Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Marcel

Marcel, I'd appreciate if you answer this as well. Currently my impression is that you have a system where consonance/dissonance is more predictable, rather than that consonance is higher or what not. And I do remember your last rendition of "Drei Equili" indeed sounded considerably better in your tuning than 12TET or 5-limit JI.

I think everyone's question, however, is how would said theory sound in newly composed music...which beckons the challenge of your making some new songs with it and comparing the sound of those to 5-limit JI, meantone (preferrably 1/4 comma), and 12TET

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, john777music <jfos777@...> wrote:

From: john777music <jfos777@...>
Subject: [MMM] Marcel
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 5:01 PM

Marcel,

I've asked you this before, you say you have "solved" JI. What exactly is your system, how does it work?

John.

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

🔗m.develde@...

Hi Michael and John,

Thanks for your interest.

My "system" is merely what my research has brought me so far.
I don't see it as my creation, but as finding the truths that have been there all along.
Which is amongst other things that the tonal side of music is interpreted by our brain as JI (even if one plays it in for instance 12tet).
I see JI as the basis of music, the logical and mathematic restrictions / structures that JI gives give rise to things very similar to functional harmony and counterpoint.
Further I've found that most common practice music is 5-limit JI.
A specific form of 5-limit JI which has the potential pitch field of an infinite chain of 3/2 fifths with one other infinite chain of 3/2 fifths a 5/4 major third relative to it (so there are never 2 5/4 thirds stacked to make a 25/16 etc).

I'm making a big website (www.justintonation.com under construction nothing there yet) with all my research and theory for education about true JI .
There will also be blogs for people, a forum and more.
This will be the best place to learn about correct JI and talk about it etc.
But it'll take some time before it's finished.

If you wish to learn more about it in the meantime, the best way would be to study my tuning of Beethoven's Drei Equale no1.
I've uploaded my MIDI file to my folder here on MMM.
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/
I've also included the tuning as a Scala sequence file (you can open it in a text editor)

If you're really serious about studying it, then I can also make an image of the score with ratios written next to the notes which will be more easy to read.

-Marcel

From: Michael
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:02 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, john777music <mailto:jfos777%40yahoo.com> wrote:

From: john777music <mailto:jfos777%40yahoo.com>
Subject: [MMM] Marcel
To: mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 5:01 PM

Marcel,

I've asked you this before, you say you have "solved" JI. What exactly is your system, how does it work?

John.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Marcel>"I see JI as the basis of music, the logical and mathematic restrictions / structures that JI gives give rise to things very similar to functional harmony and counterpoint."

It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the brain as JI.

>"Further I've found that most common practice music is 5-limit JI. A specific form of 5-limit JI which has the potential pitch field of an infinite chain of 3/2 fifths with one other infinite chain of 3/2 fifths a 5/4 major third relative to it (so there are never 2 5/4 thirds stacked to make a 25/16 etc)."

In Western music history this has firm footing: most tuning masters were trying to either focus on perfecting perfect fifths or major thirds. The obvious question is, what does your system do better than theirs?...especially when you consider stacking Just perfect fifths and Just major thirds violates the octave..

That and...you still haven't answered the obvious question of how can this, when solved, ultimately be applied to NEW compositions. Pardon my directness...but I don't think much anyone will give a hoot until you go beyond simply retuning rather old classical music.

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me> "It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in
temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the
brain as JI."
MikeB>"Try retuning Debussy to JI, or to 53-tet, or 72-tet like I did, and

you'll see how well this works."

I assume not very well and I assume 12TET, in reality, is matched by the brain to a significantly higher limit of JI and 5-limit when Debussy uses it. This is since when you treat 12TET as a complete system and not just a way of deriving 7 tone diatonic scales (as Debussy does), weird things happen...

If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16 (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16, 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but not the other systems, which really are much more suited to optimize around 5-limit diatonic scales?

--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 20, 2011, 11:24 AM

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Marcel>"I see JI as the basis of music, the logical and mathematic restrictions / structures that JI gives give rise to things very similar to functional harmony and counterpoint."

> It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the brain as JI.

Try retuning Debussy to JI, or to 53-tet, or 72-tet like I did, and

you'll see how well this works.

-Mike

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> "It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in
>
> temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the
> brain as JI."
> MikeB>"Try retuning Debussy to JI, or to 53-tet, or 72-tet like I did, and
>
> you'll see how well this works."
>
> I assume not very well and I assume 12TET, in reality, is matched by the brain to a significantly higher limit of JI and 5-limit when Debussy uses it. This is since when you treat 12TET as a complete system and not just a way of deriving 7 tone diatonic scales (as Debussy does), weird things happen...

I do think that Debussy manages to wring out 7-limit harmonies out of
12-TET, and sometimes I think he's hinting at 11-limit harmonies as
well. But my point was, 81/80 comma pumps are so ubiquitous in all of
the music that we enjoy listening to that you don't even realize when
they'll turn up in strange and unexpected ways. If you are vehemently
opposed to temperament, then your options are to

1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
comma-shifted wolf intervals
3) allow for occasional pitch drift

Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I
started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually
decided it wasn't worth it.

> If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16 (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16, 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but not the other systems, which really are much more suited to optimize around 5-limit diatonic scales?

Who cares about dyads?

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me> " If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16 (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16, 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but not the other syst"ms, which really are much more suited to optimize around 5-limit diatonic scales?

MikeB>"Who cares about dyads?"
It's not about dyads on a larger scale: it's about 12TET's pointing to consistant limit relationships well above 12TET. For example, if you have a bunch of x/16 otonal relationships, you can get chords like 16:17:19 out of 12TET...the larger idea leads to patterns in larger chords, not "just" dyads.

>"I do think that Debussy manages to wring out 7-limit harmonies out of
12-TET, and sometimes I think he's hinting at 11-limit harmonies as
well."
Exactly! The presence of higher limit dyads, again, leads to the presence of higher limit harmonies in triads, tetrads, etc.

>"1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
comma-shifted wolf intervals
3) allow for occasional pitch drift
Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually decided it wasn't worth it."

Indeed Marcel seems to lean toward #1 while #2 and #3 seems to represent adaptive JI. Part of the question to Marcel then becomes, what makes a "good wolf"?

--- On Sun, 2/20/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 20, 2011, 12:33 PM

1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
comma-shifted wolf intervals
3) allow for occasional pitch drift

Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I
started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually
decided it wasn't worth it.

Who cares about dyads?

-Mike

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> " If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16 (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16, 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but not the other syst"ms, which really are much more suited to optimize around 5-limit diatonic scales?

