E-B, the fifths are all stretched out so
that the B at the end is actually tempered to be equivalent to a C again. "

Ah ok...so it makes it so modulations by the fifth intersect the octave via
the tempering from B to C....

>"You can keep stacking alternating major and minor thirds and construct these
>huge linked 5-limit harmonies without ever hitting a wall."

Right...so you can "chain" triads just like in 12TET...and the sharp fifth is
the price you pay to be able to do that "as if you were in 12TET" (or BP, for
that matter).
I find it hard to believe that so many musicians (minus professionally
trained ones) rely on chaining triads to make chord progression, though...and
more inclined to believe they do it by ear IE "this chord sounds relaxing, so
I'll use it and transpositions of it as points of resolve".

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> C) 7/4 = what happens when you take two flattened 4/3rds to get 7/4...which is
> just a bit less than 16/9 (harmonic seventh...like a sweeter minor seventh)

Yeah, if you're in a tuning system where 64/63 vanishes, like 22 or
27. Otherwise, maybe it's three sharpened minor thirds that gets you
to 7/4, or three sharpened fifths, or anything at all.

> D) 9/5 = what happens when you take two sharp 4/3rds to get 9/5 (minor
> seventh)...which is just a bit greater than 16/9

Except in 22-equal, where it's more like an 11/8 on top of a 4/3.

> And then show all the intervals on a number line. Then the pattern becomes
> obvious...people make a generating interval larger to make intervals resulting
> from chaining that interval together larger (duh)....

OK, but there are infinitude of ways to do this, and you're just
picking the most obvious ones. Yes, if you're in superpyth, then the
fourths are flat and two of them gets you to 7/4. If you're in
meantone, then the fourths are sharp and two of them gets you to 9/5.

In all honesty, Michael, and just as a suggestion, why not spend some
time yourself delving into the math here? I used to feel like you,
that the whole thing was completely pointless and basically served
only as an exercise for people to come up with pointless tunings and
such. Now that I've taken some time to work it out, I realize what I
was missing out on. I think you'd learn a lot from it, if you wanted
to.

> So if that musician is then choosing between scales and likes the 9/5 minor
> seventh, he knows he can look for a sharp 4/3 generator for a chosen scale. Or
> say he likes the minor third at 6/5 and quickly calculates 6/5 * 6/5 = 1.44
> (about 13/9) but wants a diminished 5th sound (IE 22/15) and thus looks for a
> scale with a sharpened 6/5 generator...or even a generator smack in between
> because he wants the sound of both the "use" of 13/9 and 22/15 in different
> chords IE "collapsing dimensions".

That's fine, and if you can communicate all of that without delving
into commas and stuff, more better to you. But there's a lot more to
7/4 and 9/5 than just being flattened and sharpened versions of 16/9.

-Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

MikeB>"In all honesty, Michael, and just as a suggestion, why not spend some
time yourself delving into the math here? I used to feel like you,that the whole
thing was completely pointless"

I certainly don't think it's completely pointless...I just admittedly, don't
get how tempering works beyond taking chained intervals and then comparing the
result of multiplying them to some just "goal" interval (or intervals...in the
case of one interval acting as two or more nearby ones to imitate JI chords).
What's the greater point here...and what's the math that gets me there?
It's not that I don't want to learn or think this math is mumbo jumbo...but
every explanation I've seen contains "answers" in the form of multiple terms I
don't know that each require multiple terms I don't know to decode them and
those require multiple terms...and I don't know where to start that involves
only, say, algebra and errors/substitutions. It's funny because I taught myself
3D vector algebra...but still have little clue what the purpose of Wedgies are
(at least beyond middle school, lol)...

>"That's fine, and if you can communicate all of that without delving into commas
>and stuff, more better to you. But there's a lot more to 7/4 and 9/5 than just
>being flattened and sharpened versions of 16/9."

