back to list

Which 'tuning road' to take?

🔗thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...>

2/9/2011 10:32:07 PM

Hi all. I've been a lurker for a while on this list,

I've been dwelling on compositional approaches, looking to explore new
territory for myself. What I'd like to know is... what are you all looking
for from your chosen tuning system?

Sorry, big nebulous question I guess. But I guess I'm trying to work out
what 'tuning road' to take. I've dabbled in JI - but I prefer how it sounds
when it starts to sound 'wrong', which leads me to think I should try a
different tuning system. So, I've been considering alternative EDO's... but
the mix of dissonances and consonances seems kind of arbitrary to me. And
then I wonder if using fixed scales is necessary at all? Maybe I could just
use whatever intervals and harmonies I want at any time in a piece. Maybe
there's theory surrounding that approach or something like it too? And maybe
there's other approaches I'd never have considered?

So... please don't hit me. Like I say - I've barely even dabbled in this
stuff.

Umm. I feel obliged to share some music on this list. Well, here's a link to
something I did a while ago with an unusual tuning.
https://sites.google.com/site/thorinkerr/zenith/works/TheAtrium.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

Thorin

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

2/9/2011 11:16:27 PM

Thorin,

Great to see you here, I remember you from the Csound list. You are a
demigod for 'Diving I' alone, if you do nothing else before you die that
makes you nearly immortal..... :)

Anyway, I think this is a hard question to answer, short of getting the
right kind of setup and exploring things until something feels right.
And---sometimes something will feel wrong and then someone somewhere will do
something in the tuning you thought was useless and you will be inspired to
give it another try. The opposite happens, too.

These things are also tied to the type of sounds one employs; not every
tuning is equally suited to every timbre. I find the more dissonant tunings
(e.g. 11-edo) benefit from either really pure sounds without a lot of
spectral content, or inharmonic timbres of some sort (esp. ones that can
match properties of the tuning in question---see Bill Sethares's work here)

Coming from JI or more traditional harmonic thinking, one path might be to
explore 19-edo and 17-edo first (I did this, plus things like 31- and
53-edo), and then branch off into more exotic territories (23-edo, 16-edo,
etc.). Then you have midway points of interest like 22-edo. And, you have
the basic 'almost anything vertical sounds exotic and good' systems where
you can explore rather devil-may-care counterpoint, like 7-edo and 5-edo.
Some find 5-edo too boring, though, YMMV.

The MOS paradigm of large and small step sizes, and their ratios, is a
helpful, and delightful thing to explore. In particular, if you want
something spicy and exotic, look no further than turning Western music on
it's head with an 'anti diatonic' scale: instead of LLsLLLs, you have
ssLsssL --- some EDOs that do this would be 9-, 16- and 23-edo. Very cool
sounds, and very fresh to the ears, but with a familiar logic.

This of course leaves out the discussion of non-equal linear temperaments,
various rational systems, non-octave systems, harmonics and subharmonics,
etc. The universe is really really really large, and life is short. I find
it best to stick to things that I can intuit quite well, and try to master
them with the time I'm given. So I mostly gravitate to 19- and 17-edo, and
EDOs in general I find are nice closed systems that are manageable and can
transpose without a hassle. There's enough there for several lifetimes of
music making in the two I mentioned. 31 is a pretty darned good tuning, too,
a kind of 'can do almost anything' system.

Check out the xenharmonic wiki to start some of your exploring.

Best,
AKJ

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:32 AM, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...> wrote:

> Hi all. I've been a lurker for a while on this list,
>
> I've been dwelling on compositional approaches, looking to explore new
> territory for myself. What I'd like to know is... what are you all looking
> for from your chosen tuning system?
>
> Sorry, big nebulous question I guess. But I guess I'm trying to work out
> what 'tuning road' to take. I've dabbled in JI - but I prefer how it sounds
> when it starts to sound 'wrong', which leads me to think I should try a
> different tuning system. So, I've been considering alternative EDO's... but
> the mix of dissonances and consonances seems kind of arbitrary to me. And
> then I wonder if using fixed scales is necessary at all? Maybe I could just
> use whatever intervals and harmonies I want at any time in a piece. Maybe
> there's theory surrounding that approach or something like it too? And
> maybe
> there's other approaches I'd never have considered?
>
> So... please don't hit me. Like I say - I've barely even dabbled in this
> stuff.
>
> Umm. I feel obliged to share some music on this list. Well, here's a link
> to
> something I did a while ago with an unusual tuning.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/thorinkerr/zenith/works/TheAtrium.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1
>
>
> Thorin
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

2/9/2011 11:18:40 PM

It seems to me this is the question you need to ask yourself, not us, to get any kind of answer on what would be a good tuning system for you to use. I know what I like it tuning systems, and it's not usually what other people like.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/9/2011 11:56:57 PM

Hi Thorin, welcome to "out of the shadows"!

The only advice I can give you is that I started out with similar questions, looking for the tunings that others had tried, tested, and found to be good. I ended up hating all of them, for one reason or another, and finally found my niche in the realm of the EDOs that most self-respecting microtonalists don't touch with a 10-foot pole. I know that it's really easy to get caught up when you see a lot of really smart and experienced people raving about the merits of this or that tuning, and to ignore the voices of the "radicals". Even if you hear music that you really like in a particular tuning, it's no guarantee that you'll be able to mesh with it. Be prepared to waste a LOT of time (and perhaps money, especially if you're a guitar player) just goofing around. What worked really well for me was systematic exploration of EDOs--especially those that I did NOT want to explore, because those turned out to become favorites. Never trust numbers nor the generalizations on which theories are usually based, unless you have the luxury of verifying them with music.

Me personally, I like fixed scales at this point in my musical development, because I don't know how to choose "whatever intervals I want". Creating unique new musical structures is too demanding and confusing for me. I need limits to work within. I like scales that force my hand in directions I wouldn't ordinarily know how to conceive. Taking "good" intervals out of my vocabulary proved to be the best way to do this for me.

HTH,

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all. I've been a lurker for a while on this list,
>
> I've been dwelling on compositional approaches, looking to explore new
> territory for myself. What I'd like to know is... what are you all looking
> for from your chosen tuning system?
>
> Sorry, big nebulous question I guess. But I guess I'm trying to work out
> what 'tuning road' to take. I've dabbled in JI - but I prefer how it sounds
> when it starts to sound 'wrong', which leads me to think I should try a
> different tuning system. So, I've been considering alternative EDO's... but
> the mix of dissonances and consonances seems kind of arbitrary to me. And
> then I wonder if using fixed scales is necessary at all? Maybe I could just
> use whatever intervals and harmonies I want at any time in a piece. Maybe
> there's theory surrounding that approach or something like it too? And maybe
> there's other approaches I'd never have considered?
>
> So... please don't hit me. Like I say - I've barely even dabbled in this
> stuff.
>
> Umm. I feel obliged to share some music on this list. Well, here's a link to
> something I did a while ago with an unusual tuning.
> https://sites.google.com/site/thorinkerr/zenith/works/TheAtrium.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1
>
>
> Thorin
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

2/10/2011 12:02:04 AM

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

>I ended up hating all of them, for one reason or another, and finally found my niche in the realm of the EDOs that most self-respecting microtonalists don't touch with a 10-foot pole.

They don't seem any more interested in the ones I use. My last piece was in a 22-note scale in 111edo, and before that in a 26-note scale in 87edo. Who else does that sort of thing? And yet, there's much to be said in favor.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 7:14:06 AM

Its just unusual period. But in a very good way!

Pleased to meet you and I enjoyed The Atrium very much. I especially
like the FM-ish sounds and unusual take on percussion.
And the hellish choir sound is pretty darn good too!

So this is all done in cSound? I tried Csound but didn't stick with it
- steep learning curve.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:32 AM, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...> wrote:
>

>
> Umm. I feel obliged to share some music on this list. Well, here's a link to
> something I did a while ago with an unusual tuning.
> https://sites.google.com/site/thorinkerr/zenith/works/TheAtrium.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1
>
> Thorin

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/10/2011 8:55:57 AM

>"What I'd like to know is... what are you all looking for from your chosen tuning
system?"

My clear and controversial answer: irregular temperament. This very often means scales that don't comply directly with JI or EDO/TET scales or tunings and often have many step sizes (ALA are 'hyper-mos" and not "mos").
Namely, make a list of dyads YOU like the sound of an then make a scale that hits only those dyads within 10 cents or so accuracy (preferably within 8 cents or less error). This way you are virtually guaranteed any chord you make will have a very strong tonal resemblance to the
sound/feel of the dyads you like. John Sullivan uses a method much like this as well...it has nothing to do directly with TET/EDO scales or JI...but instead tries to capture to a fair extent the best of both.

If you can give me a list of dyads you like...I can give you a scale which matches them well. Note that the longer the list of dyads you give, the more accurately they can be captured.

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/10/2011 8:59:45 AM

Aaron>"So I mostly gravitate to 19- and 17-edo, and EDOs in general I find are nice closed systems that are manageable and can transpose without a hassle. "

Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me 17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 9:07:52 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron>"So I mostly gravitate to 19- and 17-edo, and EDOs in general I find are nice closed systems that are manageable and can transpose without a hassle. "
>
> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me 17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.

Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 9:20:47 AM

If my experience with my 17 edo guitar is being referred to then I'd say to
answer a question like that one would need to compose similar pieces in all
three edo's and post them to the same non-micro communities and see what
happens.