1) I don't think that utonal relationships really matter that much,
short of being a nice quick and dirty way to make semitonal chords of
higher entropy that don't beat like crazy
2) 27/16 and 5/3 are the same thing in 12-equal, and sometimes it
makes more sense to voice a major sixth as 27/16 if you try to retune
something like Debussy, sometimes it makes more sense to voice as 5/3,
and sometimes both of them implode on a comma pump that you didn't
realize existed
3) I don't understand your last question
4) Let's move this to tuning, shall we"

> MikeB>"Who cares about dyads?"
> It's not about dyads on a larger scale: it's about 12TET's pointing to consistant limit relationships well above 12TET. For example, if you have a bunch of x/16 otonal relationships, you can get chords like 16:17:19 out of 12TET...the larger idea leads to patterns in larger chords, not "just" dyads.

What do you mean "consistent limit relationships well above 12TET?"

> >"I do think that Debussy manages to wring out 7-limit harmonies out of
> 12-TET, and sometimes I think he's hinting at 11-limit harmonies as
> well."
> Exactly! The presence of higher limit dyads, again, leads to the presence of higher limit harmonies in triads, tetrads, etc.

But I don't think that, because the tritone in 12-equal is closer to
17/12 than 7/5, that that makes a difference in how it functions in
7-limit harmony.

> >"1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
> 2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
> comma-shifted wolf intervals
> 3) allow for occasional pitch drift
> Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually decided it wasn't worth it."
>
> Indeed Marcel seems to lean toward #1 while #2 and #3 seems to represent adaptive JI. Part of the question to Marcel then becomes, what makes a "good wolf"?

#2 and #3 only represent adaptive JI if you move by tempered
intervals. If you're moving by just intervals that just happen to be
things like 27/20, then that isn't adaptive JI at all. I'm not sure
it's all that pleasant either.

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me> " It's not about dyads on a larger scale: it's about 12TET's
pointing to consistant limit relationships well above 12TET. For
example, if you have a bunch of x/16 otonal relationships, you can get
chords like 16:17:19 out of 12TET...the larger idea leads to patterns
in larger chords, not "just" dyads."

MikeB>What do you mean "consistent limit relationships well above 12TET?"
Slip of the tongue, I meant "consistently higher limit relationships in 12TET, which are well above the usual assumed 5-limit ones.

>"But I don't think that, because the tritone in 12-equal is closer to 17/12 than 7/5, that that makes a difference in how it functions in 7-limit harmony."

I would say the tritone of 12TET is actually the one exception. The examples I was using included 27/16, 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9. In the case of 17/12 vs. 7/5, I'd say the 12TET tritone to act as either a 7/5 or a 10/7...being smack in between two fairly strong 7-limit ratios. Meanwhile 27/16, for example, has only one simple ratio within even about 20 cents or so of then (IE 5/3), and that one ratio is about 17 cents or more away from it, thus making it take on its own clear "JI meaning".

And yes, from here on out I agree with you...let's more this to the tuning list...

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

🔗m.develde@...

?Hi Mike and Michael,

Your responses show that you have not listened very well to my tuning of Drei Equale no1, nor had a look at the tuning as I suggested ;)
There are no wolfs or held note comma shifts, nor is there any drifting.
These problems do not occur in correct JI as I've found through my research.

The problems you discuss are unavoidable in the classic 5-limit "JI", but this is clearly a wrong system and has nothing to do with what I'm doing.
Quickest way to demonstrate the difference is to listen to both.
My JI: /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.mid
Classic 5-limit "JI": /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_No1_%28classic-5-limit-JI%29.mid
This one was done by Petr Parizek about 2 years ago and also does not have any wolves.
There are various ways to do the classic 5-limit "JI" but all are terrible and most sound even worse.

As I've said before, if you want to see what's going on in the correct JI version, the tuning is right here:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.seq

Also, I just read your discussion went to things like 17/16 19/16 etc..
I've researched this extensively as well, just like all the other things you've mentioned.
In fact I've researched them, then revisited them over and over again.
I retuned much music with each method, and investigated the musical logic, mathematical soundness and possibilities of all of them (and several other systems and solutions you didn't mention).
It's what I've been doing full time for over 3 years now.

The tuning I've posted here of the Drei Equale no1 isn't just "a tuning".
It is true Just Intonation. It contains information on the musical functioning of this piece that goes deeper than the notation or current music theory.
This JI off course works for all music, old and new, gives deeper insight into the functioning of the tonal side of music, and suggests ways to do new things.

And to Mike.
If you study this method you will have no problem retuning Debussy to JI.

-Marcel

From: Mike Battaglia
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:33 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Michael <mailto:djtrancendance%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Me> "It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in
>
> temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the
> brain as JI."
> MikeB>"Try retuning Debussy to JI, or to 53-tet, or 72-tet like I did, and
>
> you'll see how well this works."
>
> I assume not very well and I assume 12TET, in reality, is matched by > the brain to a significantly higher limit of JI and 5-limit when Debussy > uses it. This is since when you treat 12TET as a complete system and not > just a way of deriving 7 tone diatonic scales (as Debussy does), weird > things happen...

1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
comma-shifted wolf intervals
3) allow for occasional pitch drift

Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I
started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually
decided it wasn't worth it.

> If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16 > (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really > do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16, > 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy > does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these > o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but not > the other systems, which really are much more suited to optimize around > 5-limit diatonic scales?

Who cares about dyads?