And beyond that 7/4 can be part of, say, a 4:5:7 chord and 16:9 part of a
9:11:16 chord (a completely different part of the harmonic series and completely
different, though "nearby" chord) and that something between them can be used to
form either chord? I am having trouble seeing a point to this beyond "dyads
between just dyads can act as different dyads for different chords via
tempering...."...what are the other points?

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> MikeB>"In all honesty, Michael, and just as a suggestion, why not spend some
>
> time yourself delving into the math here? I used to feel like you,that the whole
> thing was completely pointless"
>
> I certainly don't think it's completely pointless...I just admittedly, don't
> get how tempering works beyond taking chained intervals and then comparing the
> result of multiplying them to some just "goal" interval (or intervals...in the
> case of one interval acting as two or more nearby ones to imitate JI chords).
> What's the greater point here...and what's the math that gets me there?

No, that is the point, but people here have built up mathematical
tools to point them towards interesting and different ways of
tempering that you might not think of otherwise.

> It's not that I don't want to learn or think this math is mumbo jumbo...but
> every explanation I've seen contains "answers" in the form of multiple terms I
> don't know that each require multiple terms I don't know to decode them and
> those require multiple terms...and I don't know where to start that involves
> only, say, algebra and errors/substitutions. It's funny because I taught myself
> 3D vector algebra...but still have little clue what the purpose of Wedgies are
> (at least beyond middle school, lol)...

Welcome to my life, but it's worthwhile to learn if it means you can
apply it to something like music.

> >"That's fine, and if you can communicate all of that without delving into commas
> >and stuff, more better to you. But there's a lot more to 7/4 and 9/5 than just
> >being flattened and sharpened versions of 16/9."
>
> And beyond that 7/4 can be part of, say, a 4:5:7 chord and 16:9 part of a
> 9:11:16 chord (a completely different part of the harmonic series and completely
> different, though "nearby" chord) and that something between them can be used to
> form either chord? I am having trouble seeing a point to this beyond "dyads
> between just dyads can act as different dyads for different chords via
> tempering...."...what are the other points?

In 22-tet, you get to 11/6 by putting 11/4 on top of 4/3. There's tons
of options.

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

Michael, let me break down the beauty of temperament for you.

The beauty of temperament is not just that it collapses multi-dimensional JI into fewer and more manageable dimensions. It's also a great way to evaluate scales. The work of many people on the tuning list has given us ways to evaluate both the damage to the intervals we're targeting, and a measure of the complexity of the scales that result from different temperaments in terms of how many generators it takes to get to target intervals. Complexity, as I've recently come to understand, is also a measure of how many notes we need to have in a scale in order to achieve the target harmonies. What this means is that, using these metrics, we can trim down the infinity of possible temperaments to the few that have the lowest damage and/or the lowest complexity. This makes it VASTLY easier to explore the infinity of tunings, *presuming we know what kind of harmonies we want*.

So if we have a particular triad, tetrad, pentad, etc. that we want to have as many of as possible in our scale, and we want them as in-tune as possible, the temperament paradigm can tell us unequivocally what scale will yield the best results. If that's not awesome and useful, I don't know what is.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> MikeB>"In all honesty, Michael, and just as a suggestion, why not spend some
> time yourself delving into the math here? I used to feel like you,that the whole
> thing was completely pointless"
>
> I certainly don't think it's completely pointless...I just admittedly, don't
> get how tempering works beyond taking chained intervals and then comparing the
> result of multiplying them to some just "goal" interval (or intervals...in the
> case of one interval acting as two or more nearby ones to imitate JI chords).
> What's the greater point here...and what's the math that gets me there?
> It's not that I don't want to learn or think this math is mumbo jumbo...but
> every explanation I've seen contains "answers" in the form of multiple terms I
> don't know that each require multiple terms I don't know to decode them and
> those require multiple terms...and I don't know where to start that involves
> only, say, algebra and errors/substitutions. It's funny because I taught myself
> 3D vector algebra...but still have little clue what the purpose of Wedgies are
> (at least beyond middle school, lol)...
>
> >"That's fine, and if you can communicate all of that without delving into commas
> >and stuff, more better to you. But there's a lot more to 7/4 and 9/5 than just
> >being flattened and sharpened versions of 16/9."
>
> And beyond that 7/4 can be part of, say, a 4:5:7 chord and 16:9 part of a
> 9:11:16 chord (a completely different part of the harmonic series and completely
> different, though "nearby" chord) and that something between them can be used to
> form either chord? I am having trouble seeing a point to this beyond "dyads
> between just dyads can act as different dyads for different chords via
> tempering...."...what are the other points?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Or should you say, what EDO will yield the best results (aren't the
> methods limited to EDOs)?