I would be very happy to do so if anyone is interested in donating 19 equal
and 22 equal electric guitars to me :-)

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Aaron>"So I mostly gravitate to 19- and 17-edo, and EDOs in general I
> find are nice closed systems that are manageable and can transpose without a
> hassle. "
> >
> > Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me 17EDO
> is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work for
> many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
>
> Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?
>
> -Mike
>
>

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 9:27:22 AM

I think you'd be really successful with 19-TET, actually. It contains
all of the diatonic harmonies that you're used to, but also allows for
excursions into other interesting systems as well. In addition to
having 10:12:15 minor chords, it also has 10:12:13:15 minor chords. It
contains island[9] (or is it barbados[9]?) as well, and magic and
kleismic and a bunch of other stuff too. I think you'd find it very
intuitive and unique.

-Mike

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> If my experience with my 17 edo guitar is being referred to then I'd say to
> answer a question like that one would need to compose similar pieces in all
> three edo's and post them to the same non-micro communities and see what
> happens.
>
> I would be very happy to do so if anyone is interested in donating 19 equal
> and 22 equal electric guitars to me :-)
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaron>"So I mostly gravitate to 19- and 17-edo, and EDOs in general I
>> find are nice closed systems that are manageable and can transpose without a
>> hassle. "
>> >
>> > Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me 17EDO
>> is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work for
>> many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
>>
>> Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 9:36:45 AM

Michael wrote:

> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me
>17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work
>for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
>

Troll.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 9:37:57 AM

Mike wrote:

>> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me
>17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work
>for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
>
>Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?

Baited and hooked. Time to get a room, you two. -Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 9:39:39 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> >> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me
> >17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work
> >for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
> >
> >Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?
>
> Baited and hooked. Time to get a room, you two. -Carl

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

-Mike

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 9:45:46 AM

Mike wrote:
>>
>> >> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me
>> >17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work
>> >for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
>> >
>> >Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?
>>
>> Baited and hooked. Time to get a room, you two. -Carl
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

You must be joking. -C.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/10/2011 9:49:01 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> They don't seem any more interested in the ones I use. My last piece was in a 22-note
> scale in 111edo, and before that in a 26-note scale in 87edo. Who else does that sort of
> thing? And yet, there's much to be said in favor.

LOL, you're totally right, Gene. We're both tuning extremists.

-Igs

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 9:49:31 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me
> >> >17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work
> >> >for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.
> >> >
> >> >Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?
> >>
> >> Baited and hooked. Time to get a room, you two. -Carl
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
>
> You must be joking. -C.

It certainly worked enough for him to message me offlist and for me to
give him a basic introduction to different tuning error metrics,
regular temperament basics, etc. You catch more flies with honey than
you do with vinegar.

-Mike

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 9:58:13 AM

Mike wrote:

>> >> >Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?
>> >>
>> >> Baited and hooked. Time to get a room, you two. -Carl
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
>>
>> You must be joking. -C.
>
>It certainly worked enough for him to message me offlist and for me to
>give him a basic introduction to different tuning error metrics,
>regular temperament basics, etc. You catch more flies with honey than
>you do with vinegar.
>
>-Mike

For Michael?? -C.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 10:02:26 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >It certainly worked enough for him to message me offlist and for me to
> >give him a basic introduction to different tuning error metrics,
> >regular temperament basics, etc. You catch more flies with honey than
> >you do with vinegar.
> >
> >-Mike
>
> For Michael?? -C.

You don't think so?

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 10:07:19 AM

Well, I'm very seriously considering another re-fret conversion.

candidate tunings

double BP (13 is just not enough notes)
24 edo (yes I said it!)
22 edo
19 edo
and maybe a undertone series guitar

Actually I'd love them all. However to have all of them in the house
my wife would require me to move *out* of the house to find room to
store them.
Not sure if that is worth it but I'm seriously thinking about the
large shed out back as a place to sleep.

In the meantime I have to force myself to do the fishing line fretting
as used by Igs and shown in Doty's book on my fretless Squire.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you'd be really successful with 19-TET, actually. It contains
> all of the diatonic harmonies that you're used to, but also allows for
> excursions into other interesting systems as well. In addition to
> having 10:12:15 minor chords, it also has 10:12:13:15 minor chords. It
> contains island[9] (or is it barbados[9]?) as well, and magic and
> kleismic and a bunch of other stuff too. I think you'd find it very
> intuitive and unique.
>
> -Mike
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 10:12:31 AM

At 10:02 AM 2/10/2011, you wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> >It certainly worked enough for him to message me offlist and for me to
>> >give him a basic introduction to different tuning error metrics,
>> >regular temperament basics, etc. You catch more flies with honey than
>> >you do with vinegar.
>>
>> For Michael?? -C.
>
>You don't think so?

I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 10:18:38 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 10:02 AM 2/10/2011, you wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It certainly worked enough for him to message me offlist and for me to
> >> >give him a basic introduction to different tuning error metrics,
> >> >regular temperament basics, etc. You catch more flies with honey than
> >> >you do with vinegar.
> >>
> >> For Michael?? -C.
> >
> >You don't think so?
>
> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.
>
> -Carl

Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the
math, acknowledged that people do seem to like 17-EDO, and he messaged
me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error. There are
lots of other things that I didn't do which might have left him less
receptive to all of the above.

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/10/2011 10:20:02 AM

Asking a question CARL simply does not like does not consistute trolling!
Look, wise guy, Chris, Cameron, Igs, and a whole bunch of other people have hinted 17TET is at least a leading tuning system so far as popularity, if not the best. My question is on honest one. If you don't like 17EDO...you can't force me into not asking questions about it. BTW, Socrates was not a troll either...

--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 9:39
AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

> Mike wrote:

> >> Pardon my 'patronism' here but...it still seems clear to me

> >17EDO is the one system virtually everyone likes. Yes, 19 and 22 work

> >for many...but 17 seems to work for just about everyone.

> >

> >Is 17-EDO more popular than 19 and 22?

> Baited and hooked. Time to get a room, you two. -Carl

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

-Mike

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/10/2011 10:27:40 AM

>"Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the

math, acknowledged that people do seem to like 17-EDO, and he messaged

me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error. There are

lots of other things that I didn't do which might have left him less

receptive to all of the above."

Simply put, Mike B's reaction considered fairly that I am open to listening to ideas which contradict my own...while Carl's sticks a brand on me as "not wanting to listen" and then turns around and complains that a don't listen
. Actually Car,l I do listen...just "only" to people who actually give me open-minded information to learn instead of name-calling me and then giving me no alternatives. Your response to everything I say is "the reason you don't agree with me...is because you are trolling or not working hard enough". That's no way to motivate anyone...

--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
To:
MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:18 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 10:02 AM 2/10/2011, you wrote:

> >On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> >>

> >> >It certainly worked enough for him to message me offlist and for me to

> >> >give him a basic introduction to different tuning error metrics,

> >> >regular temperament basics, etc. You catch more flies with honey than

> >> >you do with vinegar.

> >>

> >> For Michael?? -C.

> >

> >You don't think so?

> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than

> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.

> -Carl

Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the

math, acknowledged that people do seem to like 17-EDO, and he messaged

me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error. There are

lots of other things that I didn't do which might have left him less

receptive to all of the above.

-Mike

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 10:28:02 AM

Mike wrote:

>> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
>> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.
>
>Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the
>math,

Where did you suggest that?

>and he messaged
>me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error.

And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
before. No, not at all.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 10:28:52 AM

>Asking a question CARL simply does not like does not consistute trolling!
>Look, wise guy, Chris, Cameron, Igs, and a whole bunch of other people
>have hinted 17TET is at least a leading tuning system so far as
>popularity, if not the best. My question is on honest one. If you
>don't like 17EDO...you can't force me into not asking questions about
>it. BTW, Socrates was not a troll either....

Trolling trolling trolling, got to keep on trolling... -Carl

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 10:31:02 AM

Carl,

Sorry, you are simply escalating here.

Please lets get back to the music. Mike B. I thought fielded Michael's
question fairly and directly - and kept the subject to music.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> >Asking a question CARL simply does not like does not consistute trolling!
> >Look, wise guy, Chris, Cameron, Igs, and a whole bunch of other people
> >have hinted 17TET is at least a leading tuning system so far as
> >popularity, if not the best. My question is on honest one. If you
> >don't like 17EDO...you can't force me into not asking questions about
> >it. BTW, Socrates was not a troll either....
>
> Trolling trolling trolling, got to keep on trolling... -Carl
>
>
>

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/10/2011 10:38:30 AM

Michael didn't ask a question. -Carl

Chris wrote:

>Carl,
>
>Sorry, you are simply escalating here.
>
>Please lets get back to the music. Mike B. I thought fielded Michael's
>question fairly and directly - and kept the subject to music.
>
>Chris
>
>On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> >Asking a question CARL simply does not like does not consistute trolling!
>> >Look, wise guy, Chris, Cameron, Igs, and a whole bunch of other people
>> >have hinted 17TET is at least a leading tuning system so far as
>> >popularity, if not the best. My question is on honest one. If you
>> >don't like 17EDO...you can't force me into not asking questions about
>> >it. BTW, Socrates was not a troll either....
>>
>> Trolling trolling trolling, got to keep on trolling... -Carl
>>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/10/2011 11:12:49 AM

Carl>"And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics

before. No, not at all."

Well, I just wrote back to Mike B about the concept of vanishing commas, prime factorization in Monzo's, and representing the octave, tritave, "5-tave" in vals. Plus another discussion (I believe, with Igs) about how such math leads to the ability to find which temperaments best approximate a chord. I also read Igs's long message about how making comma's vanish (if I have it right) allows us to collapse dimensions in temperament and how, for example, rank-one means "collapsed to one dimension".