-Mike

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

I object to the usual pompous and harsh language and pronouncements ("correct JI", "nothing to do with what I'm doing", "all are terrible", "true JI", "This JI off |sic] course works for all music").
Even so, I would like to listen to the examples. But my Mac won't play the tuning information (pitchbends) in those midi files. Finale has trouble with them, too. Are there audio version of those files somewhere?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> ?Hi Mike and Michael,
>
> Your responses show that you have not listened very well to my tuning of
> Drei Equale no1, nor had a look at the tuning as I suggested ;)
> There are no wolfs or held note comma shifts, nor is there any drifting.
> These problems do not occur in correct JI as I've found through my research.
>
> The problems you discuss are unavoidable in the classic 5-limit "JI", but
> this is clearly a wrong system and has nothing to do with what I'm doing.
> Quickest way to demonstrate the difference is to listen to both.
> My JI:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.mid
> Classic 5-limit "JI":
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_No1_%28classic-5-limit-JI%29.mid
> This one was done by Petr Parizek about 2 years ago and also does not have
> any wolves.
> There are various ways to do the classic 5-limit "JI" but all are terrible
> and most sound even worse.
>
> As I've said before, if you want to see what's going on in the correct JI
> version, the tuning is right here:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.seq
>
> Also, I just read your discussion went to things like 17/16 19/16 etc..
> I've researched this extensively as well, just like all the other things
> you've mentioned.
> In fact I've researched them, then revisited them over and over again.
> I retuned much music with each method, and investigated the musical logic,
> mathematical soundness and possibilities of all of them (and several other
> systems and solutions you didn't mention).
> It's what I've been doing full time for over 3 years now.
>
> The tuning I've posted here of the Drei Equale no1 isn't just "a tuning".
> It is true Just Intonation. It contains information on the musical
> functioning of this piece that goes deeper than the notation or current
> music theory.
> This JI off course works for all music, old and new, gives deeper insight
> into the functioning of the tonal side of music, and suggests ways to do new
> things.
>
> And to Mike.
> If you study this method you will have no problem retuning Debussy to JI.
>
> -Marcel
>
>
>
> From: Mike Battaglia
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Michael <mailto:djtrancendance%40yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Me> "It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in
> >
> > temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the
> > brain as JI."
> > MikeB>"Try retuning Debussy to JI, or to 53-tet, or 72-tet like I did, and
> >
> > you'll see how well this works."
> >
> > I assume not very well and I assume 12TET, in reality, is matched by
> > the brain to a significantly higher limit of JI and 5-limit when Debussy
> > uses it. This is since when you treat 12TET as a complete system and not
> > just a way of deriving 7 tone diatonic scales (as Debussy does), weird
> > things happen...
>
> I do think that Debussy manages to wring out 7-limit harmonies out of
> 12-TET, and sometimes I think he's hinting at 11-limit harmonies as
> well. But my point was, 81/80 comma pumps are so ubiquitous in all of
> the music that we enjoy listening to that you don't even realize when
> they'll turn up in strange and unexpected ways. If you are vehemently
> opposed to temperament, then your options are to
>
> 1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
> 2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
> comma-shifted wolf intervals
> 3) allow for occasional pitch drift
>
> Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I
> started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually
> decided it wasn't worth it.
>
> > If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16
> > (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really
> > do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16,
> > 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy
> > does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these
> > o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but not
> > the other systems, which really are much more suited to optimize around
> > 5-limit diatonic scales?
>
> Who cares about dyads?
>
> -Mike
>

🔗m.develde@...

Hi Juhani,

Pompous and harsh?
For millennia many philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists have believed there to be "laws of music", and that there's an "in tune" way to play things which is the true meaning of Just Intonation.
Perhaps you personally don't belief such things are possible, but I'd appreciate it if you allow me to belief in such things and post my views on these matters without getting called names..

As for the pitch bent midi files.
Quicktime player will play them correctly. If it doesn't on your computer then select a different midi / soundfont output under preferences.
Finale will also play pitchbent midi files (depending on the instrument / soundfont you make it play) , just make sure you turn "human playback" off. (and you may need to point each of the 4 midi tracks to a specific instrument).

-Marcel

From: Juhani
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:18 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

--- In mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com, <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> ?Hi Mike and Michael,
>
> Your responses show that you have not listened very well to my tuning of
> Drei Equale no1, nor had a look at the tuning as I suggested ;)
> There are no wolfs or held note comma shifts, nor is there any drifting.
> These problems do not occur in correct JI as I've found through my > research.
>
> The problems you discuss are unavoidable in the classic 5-limit "JI", but
> this is clearly a wrong system and has nothing to do with what I'm doing.
> Quickest way to demonstrate the difference is to listen to both.
> My JI:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.mid
> Classic 5-limit "JI":
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_No1_%28classic-5-limit-JI%29.mid
> This one was done by Petr Parizek about 2 years ago and also does not have
> any wolves.
> There are various ways to do the classic 5-limit "JI" but all are terrible
> and most sound even worse.
>
> As I've said before, if you want to see what's going on in the correct JI
> version, the tuning is right here:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.seq
>
> Also, I just read your discussion went to things like 17/16 19/16 etc..
> I've researched this extensively as well, just like all the other things
> you've mentioned.
> In fact I've researched them, then revisited them over and over again.
> I retuned much music with each method, and investigated the musical logic,
> mathematical soundness and possibilities of all of them (and several other
> systems and solutions you didn't mention).
> It's what I've been doing full time for over 3 years now.
>
> The tuning I've posted here of the Drei Equale no1 isn't just "a tuning".
> It is true Just Intonation. It contains information on the musical
> functioning of this piece that goes deeper than the notation or current
> music theory.
> This JI off course works for all music, old and new, gives deeper insight
> into the functioning of the tonal side of music, and suggests ways to do > new
> things.
>
> And to Mike.
> If you study this method you will have no problem retuning Debussy to JI.
>
> -Marcel
>
>
>
> From: Mike Battaglia
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:33 PM
> To: mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Michael > <mailto:djtrancendance%40yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Me> "It's not an unreasonable assumption...many people view ratios in
> >
> > temperaments as well...as being forms interpreted ultimately by the
> > brain as JI."
> > MikeB>"Try retuning Debussy to JI, or to 53-tet, or 72-tet like I did, > > and
> >
> > you'll see how well this works."
> >
> > I assume not very well and I assume 12TET, in reality, is matched by
> > the brain to a significantly higher limit of JI and 5-limit when Debussy
> > uses it. This is since when you treat 12TET as a complete system and not
> > just a way of deriving 7 tone diatonic scales (as Debussy does), weird
> > things happen...
>
> I do think that Debussy manages to wring out 7-limit harmonies out of
> 12-TET, and sometimes I think he's hinting at 11-limit harmonies as
> well. But my point was, 81/80 comma pumps are so ubiquitous in all of
> the music that we enjoy listening to that you don't even realize when
> they'll turn up in strange and unexpected ways. If you are vehemently
> opposed to temperament, then your options are to
>
> 1) have chords with wolves in them and just deal with it
> 2) have chords that are just, but make the notes move occasionally by
> comma-shifted wolf intervals
> 3) allow for occasional pitch drift
>
> Marcel is a proponent of #1. I don't like any of them. #2 was what I
> started exploring when I tried to retune Debussy and eventually
> decided it wasn't worth it.
>
> > If you look closely, the only consistent harmonic relations near x/16
> > (o-tonal) or 16/x (u-tonal)...and while many of the relationships really
> > do near 5-limit (IE 5/4 and 3/2) others much closer near 19/16, 27/16,
> > 17/16, 18/16 (AKA 9/8), and 16/9 than anything 5-limit. So when Debussy
> > does his crazy modulations, isn't it fair to assume he's using these
> > o-tonal and u-tonal relationships based on 16 that occur in 12TET, but > > not
> > the other systems, which really are much more suited to optimize around
> > 5-limit diatonic scales?
>
> Who cares about dyads?
>
> -Mike
>

🔗m.develde@...

Just uploaded a pdf of the score with the JI ratios next to the notes.
Much easier to read than the Scala sequence file.

/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_(MJI_2011-02-20).pdf

You'll see that not only the sound of JI is beautiful, but it looks beautiful in numbers too :)

-Marcel

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: m.develde@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:52 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

?Hi Mike and Michael,

Your responses show that you have not listened very well to my tuning of
Drei Equale no1, nor had a look at the tuning as I suggested ;)
There are no wolfs or held note comma shifts, nor is there any drifting.
These problems do not occur in correct JI as I've found through my research.