Not at all. You only get an EDO if you temper out n-1 commas from n-dimensional JI space; so in the 5-limit, if you only temper out 81:80 (say), you are not at an EDO. I'm still not 100% on how to get from a comma/mapping to an optimal generator; there are programs that have been written, but I'm not sure where to find them.

> Just a quick example, if you can manage it...say I were looking for a
> scale that takes the least number of possible notes to generate an 8:9:12:15
> chord...how, mathematically, would I find which scale (and/or tuning) to use?

I can't tell you the math, but if you go to Graham's temperament finder here:

http://x31eq.com/temper/pregular.html

All you have to do is plug in 8:9:12:15:16 (the 16 is necessary to preserve octaves, or else you'll get a nonoctave temperament) and your damage threshold, out pops your temperaments, defined in terms of two EDOs (since any rank-2 temperament can be defined by a pair of EDOs, as EDOs are points in projective tuning space, and temperaments are lines), with measures of damage and complexity given.

-Igs

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Have you tried turning off after touch commands either at the DAW or EW?

And

Does this happen if you hold the sustain pedal down and release a note?

Couple ideas.

Chris

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was considering purchasing Komplete 7 -- a very large sample-based
> system.
> >
> > Does it work with Logic Pro?
> >
> > Does it import Scala files or similar files that can be created with Lil'
> Miss
> > Scale Oven?
>
> Kontakt has microtuning support for EDOs built in. There's also a
> Kontakt 2 Microtuner script that you can buy for 16 bucks.
>
> It works pretty well, but I'm having problems getting it to work with
> EastWest - I let a note go and KAPWING! You suddenly zip back to the
> 12-tet version of the note, because something about the way it handles
> release tracking is screwed up. Pending my fixing that, it should be
> perfect.
>
> -Mike
>
>

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

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Igs>"So if we have a particular triad, tetrad, pentad, etc. that we want to
> have as many of as possible in our scale, and we want them as in-tune as
> possible, the temperament paradigm can tell us unequivocally what scale will
> yield the best results."
>
> Or should you say, what EDO will yield the best results (aren't the
> methods limited to EDOs)?

Certainly not! That's why Graham called it the regular temperament paradigm, not the edo paradigm. Once upon a time I had the edo paradigm; I knew there were such things as higher rank regular temperaments, but I assumed they could always be reduced to consideration of edos in practice. But I got over it.

That chord generates the 2.3.5 group, aka the 5-limit. So you want 5-limit temperaments. It would depend on your tuning accuracy requirements, but meantone certainly springs to mind. For more accuracy, Hanson or Helmholtz (ie 5-limit kleismic and schismatic) or possibly diaschsmic. Which scale to use would depend a lot on about how big you'd like it to be.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Any other Kontakte/Komplete users out there, using with Logic?

Thanks, Mike.

caleb

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:57:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?

I was considering purchasing Komplete 7 -- a very large sample-based system.

Does it work with Logic Pro?

Does it import Scala files or similar files that can be created with Lil' Miss
Scale Oven?

What is its accuracy, what are its limitations?

Does it allow for any key to be tuned to any arbitrary pitch, does it allow for
> 12-pitch microtuning?

Anyone here use it, or have other recommendations?

(I'm only interested in software that understands scales with more than 12
pitch-classes. Being limited to 12 pitch-classes is one of my gripes about
Logic.)