And Gene, while discussing my program to find the most accurate scales for a given list of dyads in 31TET, taught me how to find the closest scale index (IE 0 to 30 in 31TET) to a target interval given a val mapping using Monzos. All by using basic arithmetic, not loops or process of elimination (either of which is slower).

Actually, just about the only person I
haven't had some sort of positive discussion with...is you, Carl.

My current question STILL is why can't 17EDO be a tuning we all agree to push as an "intro to microtonality" tuning? And a good answer would provide evidence against 17EDO...and then debate whether said evidence against 17EDO is enough to reject it as a possible "lead" tuning that we could, say, push for a major guitar company to build instruments around... Or, if it isn't, at least get some hints as to what other tuning might be that would...

--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:28 AM

Mike wrote:

>> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than

>> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.

>Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the

>math,

Where did you suggest that?

>and he messaged

>me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error.

And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics

before. No, not at all.

-Carl

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

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 11:33:16 AM

Well, in the absence of any feedback I must say the shed is looking
pretty good despite the winter we are having here in the midwest.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Well, I'm very seriously considering another re-fret conversion.
>
> candidate tunings
>
> double BP (13 is just not enough notes)
> 24 edo (yes I said it!)
> 22 edo
> 19 edo
> and maybe a undertone series guitar
>
> Actually I'd love them all. However to have all of them in the house
> my wife would require me to move *out* of the house to find room to
> store them.
> Not sure if that is worth it but I'm seriously thinking about the
> large shed out back as a place to sleep.
>
> In the meantime I have to force myself to do the fishing line fretting
> as used by Igs and shown in Doty's book on my fretless Squire.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think you'd be really successful with 19-TET, actually. It contains
>> all of the diatonic harmonies that you're used to, but also allows for
>> excursions into other interesting systems as well. In addition to
>> having 10:12:15 minor chords, it also has 10:12:13:15 minor chords. It
>> contains island[9] (or is it barbados[9]?) as well, and magic and
>> kleismic and a bunch of other stuff too. I think you'd find it very
>> intuitive and unique.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/10/2011 11:48:19 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Well, in the absence of any feedback I must say the shed is looking
> pretty good despite the winter we are having here in the midwest.

I still say 19-equal is something you should dive into posthaste. I
would personally recommend it to you over 22-edo. I think that,
19-equal would be a good stepping stone for the far more unfamiliar
22-equal. Just my personal opinion.

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 11:56:07 AM

I shall be shopping for a guitar and contacting Brad Smith seeing how I have
the money since Brad is a lot cheaper than Ron Sword.
Also I'll be picking up a long extention cord, folding cot and electric
space heater as well.

I'm taking your recommendation seriously - I'm going to play both 19 and 22
on my guitar synth a bit first.
However, having a real 17 equal instrument in my hands is making a
tremendous amount of difference - it is very much different from the synth.
Its so hard to beat the sensitivity to be hard with a real guitar.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, in the absence of any feedback I must say the shed is looking
> > pretty good despite the winter we are having here in the midwest.
>
> I still say 19-equal is something you should dive into posthaste. I
> would personally recommend it to you over 22-edo. I think that,
> 19-equal would be a good stepping stone for the far more unfamiliar
> 22-equal. Just my personal opinion.
>
> -Mike
>
>

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

2/10/2011 1:39:17 PM

I'm not sure "pushing" a tuning is a good idea, just by intuition. However,
Michael, since you keep bringing up 17, I'll say that I agree that 17 is
great, but it depends on what you're looking for. It's not strong in the 5/4
dept., but as you know it's good for neutral 3rds and 2nds (and thus neutral
6ths and 7ths), which are interesting animals. In addition, the 7th is very
close to 23/13, which is a mediant between 16/9 and 7/4, so that might come
in handy to some. Good for a neo-Medieval harmonic vocabulary, or a harmonic
vocabulary that uses a lot of quartal chords. Also, the 11-ish tinge has
been mentioned. 17 can also be used succesfully in a monodic fashion for
middle-Eastern flavors.

19 might be a safer bet for those who want all the traditional comforts of
home along with new resources like the true augmented second at 4 steps
(along with 15 steps, its inverse), which is for me a key fun feature of 19.
Even 19 fifths from a chain of a larger meantone system like 31 or 50 is
useful for similar properties but slightly different shadings of emotional
color.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
> My current question STILL is why can't 17EDO be a tuning we all agree to
> push as an "intro to microtonality" tuning? And a good answer would provide
> evidence against 17EDO...and then debate whether said evidence against 17EDO
> is enough to reject it as a possible "lead" tuning that we could, say, push
> for a major guitar company to build instruments around... Or, if it isn't,
> at least get some hints as to what other tuning might be that would...
>
>

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

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

2/10/2011 2:39:07 PM

Are there a subsets or modes of 17 EDO, or chords in it, that you
(anyone) would recommend as a "diatonic-like" intro to 17? Or any
scores worth analyzing?

I confess I'm insanely jealous of Chris, because a real guitar in my
hands would give me the chance to noodle around and instantly try
things out. But I'm not buying a 17 EDO guitar anytime soon, so I'm
stuck with LilyPond and Scala and Csound -- abstract and cold methods
to play around with, to be sure.

Regards,
Jake

On 2/10/11, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Carl>"And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
>
> before. No, not at all."
>
> Well, I just wrote back to Mike B about the concept of vanishing commas,
> prime factorization in Monzo's, and representing the octave, tritave,
> "5-tave" in vals. Plus another discussion (I believe, with Igs) about how
> such math leads to the ability to find which temperaments best approximate a
> chord. I also read Igs's long message about how making comma's vanish (if I
> have it right) allows us to collapse dimensions in temperament and how, for
> example, rank-one means "collapsed to one dimension".
>
> And Gene, while discussing my program to find the most accurate scales for
> a given list of dyads in 31TET, taught me how to find the closest scale
> index (IE 0 to 30 in 31TET) to a target interval given a val mapping using
> Monzos. All by using basic arithmetic, not loops or process of elimination
> (either of which is slower).
>
> Actually, just about the only person I
> haven't had some sort of positive discussion with...is you, Carl.
>
> My current question STILL is why can't 17EDO be a tuning we all agree to
> push as an "intro to microtonality" tuning? And a good answer would provide
> evidence against 17EDO...and then debate whether said evidence against 17EDO
> is enough to reject it as a possible "lead" tuning that we could, say, push
> for a major guitar company to build instruments around... Or, if it isn't,
> at least get some hints as to what other tuning might be that would...
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:28 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
>
>>> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.
>
>>
>
>>Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the
>
>>math,
>
>
>
> Where did you suggest that?
>
>
>
>>and he messaged
>
>>me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error.
>
>
>
> And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
>
> before. No, not at all.
>
>
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 3:44:12 PM

I can give you the score for this if you'd like
http://www.youtube.com/user/clones98#p/u/27/25sC3_uheyA

On guitar ... roughly.... 3 frets equals the sonic distance of 2 frets in
12..... for most, not all, scale steps.
Also, the major 3rd is pretty rough but minor (NOT neutral) 3rd is pretty
familiar.
Also, 4ths and 5ths - and there for suspended chords - are pretty much the
same.

And - you know the "Hendrix" chord? - that is EG#DG is a much smoother chord
as EG#+DG-
(major/minor chord with minor 7th)

You can also fret say a G minor barr the same way except the two notes
further down the fretboard are 3 not 2 frets away.

I hope all of that helps some.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:

>
>
> Are there a subsets or modes of 17 EDO, or chords in it, that you
> (anyone) would recommend as a "diatonic-like" intro to 17? Or any
> scores worth analyzing?
>
> I confess I'm insanely jealous of Chris, because a real guitar in my
> hands would give me the chance to noodle around and instantly try
> things out. But I'm not buying a 17 EDO guitar anytime soon, so I'm
> stuck with LilyPond and Scala and Csound -- abstract and cold methods
> to play around with, to be sure.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>
> On 2/10/11, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> > Carl>"And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
> >
> > before. No, not at all."
> >
> > Well, I just wrote back to Mike B about the concept of vanishing commas,
> > prime factorization in Monzo's, and representing the octave, tritave,
> > "5-tave" in vals. Plus another discussion (I believe, with Igs) about
> how
> > such math leads to the ability to find which temperaments best
> approximate a
> > chord. I also read Igs's long message about how making comma's vanish
> (if I
> > have it right) allows us to collapse dimensions in temperament and how,
> for
> > example, rank-one means "collapsed to one dimension".
> >
> > And Gene, while discussing my program to find the most accurate scales
> for
> > a given list of dyads in 31TET, taught me how to find the closest scale
> > index (IE 0 to 30 in 31TET) to a target interval given a val mapping
> using
> > Monzos. All by using basic arithmetic, not loops or process of
> elimination
> > (either of which is slower).
> >
> > Actually, just about the only person I
> > haven't had some sort of positive discussion with...is you, Carl.
> >
> > My current question STILL is why can't 17EDO be a tuning we all agree
> to
> > push as an "intro to microtonality" tuning? And a good answer would
> provide
> > evidence against 17EDO...and then debate whether said evidence against
> 17EDO
> > is enough to reject it as a possible "lead" tuning that we could, say,
> push
> > for a major guitar company to build instruments around... Or, if it
> isn't,
> > at least get some hints as to what other tuning might be that would...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:28 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
> >
> >>> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the
> >
> >>math,
> >
> >
> >
> > Where did you suggest that?
> >
> >
> >
> >>and he messaged
> >
> >>me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error.
> >
> >
> >
> > And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
> >
> > before. No, not at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>

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

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/10/2011 4:17:31 PM

17 *is* diatonic. The fifths are the tiniest bit sharp, but 7 of them will produce a diatonic scale as normal as you please. Except that 3 steps is a whole-tone, 1 step is a semitone, and the major and minor 3rds are a bit "exaggerated". But you can read 12-tone-based diatonic sheet-music directly to a 17-tone instrument, just bearing in mind that #'s and b's are now different notes, and in fact the flats are lower in pitch than the sharps (so it goes A Bb A# B C Db C# D etc.).