The problems you discuss are unavoidable in the classic 5-limit "JI", but
this is clearly a wrong system and has nothing to do with what I'm doing.
Quickest way to demonstrate the difference is to listen to both.
My JI:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.mid
Classic 5-limit "JI":
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_No1_%28classic-5-limit-JI%29.mid
This one was done by Petr Parizek about 2 years ago and also does not have
any wolves.
There are various ways to do the classic 5-limit "JI" but all are terrible
and most sound even worse.

As I've said before, if you want to see what's going on in the correct JI
version, the tuning is right here:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.seq

Also, I just read your discussion went to things like 17/16 19/16 etc..
I've researched this extensively as well, just like all the other things
you've mentioned.
In fact I've researched them, then revisited them over and over again.
I retuned much music with each method, and investigated the musical logic,
mathematical soundness and possibilities of all of them (and several other
systems and solutions you didn't mention).
It's what I've been doing full time for over 3 years now.

The tuning I've posted here of the Drei Equale no1 isn't just "a tuning".
It is true Just Intonation. It contains information on the musical
functioning of this piece that goes deeper than the notation or current
music theory.
This JI off course works for all music, old and new, gives deeper insight
into the functioning of the tonal side of music, and suggests ways to do new
things.

And to Mike.
If you study this method you will have no problem retuning Debussy to JI.

-Marcel

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

The tuning sounded really good (of course, the quacky midi trombones didn't--my
wife came by and closed the door)

So I'm curious to check out your ratios. (They seem to sound good!) But the .pdf
page still isn't working for me -- not sure if it's my old web browser or your
mistake.

caleb

________________________________
From: Marcel <m.develde@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 8:04:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

I managed to mess up the link.
Here's the working link:

/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.pdf

-Marcel

>
> Just uploaded a pdf of the score with the JI ratios next to the notes.
> Much easier to read than the Scala sequence file.
>
>/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_(MJI_2011-02-20).pdf
>f
>
> You'll see that not only the sound of JI is beautiful, but it looks
> beautiful in numbers too :)
>
> -Marcel

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

🔗m.develde@...

Hi Caleb,

Thank you! :-D

The .pdf link works for me.
Perhaps you could try updating your pdf reader to the latest version:
http://get.adobe.com/reader/
If that still doesn't help, maybe right clicking the pdf file link, saving it to your computer and then opening it will work.
And if all fails give me a shout and I'll make an image of it.

Btw, about the horrible midi timbre that scares away the women (could be a useful things as well sometimes haha)... the idea was that one could select ones own preferred midi / synthesizer sound to audition it (but I must admit I never do this myself either).
I also didn't want to upload many audio files and fill up the MMM group file space and I'm in between server space myself right now.
But will have server space again soon and I'm making a big webpage there with many retuned pieces with many high quality audio files.

-Marcel

From: Caleb Morgan
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:53 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

The tuning sounded really good (of course, the quacky midi trombones didn't--my
wife came by and closed the door)

So I'm curious to check out your ratios. (They seem to sound good!) But the .pdf
page still isn't working for me -- not sure if it's my old web browser or your
mistake.

caleb

________________________________
From: Marcel <mailto:m.develde%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 8:04:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

I managed to mess up the link.
Here's the working link:

/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.pdf

-Marcel

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗m.develde@...

John,

The piece being in D minor is based on normal music theory and its notation, and the notation is itself based on Pythagorean tuning.
It simply means that if we put 1/1 256/243 9/8 32/27 81/64 4/3 729/512 3/2 128/81 27/16 16/9 243/128 2/1 on D, that the piece stays within this chain of pure 3/2 fifths (enharmonic notation is based on this Pythagorean chain of fifths).
This has nothing to do with JI, as Pythagorean isn't JI (I can upload the Pythagorean version if you'd like so you can compare them).

I used the G as the 1/1 point in the pdf score simply because with this piece it gives lower easier to read ratios than if I use D as 1/1.
So it's simply for your convenience.
The Scala sequence file uses D as 1/1 point, compare the ratios if you wish. They're harder to read for the average person who isn't used to bigger 5-limit ratios.

As for your "good luck with anything more complex than a short, 4-voice work" comment..
You've got to be kidding me..??
LOL

-Marcel

From: jonszanto
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 10:36 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

--- In mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:
> I managed to mess up the link.

Also the key. The piece is in d, not G. The root note of the chords that begin and end the piece - d minor and D major, respectively - are written as 3/2?

Good luck with anything more complex than a short, 4 voice work.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Jon wrote:

>Also the key. The piece is in d, not G. The root note of the chords
>that begin and end the piece - d minor and D major, respectively - are
>written as 3/2?

Don't bother Jon, this has been pointed out to Marcel many times.

>Good luck with anything more complex than a short, 4 voice work.

What's hysterical about all this is that Marcel has maybe (I haven't
checked) finally managed to tune this piece in JI, which should be
effortless since it contains no comma pumps. In previous attempts he
added commatic wolves for no apparent reason, claiming they sounded
"correct" (then incorrect, then correct, then incorrect, ad infinitum).

What he hasn't done of course is tune the five-bar Lassus example
in JI (since it's impossible to do so). That was the example given
to him to illustrate why his so-called theory is bullshit. The
Beethoven was given to him as a piece that might sound good in the
7-limit. So not only does it take him 3 years to retune a short MIDI
file properly (if indeed he has - I'm skeptical - despite the fact
that I sent him a Scala seq file for the first phrase over a year
and a half ago), he got the point of the "challenge" wrong, saying
he did the impossible by putting the piece in JI, when in fact no
claim had been made and he actually made the piece more dissonant
than necessary!

In light of this past he still comes around here saying all the
music here sucks and how smart people here should know better, and
then when someone takes offense, that he wishes to receive the
same respect as "philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists"
of antiquity.

It's simply astounding.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

Marcel,

if you don't think "nothing to do with what I'm doing", "all are terrible" and countless other comments that you've made on these lists are harsh, let me say that the highly dissonant tunings that you use in bars 10, 21 and 46 (on the most important chords in the key - dominant and subdominant!), sound harsh indeed, as does to my ear the 32:27 minor third that you apparently use as a consonance. If all that is allowed, I don't see what problem there could possibly be to tune any common practice music in just intonation.

Juhani

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Juhani,
>
> Pompous and harsh?
> For millennia many philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists have
> believed there to be "laws of music", and that there's an "in tune" way to
> play things which is the true meaning of Just Intonation.
> Perhaps you personally don't belief such things are possible, but I'd
> appreciate it if you allow me to belief in such things and post my views on
> these matters without getting called names..
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

I gave up when Marcel said Lassus wrote the wrong notes in the five-bar
Lassus example.