I have Pianoteq and Ethno 2, both of which I like -- although I often wish that
the patches in the Ethno 2 assigned more keys to samples or let you extend their

range more--perhaps there's a way to do this...)

Caleb

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

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Hey Caleb.

Before you go buyin' a whole 'nother system like Komplete, try following the
instructions given with Lil' Miss Scale Oven for retuning the EX24 sampler
instruments in Logic.

It works, and solves the "12-pitches-only" problem.

I haven't figured out yet how to implement something like a keymap, but I just
followed the instructions and set up a (43-note) tuning on an instrument of
mine. Quite easy, once you figure out where things are in your folders.

Any EX24 instrument, any arbitrary tuning. Easy.

I might have just saved you $600. You can thank me later.

Caleb

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 7:49:31 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?

Any other Kontakte/Komplete users out there, using with Logic?

Thanks, Mike.

caleb

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:57:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?

I was considering purchasing Komplete 7 -- a very large sample-based system.

Does it work with Logic Pro?

Does it import Scala files or similar files that can be created with Lil' Miss
Scale Oven?

What is its accuracy, what are its limitations?

Does it allow for any key to be tuned to any arbitrary pitch, does it allow for
> 12-pitch microtuning?

Anyone here use it, or have other recommendations?

(I'm only interested in software that understands scales with more than 12
pitch-classes. Being limited to 12 pitch-classes is one of my gripes about
Logic.)

I have Pianoteq and Ethno 2, both of which I like -- although I often wish that
the patches in the Ethno 2 assigned more keys to samples or let you extend their

range more--perhaps there's a way to do this...)

Caleb

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

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Graham wrote:

>> >> For EDOs, guitar is fairly painless. Keyboards and
>> >> score entry are two big unsolved problems.
>> >
>> >Guitars are fundamentally limited by the laws of physics.
>> >Retunable synthesizers are commonplace.
>>
>> I didn't say synthesizers, I said keyboards.
>
>Synthesizers are the things you plug keyboards into.

I said keyboards. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.

>> >Score entry is
>> >solved in ABC and LilyPond.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
>If you're going to treat my work with contempt, at least
>give some kind of argument.

This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. There's even
a whole mailing list devoted to it.
http://groups.google.com/microtools
I think you and I have even been over this very point before.
To recap, Lilypond and ABC are not score entry tools, they
are typesetting tools. But don't take my word for it.
From lilypond.org

"LilyPond is a music engraving program"

abcnotation.com
"text-based music notation system"

Hudson's page
"microabc is a free software which generates macros to
represent microtonal music in ABC notation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Notation_Software

-Carl

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Just thought I would post this tip again, in case there are any Logic users out
there who do microtones.

Say you bought Logic, and you're somewhat overwhelmed by how many features it
has.

But the standard microtuning features are inadequate.

Don't despair or buy some expensive plug-in.

Get Lil' Miss Scale Oven. It provides at least two workarounds that
make possible exploration of tunings with more than twelve notes.

The first retunes the EXS24 instruments.

The second technique will allow you to retune the other Logic instruments, other
than the EXS24, but it's much more involved, so I'm not going to try it
immediately. This is called "dynamic retuning", I think.

I can barely convey how happy this makes me.

All you have to do is call up the sampler instrument in Logic (called the
EXS24). This is a big collection of instruments, all ready to go -- or tweakable
if you like.

Then, you resave each EXS24 instrument under a new name, and save a copy of your
scale that you created with LMSO with that instrument.

Done.

One impressive thing about the result is that the EXS24 somehow seems to put the
samples in approximately the same registers that they were in. If the original
instrument was multisampled such that there were different samples for all the
registers, somehow -- despite the radically different tuning -- the samples end
up sounding "right".

(This wasn't true of older sample-based sound-modules like the EMU Proteus
series: If you specified a user tuning with substantially more pitches than 12
per octave, the upper register tended to be too dull, and the lower register
tended to be too bright, or buzzy. Which could be interesting, but was often
just weird.)

This means that you don't have to build up my library of sampled instruments
completely from scratch, retuning each key.