Here's a video of me noodling on my 17-EDO acoustic, it's not very good, but it gives you an idea of how normal 17 can sound and how it's really no more difficult than 12 on a guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv27td6YGMg

Nobody in the audience ever notices I'm not playing a normal guitar.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
> Are there a subsets or modes of 17 EDO, or chords in it, that you
> (anyone) would recommend as a "diatonic-like" intro to 17? Or any
> scores worth analyzing?
>
> I confess I'm insanely jealous of Chris, because a real guitar in my
> hands would give me the chance to noodle around and instantly try
> things out. But I'm not buying a 17 EDO guitar anytime soon, so I'm
> stuck with LilyPond and Scala and Csound -- abstract and cold methods
> to play around with, to be sure.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>
> On 2/10/11, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> > Carl>"And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
> >
> > before. No, not at all."
> >
> > Well, I just wrote back to Mike B about the concept of vanishing commas,
> > prime factorization in Monzo's, and representing the octave, tritave,
> > "5-tave" in vals. Plus another discussion (I believe, with Igs) about how
> > such math leads to the ability to find which temperaments best approximate a
> > chord. I also read Igs's long message about how making comma's vanish (if I
> > have it right) allows us to collapse dimensions in temperament and how, for
> > example, rank-one means "collapsed to one dimension".
> >
> > And Gene, while discussing my program to find the most accurate scales for
> > a given list of dyads in 31TET, taught me how to find the closest scale
> > index (IE 0 to 30 in 31TET) to a target interval given a val mapping using
> > Monzos. All by using basic arithmetic, not loops or process of elimination
> > (either of which is slower).
> >
> > Actually, just about the only person I
> > haven't had some sort of positive discussion with...is you, Carl.
> >
> > My current question STILL is why can't 17EDO be a tuning we all agree to
> > push as an "intro to microtonality" tuning? And a good answer would provide
> > evidence against 17EDO...and then debate whether said evidence against 17EDO
> > is enough to reject it as a possible "lead" tuning that we could, say, push
> > for a major guitar company to build instruments around... Or, if it isn't,
> > at least get some hints as to what other tuning might be that would...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:28 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
> >
> >>> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the
> >
> >>math,
> >
> >
> >
> > Where did you suggest that?
> >
> >
> >
> >>and he messaged
> >
> >>me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error.
> >
> >
> >
> > And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
> >
> > before. No, not at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>

🔗thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...>

2/10/2011 4:25:44 PM

Animated mob aren't you :)

You know... posting on this list really reminds me a lot of this :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbfWZKwSH3Q

I admit, I was fishing for ideas. You've all been very obliging. So, I'll
return the favour and offer my initial thoughts and responses.

I guess in general, what is appealing for me about alternative tunings is
that you can explore a whole new universe of systems and organisation. So
for example, I like Aaron's suggestion of playing with step sizes. Not
because it bares resemblance to the way traditional 12EDO is done, but
because it's a system which offers some sort of coherency.

I like Michaels suggestion of irregular temparaments. That seems really
progresive to me, offering lots of freedom... but I can also image it's
pretty hard to get it right. For example, will my 'irregular temperament'
allow me to transpose and modulate with all (or another set) of intervals
that I like? or... if my dyads sound good, will my triads sound good too?
Maybe... I'll bet this path is hugely rewarding, but probably takes a huge
amount of work to get right.

At the same time, as Igliashon points out, I can appreciate that letting the
constraints of, say an EDO, guiding your choices could be both liberating
and quite practical. As Sartre said: "Constraint has no hold on freedom".

And then Neil points out, there's 'moods' to consider. hmmm.... true.... and
'coherent systems' aren't the only thing that makes good music.

Gene is correct, I do need to ask these questions of myself. But I really
appreciate your responses.

Thorin

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:32 PM, thorin kerr <thorin.kerr@...> wrote:

> Hi all. I've been a lurker for a while on this list,
>
> I've been dwelling on compositional approaches, looking to explore new
> territory for myself. What I'd like to know is... what are you all looking
> for from your chosen tuning system?
>
> Sorry, big nebulous question I guess. But I guess I'm trying to work out
> what 'tuning road' to take. I've dabbled in JI - but I prefer how it sounds
> when it starts to sound 'wrong', which leads me to think I should try a
> different tuning system. So, I've been considering alternative EDO's... but
> the mix of dissonances and consonances seems kind of arbitrary to me. And
> then I wonder if using fixed scales is necessary at all? Maybe I could just
> use whatever intervals and harmonies I want at any time in a piece. Maybe
> there's theory surrounding that approach or something like it too? And maybe
> there's other approaches I'd never have considered?
>
> So... please don't hit me. Like I say - I've barely even dabbled in this
> stuff.
>
> Umm. I feel obliged to share some music on this list. Well, here's a link
> to something I did a while ago with an unusual tuning.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/thorinkerr/zenith/works/TheAtrium.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1
>
>
> Thorin
>
>

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

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

2/10/2011 5:13:16 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> > They don't seem any more interested in the ones I use. My last piece was in a 22-note
> > scale in 111edo, and before that in a 26-note scale in 87edo. Who else does that sort of
> > thing? And yet, there's much to be said in favor.
>
> LOL, you're totally right, Gene. We're both tuning extremists.

And yet, if someone were to adapt one of those programs where you compose music by drawing squiggly lines to work with high-limit harmony, we could have kids composing abstruse sounding microtonal music in middle school. Maybe that's a direction to take Michael's quest in.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

2/10/2011 5:21:21 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> And Gene, while discussing my program to find the most accurate scales for a given list of dyads in 31TET, taught me how to find the closest scale index (IE 0 to 30 in 31TET) to a target interval given a val mapping using Monzos. All by using basic arithmetic, not loops or process of elimination (either of which is slower).

I was thinking about that just today, and wondering if you were going to finish up with a working program that would tell us the maximum dyad count scale in 31 (to start out with) for various numbers of notes. I think it would be a useful project.

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

2/10/2011 5:39:09 PM

Truth is *any* edo guitar with a reasonable number of frets is easy to play. All intervals going down a string will be aproximately the same physical distance. If you tune the strings to aproximately standard the same relationship between strings will exist across on a single fret and the chord shapes for 12 equal will be roughly the same.
-----Original Message-----
From: "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...>
Sender: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:17:31
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?

Here's a video of me noodling on my 17-EDO acoustic, it's not very good, but it gives you an idea of how normal 17 can sound and how it's really no more difficult than 12 on a guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv27td6YGMg

Nobody in the audience ever notices I'm not playing a normal guitar.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
> Are there a subsets or modes of 17 EDO, or chords in it, that you
> (anyone) would recommend as a "diatonic-like" intro to 17? Or any
> scores worth analyzing?
>
> I confess I'm insanely jealous of Chris, because a real guitar in my
> hands would give me the chance to noodle around and instantly try
> things out. But I'm not buying a 17 EDO guitar anytime soon, so I'm
> stuck with LilyPond and Scala and Csound -- abstract and cold methods
> to play around with, to be sure.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>
> On 2/10/11, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> > Carl>"And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
> >
> > before. No, not at all."
> >
> > �Well, I just wrote back to Mike B about the concept of vanishing commas,
> > prime factorization in Monzo's, and representing the octave, tritave,
> > "5-tave" in vals.�� Plus another discussion (I believe, with Igs) about how
> > such math leads to the ability to find which temperaments best approximate a
> > chord.� I also read Igs's long message about how making comma's vanish (if I
> > have it right) allows us to collapse dimensions in temperament and how, for
> > example, rank-one means "collapsed to one dimension".
> >
> > � And Gene, while discussing my program to find the most accurate scales for
> > a given list of dyads in 31TET, taught me how to find the closest scale
> > index (IE 0 to 30 in 31TET) to a target interval given a val mapping using
> > Monzos.� All by using basic arithmetic, not loops or process of elimination
> > (either of which is slower).
> >
> > �� Actually, just about the only person I
> > haven't had some sort of positive discussion with...is you, Carl.
> >
> > � My current question STILL is why can't 17EDO be a tuning we all agree to
> > push as an "intro to microtonality" tuning?� And a good answer would provide
> > evidence against 17EDO...and then debate whether said evidence against 17EDO
> > is enough to reject it as a possible "lead" tuning that we could, say, push
> > for a major guitar company to build instruments around...� Or, if it isn't,
> > at least get some hints as to what other tuning might be that would...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 2/10/11, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 10:28 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>> I don't understand how you asking "Is 17-EDO more popular than
> >
> >>> 19 and 22?" lead to an offlist discussion about error metrics.
> >
> >>
> >
> >>Because I considered his ideas, suggested that he learn more of the
> >
> >>math,
> >
> >
> >
> > Where did you suggest that?
> >
> >
> >
> >>and he messaged
> >
> >>me offlist asking about vals and monzos and woolhouse-error.
> >
> >
> >
> > And he's never had friendly discourse about any of those topics
> >
> > before. No, not at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>

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

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/10/2011 7:24:35 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Truth is *any* edo guitar with a reasonable number of frets is easy to play. All intervals
> going down a string will be aproximately the same physical distance. If you tune the strings > to aproximately standard the same relationship between strings will exist across on a
> single fret and the chord shapes for 12 equal will be roughly the same.