When Marcel is civil I'll talk to him but his last attack of the untwelve
competitors was really low.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In light of this past he still comes around here saying all the
> > music here sucks and how smart people here should know better, and
> > then when someone takes offense, that he wishes to receive the
> > same respect as "philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists"
> > of antiquity.
> >
> > It's simply astounding.
> >
> >
> Yes, it is.
>
> The *only* gmail filter I ever made for MMM was to filter out anything
> having to do with 'Drei Equali' or anything from 'de Velde' from my
> incoming
> mail box, sending it straight to trash. It was incredibly amusing up to
> about the 253rd time, but then I got a wee bit tired of it all. Sort of
> like
> an annoying mosquito buzz in your ear after a while.
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

The attack is only as low as the attacker. :)

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> I gave up when Marcel said Lassus wrote the wrong notes in the five-bar
> Lassus example.
>
> When Marcel is civil I'll talk to him but his last attack of the untwelve
> competitors was really low.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Aaron Krister Johnson
> <aaron@...>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Carl Lumma<carl@...> wrote:
>>
>>> In light of this past he still comes around here saying all the
>>> music here sucks and how smart people here should know better, and
>>> then when someone takes offense, that he wishes to receive the
>>> same respect as "philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists"
>>> of antiquity.
>>>
>>> It's simply astounding.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> The *only* gmail filter I ever made for MMM was to filter out anything
>> having to do with 'Drei Equali' or anything from 'de Velde' from my
>> incoming
>> mail box, sending it straight to trash. It was incredibly amusing up to
>> about the 253rd time, but then I got a wee bit tired of it all. Sort of
>> like
>> an annoying mosquito buzz in your ear after a while.
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

🔗m.develde@...

Juhani,

Upon checking which chords you are referring to I found an error in my pdf file in bars 10 and 11. (I was tired when I made it)
I accidently put 10/3 above 3 notes which should have been 27/8. (accidently making 3 wolf major chords)
I've updated the pdf and re-uploaded it.
The error was only in the pdf, not in the Scala sequence file or the midi file.

About the Pythagorean minor and major chords in my JI tuning.
I belief them to be correct.
To stay in somewhat familiar terms, the parallel minor I belief to be 1/1 32/27 3/2, not 1/1 6/5 3/2 as "classic 5-limit JI" would make it.
1/1 6/5 3/2 minor is the relative minor in my JI findings. (though it's not really as simple as that, but I won't get into that now).
There's one other minor of 1/1 1215/1024, but it's not used in minor triads in Drei Equale no1, it only occurs in the diminished 7th chords.

If you wish to compare what 1/1 6/5 3/2 vs 1/1 32/27 3/2 sounds simply compare the opening chords of Drei Equale no1:
1/2 3/4 2/1 6/5 -> 3/4 15/16 9/8 :
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_No1_%28classic-5-limit-JI%29.mid

1/2 3/4 2/1 32/27 -> 3/4 15/16 9/8 :
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.mid

Hear how terribly out of tune the 1/1 6/5 3/2 sounds as the parallel minor!
1/1 32/27 3/2 sounds 100% correct.
It should not be 1/1 19/16 3/2 either, I've investigated this in depth and more than anybody else I know of.

Pythagorean chords are an essential part of JI.
They sound perfectly natural in their right places, hope you will see this somewhere in the future.
I'm already glad you do see that it makes all common practice music possible in JI. (actually it does much more than this, giving deeper insight than normal theory etc)

-Marcel

From: Juhani
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:15 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

Marcel,

Juhani

--- In mailto:MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com, <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Juhani,
>
> Pompous and harsh?
> For millennia many philosophers, mathematicians and music theorists have
> believed there to be "laws of music", and that there's an "in tune" way to
> play things which is the true meaning of Just Intonation.
> Perhaps you personally don't belief such things are possible, but I'd
> appreciate it if you allow me to belief in such things and post my views > on
> these matters without getting called names..
>

🔗m.develde@...

Hi Chris,

I've indeed said many crazy things in the past about tuning and JI.
But who hasn't to some degree :) JI as it stood before didn't work, it was crazy to begin with.
Ok, but I probably said more crazy things on the subject than others haha.

Though I can't remember having said Lassus wrote the wrong notes.
I may have said something like that about Beethoven though (of which I'm ashamed now lol)

There was one thing about the original Lassus file that was given to me on this list.
It had a major chord in one place that should have been a minor chord.
That is, Lassus wrote a minor chord in his score, and someone on this list accidently put a major chord in it's place.
I chose to use the piece the way Lassus wrote it.

-Marcel

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: Chris Vaisvil
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 12:16 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

I gave up when Marcel said Lassus wrote the wrong notes in the five-bar
Lassus example.

When Marcel is civil I'll talk to him but his last attack of the untwelve
competitors was really low.

Chris

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

Carl,

First of all, here's the Lassus example in JI (without wolfs):
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.mid

Here's the 12tet for comparison:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%2812tet%29.mid

It just did it and it took me 10min to make it.
Here's the Scala sequence file with the tuning:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq

As for the Drei Equale no1 not having comma pumps in classic 5-limit JI you're wrong and I've pointed this out to you before.
Petr's classic 5-limit JI version used a comma shift at bar 23 to handle a comma pump. (other options for classic 5-limit JI would have been a nasty drift or a wolf)
Though the comma problems of classic 5-limit JI go much deeper, and are really omnipresent throughout the piece.

And about the first phrase you sent me about 2 years ago...
Your tuning of it is exactly equal to the classic 5-limit JI version done by Petr.
Please compare it:
classic 5-limit JI (first 34sec is what you sent back then):
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_No1_%28classic-5-limit-JI%29.mid

12tet:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%2812tet%29.mid

My JI:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Beethoven_Drei_Equale_no1_%28MJI_2011-02-20%29.mid

Hear how terribly out of tune your version sounds. It is far worse than 12tet.
It is not acceptable to anybody's ears.
And you yourself acknowledged this back then.
My version however sounds perfectly natural, and much better than 12tet.

All you're showing here Carl is that you don't know what you're talking about.
So please stop trolling and go back to chasing away people from the tuning list or whatever gets you off..

-Marcel

From: Carl Lumma
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 11:45 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

It's simply astounding.

-Carl

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

There is no wolf at Bb major.
There is no wolf in the entire piece.

If you prefer a classic 5-limit JI version (which one do you mean? one with comma shifts?), can you post the midi so I and others can compare it?

-Marcel

From: Mike Battaglia
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 2:28 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:03 PM, <mailto:m.develde%40gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> First of all, here's the Lassus example in JI (without wolfs):
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.mid

There's a wolf at Bb major, the fourth chord.