All that you have to do is make a "band" with EXS24 instruments with this slight
modification -- or any other tweaks you desire.

This means, for me, that my more than ten years of practicing a 36-note per
octave JI scale won't be wasted. I can use that scale.

It means that the power of Logic isn't wasted if you want to do microtonality
"your way".

For me, rich combinations of instruments somewhat make up for the inferiority*
of electronic sounds. Achieving this richness is much, much easier, now that I
understand this technique.

What a difference a day makes.

Also, one plug for Jeff at LMSO goat barn. He's been very helpful and clear. The
manual that comes with LMSO is also very clear.

Caleb

*debatable, but *you* know what I mean.

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 12:49:57 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?

Hey Caleb.

Before you go buyin' a whole 'nother system like Komplete, try following the
instructions given with Lil' Miss Scale Oven for retuning the EX24 sampler
instruments in Logic.

It works, and solves the "12-pitches-only" problem.

Any EX24 instrument, any arbitrary tuning. Easy.

I might have just saved you $600. You can thank me later.

Caleb

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 7:49:31 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?

Any other Kontakte/Komplete users out there, using with Logic?

Thanks, Mike.

caleb

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:57:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?

I was considering purchasing Komplete 7 -- a very large sample-based system.

Does it work with Logic Pro?

Does it import Scala files or similar files that can be created with Lil' Miss
Scale Oven?

What is its accuracy, what are its limitations?

Does it allow for any key to be tuned to any arbitrary pitch, does it allow for
> 12-pitch microtuning?

Anyone here use it, or have other recommendations?

(I'm only interested in software that understands scales with more than 12
pitch-classes. Being limited to 12 pitch-classes is one of my gripes about
Logic.)

I have Pianoteq and Ethno 2, both of which I like -- although I often wish that
the patches in the Ethno 2 assigned more keys to samples or let you extend their

range more--perhaps there's a way to do this...)

Caleb

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

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> Graham wrote:
>
> >> >> For EDOs, guitar is fairly painless. Keyboards and
> >> >> score entry are two big unsolved problems.
> >> >
> >> >Guitars are fundamentally limited by the laws of
> >> >physics. Retunable synthesizers are commonplace.
> >>
> >> I didn't say synthesizers, I said keyboards.
> >
> >Synthesizers are the things you plug keyboards into.
>
> I said keyboards. That shouldn't be too hard to
> understand.

Keyboards exist. I have one right here. On their own they
don't produce any musical sounds so they have nothing to do
with microtonality, which is to say I don't understand you.

> >> >Score entry is
> >> >solved in ABC and LilyPond.
> >>
> >> No, it's not.
> >
> >If you're going to treat my work with contempt, at least
> >give some kind of argument.
>
> This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. There's
> even a whole mailing list devoted to it.
> http://groups.google.com/microtools
> I think you and I have even been over this very point
> before. To recap, Lilypond and ABC are not score entry
> tools, they are typesetting tools. But don't take my
> word for it. From lilypond.org

The URL's wrong, and there's no mention of "score entry" in
the group it should have referred to. So I don't know what
you mean. I thought LilyPond was used for score entry,
because you can take a score on paper and enter it into
LilyPond. Now you mention it, they say you enter "music"
and a score is what you get out. So, by that argument, it
doesn't do score entry, but I still don't know what "score
entry" is.

LilyPond does allow you to enter music and get out a score
and MIDI demo. That looks like the third way of
experimenting with microtonality (along with guitars and
keyboards) that works now and that you could write a book
about. If it isn't what you meant by "score entry" you
should have mentioned it.

The tool chain including MicroABC does a similar job to
LilyPond. I prefer LilyPond, maybe because I've worked
more with it. It happens that MicroABC's broken for me
right now.

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Graham wrote:

>> I said keyboards. That shouldn't be too hard to understand.
>
> Keyboards exist. I have one right here. On their own they don't
> produce any musical sounds

Many keyboards do. Like pianos. And harpsichords. And the
Nord Stage. And others you may have heard of.