Oh, not true, not true at all. Some EDOs just don't do the "quasi-standard" thing at all. 11-EDO, for instance--you have to tune it in alternating 545-cent and 436-cent intervals, which gets confusing, and in 9-EDO you need a few 533-cent intervals and a few 400-cent ones, because if you do four of the 533-cent intervals, you end up needing a subminor 3rd between the 2nd and 3rd strings, and the string tension is really wacky. 16-EDO you have to put a minor 3rd between the 3rd and 2nd strings instead of a major 3rd, so scales go all cross-eyed when you get to that point. In 14-EDO and 19-EDO, you can't play a subminor barre chord with a root on the 6th string, which is really annoying. In 18-EDO it's really hard to play the most consonant chords, because they need to be played in close position and that's really hard to do in either of the quasi-standard tunings. In 13-EDO, you have to tune four 462-cent intervals and then one 553-cent interval between the 2nd and 3rd strings, which is sort of a "backwards" standard tuning and everything on the 2nd string plays a fret lower instead of a fret higher (that gets confusing really quickly). 17-EDO is dead-simple and works just like 12 (more or less), and 15-EDO is simpler still because 5 of the flat 480-cent fourths spans two octaves exactly, so it's the same interval between any pair of adjacent strings. In 19-EDO it gets a little confusing remembering that a semitone is two steps instead of one, so scale shapes seem a little strange at first. In 20-EDO things are starting to get crowded and barre chords stop working. 21-EDO I have no idea because I've never tried it or really thought about it at all, it's the one EDO in this range that's never caught my fancy. 22-EDO you can actually still sorta play barre chords, and the diatonic scale still makes sense--but other scales are a bit confusing, especially the Pajara decatonics. 23-EDO works just like 13 or 16 (depending on which standard tuning you adopt, the one based on flat fourths or the one based on sharp ones) but chords are weird and scales get confusing. 24-EDO is easy again, because you just tune to 12-EDO standard (although weirder tunings are possible, you can tune it to 8-EDO standard as well). 25-EDO tunes just like 15 and 20, but you can also tune it like 16 if you're into the whole "anti-diatonic" thing. 26-EDO can be tuned like 13 or 19, and 27-EDO is probably best tuned like 22 (i.e. exaggerated Pythagorean with flat 4ths and a sharp major 3rd between the 2nd and 3rd strings). 28--no idea, another one that hasn't struck my fancy. 29 is another pythagorean one, works like 12-EDO or 17-EDO but is pretty crowded. 30 works like 25--you can tune it in all flat 4ths or like 16 using the sharp 520-cent 4ths, but it's crowded as f***. 31-EDO is another diatonic-like tuning, much like 19, but forget about barre chords, though honestly 31's less challenging than smaller EDOs; you can also tune it like 13-EDO with flat fourths and one approximate 11/8, but why would you do that? Past 31--well, now we're getting a bit "unreasonable".

So if I had to put EDOs in order of "easiest" on guitar to "hardest", it'd be something like this:

5
7
10
15
12
17
19
24
13
14
20
22
16
18
11
31
23
25
26
29
27
30
(not sure about 21 or 28)

I'm not 100% certain about this ranking, as I haven't *actually* tried anything between 24 and 31, but I think I can generalize from my experience with smaller EDOs.

-Igs

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/10/2011 7:08:18 PM

So if I had to put EDOs in order of "easiest" on guitar to "hardest", it'd be something like this:

5
7
10
15
12
17
19
24
13
14
20
22
16
18
11
31
23
25
26
29
27
30
(not sure about 21 or 28)

I'm not 100% certain about this ranking, as I haven't *actually* tried anything between 24 and 31, but I think I can generalize from my experience with smaller EDOs.

-Igs

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/10/2011 7:32:08 PM

This seems to be very complicated - since you have the guitars and I don't I
have to go with your experience.
However, it seems like it should be easier. It certainly is on my GR-20
re-tuning set up.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:24 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
> >
> > Truth is *any* edo guitar with a reasonable number of frets is easy to
> play. All intervals
> > going down a string will be aproximately the same physical distance. If
> you tune the strings > to aproximately standard the same relationship
> between strings will exist across on a
> > single fret and the chord shapes for 12 equal will be roughly the same.
>
> Oh, not true, not true at all. Some EDOs just don't do the "quasi-standard"
> thing at all. 11-EDO, for instance--you have to tune it in alternating
> 545-cent and 436-cent intervals, which gets confusing, and in 9-EDO you need
> a few 533-cent intervals and a few 400-cent ones, because if you do four of
> the 533-cent intervals, you end up needing a subminor 3rd between the 2nd
> and 3rd strings, and the string tension is really wacky. 16-EDO you have to
> put a minor 3rd between the 3rd and 2nd strings instead of a major 3rd, so
> scales go all cross-eyed when you get to that point. In 14-EDO and 19-EDO,
> you can't play a subminor barre chord with a root on the 6th string, which
> is really annoying. In 18-EDO it's really hard to play the most consonant
> chords, because they need to be played in close position and that's really
> hard to do in either of the quasi-standard tunings. In 13-EDO, you have to
> tune four 462-cent intervals and then one 553-cent interval between the 2nd
> and 3rd strings, which is sort of a "backwards" standard tuning and
> everything on the 2nd string plays a fret lower instead of a fret higher
> (that gets confusing really quickly). 17-EDO is dead-simple and works just
> like 12 (more or less), and 15-EDO is simpler still because 5 of the flat
> 480-cent fourths spans two octaves exactly, so it's the same interval
> between any pair of adjacent strings. In 19-EDO it gets a little confusing
> remembering that a semitone is two steps instead of one, so scale shapes
> seem a little strange at first. In 20-EDO things are starting to get crowded
> and barre chords stop working. 21-EDO I have no idea because I've never
> tried it or really thought about it at all, it's the one EDO in this range
> that's never caught my fancy. 22-EDO you can actually still sorta play barre
> chords, and the diatonic scale still makes sense--but other scales are a bit
> confusing, especially the Pajara decatonics. 23-EDO works just like 13 or 16
> (depending on which standard tuning you adopt, the one based on flat fourths
> or the one based on sharp ones) but chords are weird and scales get
> confusing. 24-EDO is easy again, because you just tune to 12-EDO standard
> (although weirder tunings are possible, you can tune it to 8-EDO standard as
> well). 25-EDO tunes just like 15 and 20, but you can also tune it like 16 if
> you're into the whole "anti-diatonic" thing. 26-EDO can be tuned like 13 or
> 19, and 27-EDO is probably best tuned like 22 (i.e. exaggerated Pythagorean
> with flat 4ths and a sharp major 3rd between the 2nd and 3rd strings).
> 28--no idea, another one that hasn't struck my fancy. 29 is another
> pythagorean one, works like 12-EDO or 17-EDO but is pretty crowded. 30 works
> like 25--you can tune it in all flat 4ths or like 16 using the sharp
> 520-cent 4ths, but it's crowded as f***. 31-EDO is another diatonic-like
> tuning, much like 19, but forget about barre chords, though honestly 31's
> less challenging than smaller EDOs; you can also tune it like 13-EDO with
> flat fourths and one approximate 11/8, but why would you do that? Past
> 31--well, now we're getting a bit "unreasonable".
>
> So if I had to put EDOs in order of "easiest" on guitar to "hardest", it'd
> be something like this:
>
> 5
> 7
> 10
> 15
> 12
> 17
> 19
> 24
> 13
> 14
> 20
> 22
> 16
> 18
> 11
> 31
> 23
> 25
> 26
> 29
> 27
> 30
> (not sure about 21 or 28)
>
> I'm not 100% certain about this ranking, as I haven't *actually* tried
> anything between 24 and 31, but I think I can generalize from my experience
> with smaller EDOs.
>
> -Igs
>
>
>

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/11/2011 12:17:15 AM

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:17 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> 17 *is* diatonic. The fifths are the tiniest bit sharp, but 7 of them will produce a diatonic scale as normal as you please. Except that 3 steps is a whole-tone, 1 step is a semitone, and the major and minor 3rds are a bit "exaggerated". But you can read 12-tone-based diatonic sheet-music directly to a 17-tone instrument, just bearing in mind that #'s and b's are now different notes, and in fact the flats are lower in pitch than the sharps (so it goes A Bb A# B C Db C# D etc.).
>
> Here's a video of me noodling on my 17-EDO acoustic, it's not very good, but it gives you an idea of how normal 17 can sound and how it's really no more difficult than 12 on a guitar:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv27td6YGMg
>
> Nobody in the audience ever notices I'm not playing a normal guitar.

You also very cleverly avoid playing supermajor triads, and when you
do modulate to a root that would imply a supermajor triad, you dodge
around playing the third by playing omit3add2 chords and such. We
finally get a hint of one at 2:17, although it's more like F#m/A in
first inversion.

Yes, I've listened to this one quite a few times now :)

Do you have any clips of yourself playing in superpyth here where the
song is in major?