> Hear how terribly out of tune your version sounds. It is far worse than
> 12tet.
> It is not acceptable to anybody's ears.
> And you yourself acknowledged this back then.
> My version however sounds perfectly natural, and much better than 12tet.

The classic, pre-Marcellian 5-limit JI version sounds best to me.

> All you're showing here Carl is that you don't know what you're talking
> about.
> So please stop trolling and go back to chasing away people from the tuning
> list or whatever gets you off..

I'll take the liberty of assuming that your future self will distance
yourself from comments like these too.

-Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗m.develde@...

Hi Mike,

No the Bb major chord has a 3/2 fifth. (4th chord of Lassus example in case anybody got lost)
You're hearing the 81/64 major third that chord has.
It leads to the 1/1 32/27 3/2 minor chord that comes after.
The tuning is in the Scala sequence file that's in my folder on MMM:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/

-Marcel

From: Mike Battaglia
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 2:54 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:41 PM, <mailto:m.develde%40gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is no wolf at Bb major.
> There is no wolf in the entire piece.

It sounds like the Bb major has a fifth that's 81/80 flat or something
like that.

> If you prefer a classic 5-limit JI version (which one do you mean? one > with
> comma shifts?), can you post the midi so I and others can compare it?

I was talking about the one you posted.

-Mike

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

Sometimes there are more versions of one work, especially in Early
music, so it's difficult to say which one is that original one
written by the composer. They were not so sensitive as we are
concerning such details, or authorship. Rest depends often on
musicologist preparing the published version.

And in Renaissance and Early Baroque modal harmony we can find very
often unexpected, unusual or "strange" chord progressions and major/
minor oscillations, in comparison with more stable and simple
functional harmony which came later. Very often there's a major
ending chord in minor works (Picardy third).
I would explain it like this: modal harmony uses simple triads in
more complex relations, functional harmony uses more complex chords
in simple relations.

Nothing to say about extravagant Italian chromatic madrigal - great
Don Carlo Gesualdo, Marenzio et al. You will be lost there with your
tuning system. If you can't analyze and use proper tonality in so
simple Drei Equale, how do you want to deal with such complex music?
Also some pieces of Handel, Bach or Scarlatti use lot of chromatism,
and even enharmonic-chromatic modulations (Mozart has beautiful one
in Lacrimosa from Requiem). And more complex music came after the
middle of 19th century. No chance there.

Daniel Forro

On 26 Feb 2011, at 9:42 AM, <m.develde@...>
<m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> There was one thing about the original Lassus file that was given
> to me on
> this list.
> It had a major chord in one place that should have been a minor chord.
> That is, Lassus wrote a minor chord in his score, and someone on
> this list
> accidently put a major chord in it's place.
> I chose to use the piece the way Lassus wrote it.

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

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗m.develde@...

Hi Daniel,

Looks like you think you're an expert on my system already and know where it will get lost ;)
Well you're wrong, my system will work just as well for extremely chromatic music, late romantic music, etc.
I'm doing a piece by Vierne next.

As for me / my system not being able to analyse and use tonality ..
I already explained that I have no problem at all analysing tonality, but I'll say it again: tonality is a thing based on enharmonic (Pythagorean) notation.
JI works differently and gives much more insight than the western concept of tonality.
Where western notation and concepts start to struggle to make sense of things, JI still shines.

From: Daniel Forrï¿½
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 5:12 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

Daniel Forro

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

The simplest example of what makes a comma pump in classic 5-limit JI is the I-vi-ii-V-I circle progression.
It is solved like this:

1/1 - 81/64 - 3/2
27/32 - 1/1 - 81/64 - 27/16
9/8 - 4/3 - 27/16
3/4 - 9/8 - 4/3 - 15/8

1/1 - 5/4 - 3/2 - 2/1

As you can see, no wolves and no comma shifts and no drifting.
As long as the circle progression repeats itself the "I" chord is Pythagorean.
When the progression comes to an end, the "I" chord can take the 1/1 - 5/4 - 3/2 form (for instance as an ending chord).
(it also shows how limited the normal music theory functional harmony concepts are)

-Marcel

From: Carl Lumma
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 5:36 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

Daniel wrote:

>Sometimes there are more versions of one work, especially in Early
>music, so it's difficult to say which one is that original one
>written by the composer.

In any case, as has been explained already, the example comes
from Easley Blackwood's book. It doesn't matter how it was
actually written, it's only five bars to illustrate a concept.

>And in Renaissance and Early Baroque modal harmony we can find very
>often unexpected, unusual or "strange" chord progressions and major/
>minor oscillations, in comparison with more stable and simple
>functional harmony which came later. Very often there's a major
>ending chord in minor works (Picardy third).

The important thing is that the example in question contains a
syntonic comma pump. Millions of other examples exist... it's
just the one Blackwood chose.

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

This particular example has only one 5/4 major third in it yes.
But my system does not give results on actual pieces that sound anything like Pythagorean.
Pythagorean sounds almost identical to 12tet when done correctly. My JI version of Beethoven and Lassus that I posted don't sound like 12tet at all to illustrate my point.

Here for example the notes available for a chord at any one time:
1/1 135/128 9/8 32/27 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/456 5/3 16/9 15/8 2/1
As you can see there are as many 5-limit intervals as there are 3-limit.
It depends on the music which ones are played.

-Marcel

From: Mike Battaglia
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:19 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM, <mailto:m.develde%40gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The simplest example of what makes a comma pump in classic 5-limit JI is > the
> I-vi-ii-V-I circle progression.
> It is solved like this:
>
> 1/1 - 81/64 - 3/2
> 27/32 - 1/1 - 81/64 - 27/16
> 9/8 - 4/3 - 27/16
> 3/4 - 9/8 - 4/3 - 15/8

I see nothing's changed. So your approach now is to put the entire
thing into 3-limit JI, except for the major third on the last chord.
Yes, that'll certainly solve the comma pump problems, because if you
don't use 5, then there's no comma. Why not just switch to Pythagorean
tuning and get it over with?

-Mike

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

Have you seen even one wolf in the examples I posted past days?
No you have not.
I'm working with a concept of "musical coherence". And I no longer see a wolf as musically coherent.
So you won't see wolves from me.
Can wolves exist in music, offcourse. Play for instance 2 completely different unrelated pieces at the same time and between these pieces one will get wolves (and the 2 pieces do not form a musically coherent structure together)

Again, my system will have no problem doing Debussy (and without wolves).
I'll do some Debussy later (and I'll do Ravel as well). But Vierne first as I like Vierne more.