> so they have nothing to do with microtonality, which is to say
> I don't understand you.

You snipped this bit:
>> * instruments which embody the tuning system

Tell us how the keyboard you have embodies anything other than tiny
subset of tuning systems.

Also this, from a few messages before (different thread, I know):
>> There are only 3 explicitly microtonal keyboards available today,
>> all of them built to order ... The C-Thru and Opal stuff is
>> micro-usable, but not explicitly so. None of them hold a candle
>> to a good grand piano.

If it sounds like I'm frustrated it's probably because, whenever I
write that keyboards are unsatisfactory, you're liable to write
that they are, as if you don't know what I mean. It starts to get
old after ten times in as many years.

The difference to guitars is, I can have any luthier I like make a
top-notch guitar for any ET I like (up to the limit of playability,
and, as it happens, guitar intonation accuracy). It'll cost about
the same as a Nord Stage, which is the keyboard I'd probably buy if
I had to buy one today, despite that I don't think its synth is
microtunable (at least not in a straightforward way... maybe Carlo
knows). Or I can buy a cheap Fender and have it refretted for a few
hundred bucks like Chris did. The keyboard equivalent of that is a
$400 AXiS-49, which is a great breakthrough but still quite limited.

>> This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. There's
>> even a whole mailing list devoted to it.
>> http://groups.google.com/microtools
>> I think you and I have even been over this very point
>> before. To recap, Lilypond and ABC are not score entry
>> tools, they are typesetting tools. But don't take my
>> word for it. From lilypond.org
>
>The URL's wrong, and there's no mention of "score entry" in
>the group it should have referred to. So I don't know what
>you mean.

Here's the right link
http://groups.google.com/group/microtools

It says you've been a member since it started. In that case you
should know it started as a fork of a thread about score editors,
and that 99% of the discussion has been about score editors, and
in fact the most recent posts happen to be all about a microtonal
score editor. Oh, and the group logo shows three views of an
imaginary score editor.

Are you really so dense or are you just being difficult?

>I thought LilyPond was used for score entry,
>because you can take a score on paper and enter it into
>LilyPond. Now you mention it, they say you enter "music"
>and a score is what you get out. So, by that argument, it
>doesn't do score entry, but I still don't know what "score
>entry" is.

The wikipedia link you snipped comprehensively lists the features
such software is expected to have. They call it "music notation
software". That's even broader than "score editor". They call
lilypond a file format, which is a bit harsh but closer to truth
than "score editor".

There's actually a large industry devoted to making score editors.
People buy them, and they're used all over the world, in
Universities, for professional orchestration, and by composers
like me. You may recognize some of these titles:

* Sibelius
* Finale
* Notion
* Igor
* Encore
* Noteworthy Composer

As well, every major DAW package is expected to have some semblance
of this functionality. Including:

* Logic
* Cubase
* Sonar
* Digital Performer

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I've come up with a better scale for my current project -- a subset of 87EDO. I compared a dozen of the EDOs, and 87 seems to be the best for my purposes-- it approximates JI and 12EDO, and has the right pitches in the right place.

!
c'sH72T-87
36
!
96.55200
110.34500
137.93100
151.72400
179.31000
206.89700
234.48300
262.06900
303.44800
317.24100
344.82800
386.20700
400.00000
427.58600
496.55200
537.93100
551.72400
579.31000
606.89700
620.69000
648.27600
703.44800
786.20700
800.00000
813.79300
855.17200
882.75900
910.345
937.93100
965.51700
1006.89700
1020.69000
1034.48300
1048.27600
1089.65500
1200.00000

The piece is based on the self-similar number sequence 10,9,2,8,6,1,3,7,4,5,x; which can be mapped to a range of pitch-series.

If anyone is interested, I also commissioned a Java program that searches for mappings of this number series (basically generate-and-test.) It's probably too specialized to be of general interest, but if you happen to be working on a similar program, it's useful.

Getting Logic to do more than 12 notes per octave has been a big breakthrough.