-Mike

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/11/2011 1:44:57 AM

17 equal divisions of an octave "is" NOT diatonic. You can use a Pythagorean modality to derive a diatonic scale from it. Not the same thing.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:17 PM, cityoftheasleep
> <igliashon@...> wrote:
> >
> > 17 *is* diatonic. The fifths are the tiniest bit sharp, but 7 of them will produce a diatonic scale as normal as you please. Except that 3 steps is a whole-tone, 1 step is a semitone, and the major and minor 3rds are a bit "exaggerated". But you can read 12-tone-based diatonic sheet-music directly to a 17-tone instrument, just bearing in mind that #'s and b's are now different notes, and in fact the flats are lower in pitch than the sharps (so it goes A Bb A# B C Db C# D etc.).
> >
> > Here's a video of me noodling on my 17-EDO acoustic, it's not very good, but it gives you an idea of how normal 17 can sound and how it's really no more difficult than 12 on a guitar:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv27td6YGMg
> >
> > Nobody in the audience ever notices I'm not playing a normal guitar.
>
> You also very cleverly avoid playing supermajor triads, and when you
> do modulate to a root that would imply a supermajor triad, you dodge
> around playing the third by playing omit3add2 chords and such. We
> finally get a hint of one at 2:17, although it's more like F#m/A in
> first inversion.
>
> Yes, I've listened to this one quite a few times now :)
>
> Do you have any clips of yourself playing in superpyth here where the
> song is in major?
>
> -Mike
>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/11/2011 1:59:54 AM

I'd suggest first and foremost exploring step sizes that are distinctly different from those in 12-tET.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/11/2011 11:12:17 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> 17 equal divisions of an octave "is" NOT diatonic. You can use a Pythagorean modality to
> derive a diatonic scale from it. Not the same thing.

Okay, okay. Misuse of the word "is", but I think I made my meaning apparent, and you know from our discussion at nonoctave.com that I know as well as you do what "diatonic" means. I intended to convey that 17 possesses the same inherent compatibility with diatonic music as does 12, as both EDOs contain a chain of reasonably-pure 3/2's, of which seven will produce a scale with five large steps and two small steps; one can play 12-EDO diatonic music in 17-EDO without incurring any difficulties or significant psychoacoustic alterations of either the harmonic or melodic content (though the same cannot be said of chromatic music).

Do I have to write future posts in e-prime (as I wrote this one) to prevent these little "misunderstandings"? Or will you indulge me in more charitable interpretations of the vagaries of my prose?

-Igs

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/11/2011 11:47:27 AM

Igs>"I intended to convey that 17 possesses the same inherent compatibility
with diatonic music as does 12, as both EDOs contain a chain of
reasonably-pure 3/2's, of which seven will produce a scale with five
large steps and two small steps; one can play 12-EDO diatonic music in
17-EDO without incurring any difficulties or significant psychoacoustic
alterations of either the harmonic or melodic content"

The real thing that gets me...is that there's no "major/minor" third or seventh in 17EDO (as I understand it). There is "only" a neutral third and an interval around 7/6 (diminished third?). Also, the seventh is replaced with a neutral as well. Plus the "6th" is around 17/10...far above 5/3.
The third and seventh's neutral nature seems to scream "blues!" as there's a lot of character floating around between major and minor ALA African scales blues was very much based on.

My take: if you assume neutrals to be able to act as major or minors, 17EDO definitely has a familiar diatonic feel...and that goes beyond that fact the LLsLLLs MOS configuration in 17EDO can make a diatonic scale.

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

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

2/11/2011 12:13:05 PM

Michael,

4 steps of 17edo is ~282.353¢, while a just 7/6 is ~266.871¢. The difference
is ~15.483¢, which I think means 4°17 doesn't really represent a 7/6 as much
as a 13/11 with an error of ~6.867¢, or even better--a 20/17, which is only
~0.995¢ off!!!

You correctly deduced a closeness to 17/10 of 13°17, but forgot that it's
inversion would be 20/17!! :) So if you call 7/6 a 'diminished third', its
inversion is a 'augmented sixth' ....I prefer the term 'small minor third'
and 'large major sixth', but whatever makes it disambiguous is fine.

17edo is interesting to me as it implies a lot of complex higher-than-7
primes without really coming out and stating them boldly, in so much as the
higher primes it implys/nails (like 20/17) are weaker in most spectra. So
it's sort of got this interesting character of basic (good fifths and
fourths) then beyond that jumping right into exotic (11, 13ish, 17ish
harmonics, etc.). I mentioned already the 23/13 connection with 14°17 as
well---again, interestingly complex higher primes expressing themselves. I
think this comes across to me as a kind of 'active exotic shimmer' when I
hear music in 17edo.

AKJ

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Igs>"I intended to convey that 17 possesses the same inherent compatibility
> with diatonic music as does 12, as both EDOs contain a chain of
> reasonably-pure 3/2's, of which seven will produce a scale with five
> large steps and two small steps; one can play 12-EDO diatonic music in
> 17-EDO without incurring any difficulties or significant psychoacoustic
> alterations of either the harmonic or melodic content"
>
> The real thing that gets me...is that there's no "major/minor" third or
> seventh in 17EDO (as I understand it). There is "only" a neutral third and
> an interval around 7/6 (diminished third?). Also, the seventh is replaced
> with a neutral as well. Plus the "6th" is around 17/10...far above 5/3.
> The third and seventh's neutral nature seems to scream "blues!" as
> there's a lot of character floating around between major and minor ALA
> African scales blues was very much based on.
>
> My take: if you assume neutrals to be able to act as major or minors,
> 17EDO definitely has a familiar diatonic feel...and that goes beyond that
> fact the LLsLLLs MOS configuration in 17EDO can make a diatonic scale.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

2/11/2011 12:57:09 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> The real thing that gets me...is that there's no "major/minor" third or seventh in 17EDO (as I understand it). There is "only" a neutral third and an interval around 7/6 (diminished third?).

There's an interval between 20/17 and 13/11 which you can also call 33/28, a neutral third, and a 14/11 third. If you are going to call 17 diatonic, it seems to me you should stick to the 14/11 third as the major third.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/11/2011 1:05:23 PM

Aarpm>"4 steps of 17edo is ~282.353¢, while a just 7/6 is ~266.871¢. The difference

is ~15.483¢, which I think means 4°17 doesn't really represent a 7/6 as much

as a 13/11 with an error of ~6.867¢, or even better--a 20/17, which is only

~0.995¢ off!!!"

My point was, far as ratios go, it's closer to 7/6 than anything else 7-or-under-limit (including 6/5). Agreed though, if you go for arbitrarily high limits IE 11+, of course you can get better accuracy...

>"I prefer the term 'small minor third' and 'large major sixth', but whatever makes it disambiguous is fine."

Fair enough...as I admited I have no clue what, formally, a 17/10 is called.

>"17edo is interesting to me as it implies a lot of complex higher-than-7

primes without really coming out and stating them boldly, in so much as the

higher primes it implys/nails (like 20/17) are weaker in most spectra."

Right, it is but it isn't. :-D Looking at the numerology it looks like it should feel much higher limit, but instead it just comes across (at least to me) as lower-limit with a degree of softness/ambiguity to it.

>"So it's sort of got this interesting character of basic (good fifths and fourths) then beyond that jumping right into exotic (11, 13ish, 17ish harmonics, etc.)."

The funny thing is...even the 11+ limit intervals don't feel so exotic/weird when I actually write music in 17TET...despite being much numerically closer than such intervals. It feels more like viewing the same image, but through different shaded lenses.

I still scratch my head about why the 17/10 sounds so relaxed/soft to me in 17TET despite being so high limit...and how the 11/9-ish interval in 17TET doesn't come out as out of place vs. the relatively normal fourth, for example. In fact the 18/13 and 14/11 are the only dyads
that seriously jump out at me as saying "this is not as relaxed as 12TET". I'm still wondering how all this works....

--- On Fri, 2/11/11, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:

From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Which 'tuning road' to take?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 12:13 PM

Michael,

4 steps of 17edo is ~282.353¢, while a just 7/6 is ~266.871¢. The difference

is ~15.483¢, which I think means 4°17 doesn't really represent a 7/6 as much

as a 13/11 with an error of ~6.867¢, or even better--a 20/17, which is only

~0.995¢ off!!!

You correctly deduced a closeness to 17/10 of 13°17, but forgot that it's

inversion would be 20/17!! :) So if you call 7/6 a 'diminished third', its

inversion is a 'augmented sixth' ....I prefer the term 'small minor third'

and 'large major sixth', but whatever makes it disambiguous is fine.

17edo is interesting to me as it implies a lot of complex higher-than-7

primes without really coming out and stating them boldly, in so much as the

higher primes it implys/nails (like 20/17) are weaker in most spectra. So

it's sort of got this interesting character of basic (good fifths and

fourths) then beyond that jumping right into exotic (11, 13ish, 17ish

harmonics, etc.). I mentioned already the 23/13 connection with 14°17 as

well---again, interestingly complex higher primes expressing themselves. I

think this comes across to me as a kind of 'active exotic shimmer' when I

hear music in 17edo.

AKJ

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Igs>"I intended to convey that 17 possesses the same inherent compatibility

> with diatonic music as does 12, as both EDOs contain a chain of

> reasonably-pure 3/2's, of which seven will produce a scale with five

> large steps and two small steps; one can play 12-EDO diatonic music in

> 17-EDO without incurring any difficulties or significant psychoacoustic

> alterations of either the harmonic or melodic content"

> The real thing that gets me...is that there's no "major/minor" third or

> seventh in 17EDO (as I understand it). There is "only" a neutral third and

> an interval around 7/6 (diminished third?). Also, the seventh is replaced

> with a neutral as well. Plus the "6th" is around 17/10...far above 5/3.