-Marcel

From: Mike Battaglia
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 6:15 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Marcel

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Mike Battaglia <mailto:battaglia01%40gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why not just jump ahead into Debussy and get it over with? Even if you
> manage to hack something out by Vierne, there's no way you'll ever be
> able to conquer something like this:

In fact, I'm not even sure you're going to make it past the meantone
pentatonic scale in the first bar of this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfSBddhFvyA - La Cathedrale Engloutie

If your approach to this piece, which is supposed to be serene and
relaxing, is to throw sour-ass sounding wolf fifths into the second
chord because the A is 9/8 and the E is 5/3... Well please, by all
means, post it and let's see the reaction.

-Mike

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> here's the Lassus example in JI (without wolfs):
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.mid
>
> Here's the 12tet for comparison:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%2812tet%29.mid
>
> It just did it and it took me 10min to make it.
> Here's the Scala sequence file with the tuning:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq
>

Ok apparently 10min was a bit too fast and I got sloppy.
I had a quick look again and saw I've made 1 mistake.
One note which I made 8/9 should've been 3645/4096, making a 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 minor chord at that point instead of a 1/1 32/27 3/2 minor (the difference is less than 2 cents and is not really audible in a minor triad, but it's an error nonetheless).

I've re-uploaded the corrected midi file and Scala sequence file:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.mid
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq

And since Scala sequence files are somewhat hard to read, I'll type a more readable JI transcription below:

(3/4) (15/16) (9/8)
| | | (3/2)
(1/2) (1/1) (5/4) |
(2/3) | (4/3) (5/3)
| (1/1) | |
(4/9) (9/8) | (16/9)
| | (3/2) |
(1/2) (1/1) | (5/3)
| | (4/3) |
| | | (3/2)
| | (5/4) |
| | (9/8) |
| | (81/64) (27/16)
(9/16) (3645/4096) (9/8) |
| | | (3/2)
(9/16) (27/32) (9/8) |
| | | (45/32)
| | | (81/64)
| | | (45/32)
(3/4) (15/16) (9/8) (3/2)

See and listen for yourselves.
Don't belief the limited minds who've called this impossible.
The above proves them wrong!

-Marcel

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

Mmm.. that transcription looks like a mess in my mail, apparently tabs
don't work.

Hope this one looks OK. If it doesn't, select a fixed width font to view
it.

(3/4) (15/16) (9/8)
| | | (3/2)
(1/2) (1/1) (5/4) |
(2/3) | (4/3) (5/3)
| (1/1) | |
(4/9) (9/8) | (16/9)
| | (3/2) |
(1/2) (1/1) | (5/3)
| | (4/3) |
| | | (3/2)
| | (5/4) |
| | (9/8) |
| | (81/64) (27/16)
(9/16)(3645/4096)(9/8) |
| | | (3/2)
(9/16) (27/32) (9/8) |
| | | (45/32)
| | | (81/64)
| | | (45/32)
(3/4) (15/16) (9/8) (3/2)

-Marcel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Ok apparently 10min was a bit too fast and I got sloppy.
> I had a quick look again and saw I've made 1 mistake.
> One note which I made 8/9 should've been 3645/4096, making a 1/1
1215/1024 3/2 minor chord at that point instead of a 1/1 32/27 3/2 minor
(the difference is less than 2 cents and is not really audible in a
minor triad, but it's an error nonetheless).
>
> I've re-uploaded the corrected midi file and Scala sequence file:
>
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_\
Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.mid
>
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_\
Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq
>
> And since Scala sequence files are somewhat hard to read, I'll type a
more readable JI transcription below:
>
> (3/4) (15/16) (9/8)
> | | | (3/2)
> (1/2) (1/1) (5/4) |
> (2/3) | (4/3) (5/3)
> | (1/1) | |
> (4/9) (9/8) | (16/9)
> | | (3/2) |
> (1/2) (1/1) | (5/3)
> | | (4/3) |
> | | | (3/2)
> | | (5/4) |
> | | (9/8) |
> | | (81/64) (27/16)
> (9/16) (3645/4096) (9/8) |
> | | | (3/2)
> (9/16) (27/32) (9/8) |
> | | | (45/32)
> | | | (81/64)
> | | | (45/32)
> (3/4) (15/16) (9/8) (3/2)
>
> See and listen for yourselves.
> Don't belief the limited minds who've called this impossible.
> The above proves them wrong!
>
> -Marcel
>

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

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

O how I hate Yahoo...
You'll find a readable JI transcription at the bottom of my Scala sequence file:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq

-Marcel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mmm.. that transcription looks like a mess in my mail, apparently tabs
> don't work.
>
> Hope this one looks OK. If it doesn't, select a fixed width font to view
> it.
>
>
>
> (3/4) (15/16) (9/8)
> | | | (3/2)
> (1/2) (1/1) (5/4) |
> (2/3) | (4/3) (5/3)
> | (1/1) | |
> (4/9) (9/8) | (16/9)
> | | (3/2) |
> (1/2) (1/1) | (5/3)
> | | (4/3) |
> | | | (3/2)
> | | (5/4) |
> | | (9/8) |
> | | (81/64) (27/16)
> (9/16)(3645/4096)(9/8) |
> | | | (3/2)
> (9/16) (27/32) (9/8) |
> | | | (45/32)
> | | | (81/64)
> | | | (45/32)
> (3/4) (15/16) (9/8) (3/2)
>
>
>
> -Marcel
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > Ok apparently 10min was a bit too fast and I got sloppy.
> > I had a quick look again and saw I've made 1 mistake.
> > One note which I made 8/9 should've been 3645/4096, making a 1/1
> 1215/1024 3/2 minor chord at that point instead of a 1/1 32/27 3/2 minor
> (the difference is less than 2 cents and is not really audible in a
> minor triad, but it's an error nonetheless).
> >
> > I've re-uploaded the corrected midi file and Scala sequence file:
> >
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_\
> Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.mid
> >
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_\
> Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq
> >
> > And since Scala sequence files are somewhat hard to read, I'll type a
> more readable JI transcription below:
> >
> > (3/4) (15/16) (9/8)
> > | | | (3/2)
> > (1/2) (1/1) (5/4) |
> > (2/3) | (4/3) (5/3)
> > | (1/1) | |
> > (4/9) (9/8) | (16/9)
> > | | (3/2) |
> > (1/2) (1/1) | (5/3)
> > | | (4/3) |
> > | | | (3/2)
> > | | (5/4) |
> > | | (9/8) |
> > | | (81/64) (27/16)
> > (9/16) (3645/4096) (9/8) |
> > | | | (3/2)
> > (9/16) (27/32) (9/8) |
> > | | | (45/32)
> > | | | (81/64)
> > | | | (45/32)
> > (3/4) (15/16) (9/8) (3/2)
> >
> > See and listen for yourselves.
> > Don't belief the limited minds who've called this impossible.
> > The above proves them wrong!
> >
> > -Marcel
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

I can't wait to see the 273rd post of Marcel's re:"Hommage à Rameau":