Caleb

On Feb 10, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> Just thought I would post this tip again, in case there are any Logic users out
> there who do microtones.
>
> Say you bought Logic, and you're somewhat overwhelmed by how many features it
> has.
>
> But the standard microtuning features are inadequate.
>
> Don't despair or buy some expensive plug-in.
>
> Get Lil' Miss Scale Oven. It provides at least two workarounds that
> make possible exploration of tunings with more than twelve notes.
>
> The first retunes the EXS24 instruments.
>
> The second technique will allow you to retune the other Logic instruments, other
> than the EXS24, but it's much more involved, so I'm not going to try it
> immediately. This is called "dynamic retuning", I think.
>
> I can barely convey how happy this makes me.
>
> All you have to do is call up the sampler instrument in Logic (called the
> EXS24). This is a big collection of instruments, all ready to go -- or tweakable
> if you like.
>
> Then, you resave each EXS24 instrument under a new name, and save a copy of your
> scale that you created with LMSO with that instrument.
>
> Done.
>
> One impressive thing about the result is that the EXS24 somehow seems to put the
> samples in approximately the same registers that they were in. If the original
> instrument was multisampled such that there were different samples for all the
> registers, somehow -- despite the radically different tuning -- the samples end
> up sounding "right".
>
> (This wasn't true of older sample-based sound-modules like the EMU Proteus
> series: If you specified a user tuning with substantially more pitches than 12
> per octave, the upper register tended to be too dull, and the lower register
> tended to be too bright, or buzzy. Which could be interesting, but was often
> just weird.)
>
> This means that you don't have to build up my library of sampled instruments
> completely from scratch, retuning each key.
>
> All that you have to do is make a "band" with EXS24 instruments with this slight
> modification -- or any other tweaks you desire.
>
> This means, for me, that my more than ten years of practicing a 36-note per
> octave JI scale won't be wasted. I can use that scale.
>
> It means that the power of Logic isn't wasted if you want to do microtonality
> "your way".
>
> For me, rich combinations of instruments somewhat make up for the inferiority*
> of electronic sounds. Achieving this richness is much, much easier, now that I
> understand this technique.
>
> What a difference a day makes.
>
> Also, one plug for Jeff at LMSO goat barn. He's been very helpful and clear. The
> manual that comes with LMSO is also very clear.
>
> Caleb
>
> *debatable, but *you* know what I mean.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 12:49:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?
>
> Hey Caleb.
>
> Before you go buyin' a whole 'nother system like Komplete, try following the
> instructions given with Lil' Miss Scale Oven for retuning the EX24 sampler
> instruments in Logic.
>
> It works, and solves the "12-pitches-only" problem.
>
> I haven't figured out yet how to implement something like a keymap, but I just
> followed the instructions and set up a (43-note) tuning on an instrument of
> mine. Quite easy, once you figure out where things are in your folders.
>
> Any EX24 instrument, any arbitrary tuning. Easy.
>
> I might have just saved you $600. You can thank me later.
>
> Caleb
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 7:49:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?
>
> Any other Kontakte/Komplete users out there, using with Logic?
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> caleb
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 3:57:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Komplete (7) Any users?
>
> I was considering purchasing Komplete 7 -- a very large sample-based system.
>
> Does it work with Logic Pro?
>
> Does it import Scala files or similar files that can be created with Lil' Miss
> Scale Oven?
>
> What is its accuracy, what are its limitations?
>
> Does it allow for any key to be tuned to any arbitrary pitch, does it allow for
> > 12-pitch microtuning?
>
> Anyone here use it, or have other recommendations?
>
> (I'm only interested in software that understands scales with more than 12
> pitch-classes. Being limited to 12 pitch-classes is one of my gripes about
> Logic.)
>
> I have Pianoteq and Ethno 2, both of which I like -- although I often wish that
> the patches in the Ethno 2 assigned more keys to samples or let you extend their
>
> range more--perhaps there's a way to do this...)
>
> Caleb
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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

Books

🔗Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗john777music <jfos777@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>