> The third and seventh's neutral nature seems to scream "blues!" as

> there's a lot of character floating around between major and minor ALA

> African scales blues was very much based on.

> My take: if you assume neutrals to be able to act as major or minors,

> 17EDO definitely has a familiar diatonic feel...and that goes beyond that

> fact the LLsLLLs MOS configuration in 17EDO can make a diatonic scale.

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

> ------------------------------------

> Yahoo! Groups Links

Aaron Krister Johnson

http://www.akjmusic.com

http://www.untwelve.org

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

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/11/2011 1:09:13 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...>
> The real thing that gets me...is that there's no "major/minor"
> third or seventh in 17EDO (as I understand it).

You misunderstand, then. 4\17 and 6\17 are clearly minor and major 3rds, and 14\17 and 16\17 are clearly minor and major 7ths. They work just the same and impart virtually the same harmonic character as their 12-tET counterparts, and they appear right where you'd expect them in the diatonic scale. I personally refuse to call them "subminor" and "supermajor" because they do not feel like that to me. 12-tET is already a ways out of the ballpark of 5-limit consonances, and in comparison 17-EDO only feels slightly more extreme. You really have to go at least 10 cents further on each interval to get into subminor/supermajor territory.

-Igs

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/11/2011 1:14:30 PM

Didn't mean to be picking at you, sorry. I think these distinctions are important to make and maintain.

For example, the "regular temperament paradigm" doesn't make sense without the understanding that tunings "support" temperaments, rather than tunings "are" temperaments.

E-prime, LOL. How about f-prime, which entails using the f-word as often as possible?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > 17 equal divisions of an octave "is" NOT diatonic. You can use a Pythagorean modality to
> > derive a diatonic scale from it. Not the same thing.
>
> Okay, okay. Misuse of the word "is", but I think I made my meaning apparent, and you know from our discussion at nonoctave.com that I know as well as you do what "diatonic" means. I intended to convey that 17 possesses the same inherent compatibility with diatonic music as does 12, as both EDOs contain a chain of reasonably-pure 3/2's, of which seven will produce a scale with five large steps and two small steps; one can play 12-EDO diatonic music in 17-EDO without incurring any difficulties or significant psychoacoustic alterations of either the harmonic or melodic content (though the same cannot be said of chromatic music).
>
> Do I have to write future posts in e-prime (as I wrote this one) to prevent these little "misunderstandings"? Or will you indulge me in more charitable interpretations of the vagaries of my prose?
>
> -Igs
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/11/2011 1:30:08 PM

Igs>"You misunderstand, then. 4\17 and 6\17 are clearly minor and major 3rds, and 14\17 and 16\17 are clearly minor and major 7ths."

I hear you, but I don't agree. Seems obvious to me...4 and 6 are way to low (first case) and high (second case) to register to me as major and minor thirds. 4 is closer to 7/6 than to 6/5 (6/5 being a minor third)...and 6 is close to 9/7 than to 5/4 (5/4 being the major third). Meanwhile 14 is over 20 cents from the 9/5 minor second (a commatic amount of error) and 16 is a similar amount above the major second. And, to my ears, they sound vastly different as well...especially the tone near 9/7 vs. the original 5/4 major third: it's a completely different tonal color to my ears and one not substitute-able (unlike the neutrals).

So I'd still say calling those correct major/minor...is the
equivalent of saying 6 adults can fit in an Austin Martin Mini Coupe (perhaps they can, but man...you'd have to basically kick them in to make them fit!)

>"hey work just the same and impart virtually the same harmonic character
as their 12-tET counterparts, and they appear right where you'd expect
them in the diatonic scale."

Appear in the same places in an MOS notation...I can definitely believe. But having something so warped sound the same? I have serious doubts...

>"12-tET is already a ways out of the ballpark of 5-limit consonances,
and in comparison 17-EDO only feels slightly more extreme. "

It seems people are "used" to the 13-14 cent errors of 12EDO. Using notes I've suggested IE accepting neutrals as major or minor substitutes gives a low-limit diatonic-esque scale with more like a 15 cent maximum error (IE the 5th note vs. 7/6)...while your preferred (and perhaps the formally used) diatonic scale pops in with a few 20+ cent errors. My bet is that, no matter how formally accepted the use of the intervals you suggested is, it's better to "bite the bullet" and take advantage of the neutrals and the 17/10 (which, for reasons I don't quite understand, sounds much like a 12/7 despite being a fair distance away from it numerically).

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

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/11/2011 2:07:16 PM

The "major third" in 12-tET isn't really a major third in terms of Just intonation, it's a Pythagorean ditone. So in that way it is very similar to the 17-edo supramajor third.

Acoustic 12-tET music often has a Just(ish) major third, though (you can hear it when there's "blend" in choral music, unless the choir is contorting their voices into that hooty bland sound, in which case it could be any damn interval). The Just major third, I agree, certainly does not sound like the supramajor third of 17- in fact, you can use
those two intervals, or roughly those two intervals, in a single scale
and they sound like distinct intervals. Try using a 150ish cent second, a 5:4 and a 9:7 instead of a fourth, you'll see.

Diatonic identity, if you stay in a diatonic scale, doesn't give a hoot about such distinctions and can be painted with an even broader brush. This is QED: we recognize diatonic melodies with ease, even if they're out of tune. Even way out of tune.

So: in sound, strong distinction between 9:7 and 5:4, a distinction easily maintained in music. In diatonic identity, a 9:7 can easily be a "major third". Or a "perfect fourth". It's easy to blur the raw sonic distinction in music, too.

Oh- in your new 19 vs. 17 example, I'm voting for the second one as sounding nicer and more "on purpose" than the first one.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Igs>"You misunderstand, then. 4\17 and 6\17 are clearly minor and major 3rds, and 14\17 and 16\17 are clearly minor and major 7ths."
>
>    I hear you, but I don't agree. Seems obvious to me...4 and 6 are way to low (first case) and high (second case) to register to me as major and minor thirds. 4 is closer to 7/6 than to 6/5 (6/5 being a minor third)...and 6 is close to 9/7 than to 5/4 (5/4 being the major third). Meanwhile 14 is over 20 cents from the 9/5 minor second (a commatic amount of error) and 16 is a similar amount above the major second. And, to my ears, they sound vastly different as well...especially the tone near 9/7 vs. the original 5/4 major third: it's a completely different tonal color to my ears and one not substitute-able (unlike the neutrals).
>
>
>     So I'd still say calling those correct major/minor...is the
> equivalent of saying 6 adults can fit in an Austin Martin Mini Coupe (perhaps they can, but man...you'd have to basically kick them in to make them fit!)
>
> >"hey work just the same and impart virtually the same harmonic character
> as their 12-tET counterparts, and they appear right where you'd expect
> them in the diatonic scale."
>
> Appear in the same places in an MOS notation...I can definitely believe. But having something so warped sound the same? I have serious doubts...
>
> >"12-tET is already a ways out of the ballpark of 5-limit consonances,
> and in comparison 17-EDO only feels slightly more extreme. "
>
>    It seems people are "used" to the 13-14 cent errors of 12EDO. Using notes I've suggested IE accepting neutrals as major or minor substitutes gives a low-limit diatonic-esque scale with more like a 15 cent maximum error (IE the 5th note vs. 7/6)...while your preferred (and perhaps the formally used) diatonic scale pops in with a few 20+ cent errors. My bet is that, no matter how formally accepted the use of the intervals you suggested is, it's better to "bite the bullet" and take advantage of the neutrals and the 17/10 (which, for reasons I don't quite understand, sounds much like a 12/7 despite being a fair distance away from it numerically).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/11/2011 4:39:24 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> For example, the "regular temperament paradigm" doesn't make sense without the
> understanding that tunings "support" temperaments, rather than tunings "are"
> temperaments.

LOL, sounds like you're making a pretty strong argument for the adoption of E-prime in the tuning community, what with your worries about the slipperiness of the verb "to be". Me, I try not to worry about semantics in common discourse as long as I can trust that my peers understand what I'm getting at.

> E-prime, LOL. How about f-prime, which entails using the f-word as often as possible?

F-prime: the language used by the person who attempts to write in E-prime. Example: "F***, how the f*** am I supposed to f***ing write this f***ing sentence without using a f***ing progressive tense? F***!"

-Igs

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 17 equal divisions of an octave "is" NOT diatonic. You can use a Pythagorean modality to
> > > derive a diatonic scale from it. Not the same thing.
> >
> > Okay, okay. Misuse of the word "is", but I think I made my meaning apparent, and you know from our discussion at nonoctave.com that I know as well as you do what "diatonic" means. I intended to convey that 17 possesses the same inherent compatibility with diatonic music as does 12, as both EDOs contain a chain of reasonably-pure 3/2's, of which seven will produce a scale with five large steps and two small steps; one can play 12-EDO diatonic music in 17-EDO without incurring any difficulties or significant psychoacoustic alterations of either the harmonic or melodic content (though the same cannot be said of chromatic music).
> >
> > Do I have to write future posts in e-prime (as I wrote this one) to prevent these little "misunderstandings"? Or will you indulge me in more charitable interpretations of the vagaries of my prose?
> >
> > -Igs
> >
>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/11/2011 5:02:21 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> I hear you, but I don't agree.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I've been playing in 17-EDO for years, sometimes even in front of an audience. I won't say I can't hear the difference between 12-EDO and 17-EDO played diatonically, but man...it is *splitting hairs*. No one I've played 17 for has ever said "hey man, those chords sound really weird", or "I think your guitar is out of tune", or "was that microtonal music?" In fact, I've even told people ahead of time that I'm going to play some microtonal guitar, gone up, played a whole set in 17-EDO, and then had those people come up and say "what happened? I thought you were going to play microtonal music?"

So my suspicion is that you are actually just caught up in numerology and fooling yourself that 17 sounds "totally different" from 12-TET when in fact it scarcely does at all (unless you're playing neutral intervals).

> Seems obvious to me...4 and 6 are way to low (first case) and high (second case) to
> register to me as major and minor thirds.

Perhaps because you have some crazy idea that anything that doesn't sound like a 5/4 or a 6/5 can't be a major or minor 3rd.

> Meanwhile 14 is over 20 cents from the 9/5 minor second

And yet only about 8 cents from a 16/9, which is what the minor sevenths are in 12-tET.

The point is not that 17 sounds like 5-limit JI; the point is that 17 sounds like 12, because 12 does not sound like 5-limit JI.

> (a commatic amount of error) and 16 is a similar amount above the major second.

And yet, if you make a 0-6-10-16 tetrad in 17-EDO and ask a bunch of random musicians what kind of chord it is, they'll all tell you "it's a major 7th".

> And, to my ears, they sound vastly different as well...especially the tone near 9/7 vs. the > original 5/4 major third: it's a completely different tonal color to my ears and one not
> substitute-able (unlike the neutrals).

No, of course it doesn't sound like a 5/4. Neither does 400 cents.

> So I'd still say calling those correct major/minor...is the
> equivalent of saying 6 adults can fit in an Austin Martin Mini Coupe (perhaps they can,
> but man...you'd have to basically kick them in to make them fit!)

So you do agree, then?

> Appear in the same places in an MOS notation...I can definitely believe. But having
> something so warped sound the same? I have serious doubts...

NOT "THE SAME". They do not sound "the same". They sound *similar*. They *function* the same in a diatonic scale. They express the same tonal idea. They are alike in more ways than they are different.

> It seems people are "used" to the 13-14 cent errors of 12EDO. Using notes I've
> suggested IE accepting neutrals as major or minor substitutes gives a low-limit
> diatonic-esque scale with more like a 15 cent maximum error (IE the 5th note vs.
> 7/6)...

Uh, what? Do the math again, Michael. 6/5 = ~315 cents. The 4th degree of 17 is closer by about 5 cents to 6/5 than is the 5th degree.

-Igs

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/11/2011 5:15:49 PM

Wasn't the point of this exercise was to have a tuning that would not
alienate a 12 equal audience but still had the ability to create xenharmonic
music that is very different from 12 equal?

If you are going to say 17 can't sound xenharmonic then I respectfully
disagree and present:

http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=422

You seem to be dismissive of my 17 equal guitar pieces as I see you typing
repeatedly how 17 is easy. 12 is easy too - unless you are playing some
Milton Babbit as that documentary amply demonstrated. I'm working on some
material that is really pretty different sounding albeit in an Arabic way.
Again - there is a lot of composer choice is involved here. If you don't
think 12 equal can't sound alien then I again respectfully disagree.

Of course you can get music from different edos that is unmistakably
xenharmonic without much effort but.... we already knew that.

So I'm not following your line of reasoning here Igs.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:02 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > I hear you, but I don't agree.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but I've been playing in 17-EDO for years,
> sometimes even in front of an audience. I won't say I can't hear the
> difference between 12-EDO and 17-EDO played diatonically, but man...it is
> *splitting hairs*. No one I've played 17 for has ever said "hey man, those
> chords sound really weird", or "I think your guitar is out of tune", or "was
> that microtonal music?" In fact, I've even told people ahead of time that
> I'm going to play some microtonal guitar, gone up, played a whole set in
> 17-EDO, and then had those people come up and say "what happened? I thought
> you were going to play microtonal music?"
>
>

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

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/11/2011 6:07:34 PM

I'm emphatically NOT saying 17-EDO can't sound different. 17 gets extremely way-the-f*** out there, and I know it as well as you. It's just not "automatically xenharmonic" as Michael seems to think it is (and as XJ Scott once suggested to me). Your "Kids Garage Band" track is ample enough proof of that. All I'm saying is that if you play diatonic music in 17-EDO, the contrast with 12-TET is not very striking. The difference in mood is subtle and can easily go unnoticed.

Now, if you start chaining together freaky combinations of neutral and normal intervals, or if you take a 12-tET piece that uses lots of chromatic harmony (like French or German 6th chords) and play it in 17 where the sharps and flats have switched places, then yeah, 17 sounds pretty f***ing far out. There's all sorts of stuff that 17 can do that 12 can't touch with a 10-foot-pole. I'd be the last person to suggest otherwise.

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Wasn't the point of this exercise was to have a tuning that would not
> alienate a 12 equal audience but still had the ability to create xenharmonic
> music that is very different from 12 equal?
>
> If you are going to say 17 can't sound xenharmonic then I respectfully
> disagree and present:
>
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=422
>
> You seem to be dismissive of my 17 equal guitar pieces as I see you typing
> repeatedly how 17 is easy. 12 is easy too - unless you are playing some
> Milton Babbit as that documentary amply demonstrated. I'm working on some
> material that is really pretty different sounding albeit in an Arabic way.
> Again - there is a lot of composer choice is involved here. If you don't
> think 12 equal can't sound alien then I again respectfully disagree.
>
> Of course you can get music from different edos that is unmistakably
> xenharmonic without much effort but.... we already knew that.
>
> So I'm not following your line of reasoning here Igs.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:02 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > > I hear you, but I don't agree.
> >
> > You're entitled to your opinion, but I've been playing in 17-EDO for years,
> > sometimes even in front of an audience. I won't say I can't hear the
> > difference between 12-EDO and 17-EDO played diatonically, but man...it is
> > *splitting hairs*. No one I've played 17 for has ever said "hey man, those
> > chords sound really weird", or "I think your guitar is out of tune", or "was
> > that microtonal music?" In fact, I've even told people ahead of time that
> > I'm going to play some microtonal guitar, gone up, played a whole set in
> > 17-EDO, and then had those people come up and say "what happened? I thought
> > you were going to play microtonal music?"
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/11/2011 6:58:36 PM

Just look at yourselves. Look at what you've become!

Don't say I didn't warn you. -Carl

Igs wrote:
>I'm emphatically NOT saying 17-EDO can't sound different.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/11/2011 7:06:07 PM

What I did with my electrified psaltery, IMHO, is much more interesting
anyway.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Just look at yourselves. Look at what you've become!
>
> Don't say I didn't warn you. -Carl
>
>
> Igs wrote:
> >I'm emphatically NOT saying 17-EDO can't sound different.
>
>
>

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

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/12/2011 8:58:54 AM

IGS>"No one I've played 17 for has ever said "hey man, those chords sound
really weird", or "I think your guitar is out of tune", or "was that
microtonal music?"

That is....assuming you are using the diatonic scale as you stated it should be? In that case, wow, maybe I have a-typical ears in that case...the difference comes across as clearly audible to me. Since my greater point is to disguise the sound from other people...maybe you're right the strict diatonic mode "does" work for most people and I should ignore what appears to be just a weird bias of mine.

>"Perhaps because you have some crazy idea that anything that doesn't sound like a 5/4 or a 6/5 can't be a major or minor 3rd."

To me, there's a huge difference. IE in my Dimension tuning...I experimented with moving certain intervals around IE 5/4 to 14/11 figuring (actually hoping) Harmonic Entropy would "bash it back into position as a 5/4 in the greater context of composition" so I could give slack to those intervals and focus on improving the more sour ones at their
expense. However when I did so, I could almost always tell something was amiss...even if the step sizes still followed the same general pattern. Again, if you did test this all against the public and context won over to them (though it obviously didn't to me)...maybe it's me with the "weird ears" in this case.

>"The point is not that 17 sounds like 5-limit JI; the point is that 17 sounds like 12, because 12 does not sound like 5-limit JI."

Ah, so we're comparing the 17-limit major third to the 29/23-ish major third in 12TET...in that case I can somewhat understand. The 12TET major third sounds a bit off in the first place to me, though...and this all seems to hint people actually gravitate to 12TET over JI (ouch)...

>"And yet only about 8 cents from a 16/9, which is what the minor sevenths are in 12-tET."

Indeed...again you're making the point people hear via 12TET,
not "the JI 12TET aims for". And 16/9, of course, is the closest 9-limit ratio...and this assumes people aren't trying to round it to the nearest 5-limit.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Fascinating in a way because, if this really IS true...people may very well already be used to a fair deal of 9 and 13-limit from 12TET!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My only suspicion that would ditch this idea...is that virtually every interval in 12TET can be summarized as x/16 or 16/x as a fraction...thus adding another aspect of consistency people may gravitate to in 12TET: the 16th harmonic (and or having at least one numerator/denominator be a direct power of 2 IE 2^x).

>"Uh, what? Do the math again, Michael. 6/5 = ~315 cents. The 4th degree
of 17 is closer by about 5 cents to 6/5 than is the 5th degree."

6/5 = 315 cents but the step I referred to = 274 cents. The difference is 315 - 274 = 41 cents. The step before that is about 211 cents...there the difference would be 104 cents! Looks to me like you are simply counting steps differently than I am...

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