"wait, I was a little hasty, and I sloppily left a 40/27 which should have
been 491/330. You'll see, I've reposted it with a correction here:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Debussy-Rameau_%273MJI_2013-02-26%273.seq</makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq>
Ohhhh, I hate the Yahoo interface, it caused me to forget certain wolves,
but this time it should be the final solution. I'm sure you will all see
that you are simply mistaken, and that history will PROVE that I have
rescued JI theory from the hands of academes and musicians who have
butchered its purity"

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Ok Mike, you've posted one too many excellent Debussy songs!
> Is there any way to get
> A) A copy of many other of the best Debussy songs on Youtube
> B) A correlated set of MIDI files
> ...so perhaps we can settle a whole lot of things and get down to business
> by re-tuning some excellent Debussy pieces in our own "favored" 12 tone
> tunings. :-D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [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]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Carl>"Please stop calling every piece of music a song! *$*#$("

Well if you, for example, feel the absolute need to categorize things as
prelude, intro, sonata, quartet and insult those who call pieces of
music songs ...congratulations, you likely just lost a huge degree of
your potential audience over virtually nothing.

This is almost as circular as the argument before about what the difference between polyphony, contrapunctual, homophony...are.

Is there really any point on calling out hard-working people with best intentions give honest compliments just because happen to miss one slight convention!

Thanks to frustration fits over even the slightest errors (like someone leaving a tiny crease in a made bed), we are sure to have long flame threads going nowhere about who can be the most "academically correct" regardless of whether it actually helps them create music the way they want to.

Let me say that again,
"Ok Mike, you've posted one too many excellent Debussy songs!"

I'm not taking it back. Now, how about we get back on topic and actually discuss retuning of Debussy songs (or whatever you want to call them)?

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

:-D

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> I can't wait to see the 273rd post of Marcel's re:"Hommage Ã Rameau":
>
> "wait, I was a little hasty, and I sloppily left a 40/27 which should have
> been 491/330. You'll see, I've reposted it with a correction here:
> /makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Debussy-Rameau_%273MJI_2013-02-26%273.seq</makemicromusic/files/Marcel/Lassus_Ave-Regina_beginning_%28MJI_2011-02-26%29.seq>
> Ohhhh, I hate the Yahoo interface, it caused me to forget certain wolves,
> but this time it should be the final solution. I'm sure you will all see
> that you are simply mistaken, and that history will PROVE that I have
> rescued JI theory from the hands of academes and musicians who have
> butchered its purity"
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > Ok Mike, you've posted one too many excellent Debussy songs!
> > Is there any way to get
> > A) A copy of many other of the best Debussy songs on Youtube
> > B) A correlated set of MIDI files
> > ...so perhaps we can settle a whole lot of things and get down to business
> > by re-tuning some excellent Debussy pieces in our own "favored" 12 tone
> > tunings. :-D
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [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@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:36 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > I'm not taking it back. Now, how about we get back on topic and actually discuss retuning of Debussy songs (or whatever you want to call them)?
>
> In classic music you don't call something a song unless it actually is; Mendelssohn called some piano pieces "songs without words" but I don't recall anyone calling them "songs", even so. Even songs are sometimes not called songs; they are likely to be called chansons or lieder. If you persist in calling a piano sonata or a string quartet a "song", classical music people will look at you like there is a turnip growing out of your nose.

The really irritating one is when jazz guys call everything "tunes."

"Yeah man, gotta learn some tunes for the gig this weekend."
"What tunes are you learning?"
"Gotta learn some Radiohead tunes, a few Debussy tunes, I'm working on
this Bad Plus tune 'Everybody Wants To Rule The World'"
"I thought that was a Tears For Fears tune?"

etc. Most irritating part of jazz music student culture.

-Mike

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

C'mon, it's confusing! Debussy wrote a lot of songs, such as the 'Chansons de Bilitis', '3 Mélodies de Verlaine´, '5 Poèmes de Baudelaire' etc.
There are instrumental pieces in popular music, too, and they're not necessarily called 'songs', either. In dance music, people speak of 'tracks'; if there are vocals, 'vocal tracks' is the common term, I believe. Obviously in rock music, instrumentals are so rare that 'song' is the general term.
Of course you can call Debussy the 'producer' of 'tracks' such as La Mer if you think that speaks to a potential audience, but the word 'piece' would not be genre-specific in any way, nor misleading.
jn

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>"Please stop calling every piece of music a song! *$*#$("
>
>
>    Well if you, for example, feel the absolute need to categorize things as
> prelude, intro, sonata, quartet and insult those who call pieces of
> music songs ...congratulations, you likely just lost a huge degree of
> your potential audience over virtually nothing.
>
>    This is almost as circular as the argument before about what the difference between polyphony, contrapunctual, homophony...are.
>
>    Is there really any point on calling out hard-working people with best intentions give honest compliments just because happen to miss one slight convention!
>
>    Thanks to frustration fits over even the slightest errors (like someone leaving a tiny crease in a made bed), we are sure to have long flame threads going nowhere about who can be the most "academically correct" regardless of whether it actually helps them create music the way they want to.
>
>    Let me say that again,
> "Ok Mike, you've posted one too many excellent Debussy songs!"
>
>
> I'm not taking it back. Now, how about we get back on topic and actually discuss retuning of Debussy songs (or whatever you want to call them)?
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"If you persist in calling a piano sonata or a string quartet a "song", classical music people will look at you like there is a turnip growing out of your nose."

And meanwhile, calling everything by a very academically specific name is likely to scare anyone not in the classical scene off. I, meanwhile, would likely look at people who made such criticisms like they had their noses up at me (as would, I'm sure, a huge proportion of people not in the classical music scene). :-P

I'll be frank: if I saw someone calling their piece of a music a
"Sonata" or "Quartet" or even an all encompassing term like "Piece of music" or a "Brilliant Ensemble"...it would strike me as snooty. And I may very well run away from it, taking it as "this person may very well take his/her academic training alone as a reason to think he/she is better than everyone else" and, indirectly, that the piece may well be focused more on mechanical standards and angst by the composer to show how much he/she knows...than relatable emotion.

Even jazz guitarists I know, who take their art every bit as seriously as classical musicians and are just as well trained, don't go around calling music by things like quartets...and even they look funny at people who do.

------------
But (overall point) how does bowing to the whims of the classical music crowd actually help along the lines of the topic of helping produce microtonal music?

I love Chris V's Debussy quote from his Trax In Space page about this

"I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth, an open-air art boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It
must never be shut in and become an academic art. - Claude Debussy"

Even if he was academically trained, his attitude toward music and communicating about it seemed anything but "proper" in so many ways. In my opinion, such an attitude plays a huge part in the playfulness of his music, and the sense of effortless/seamless beauty rather than rushed technique and compositional angst.

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

Debussy was talking about academic traditions that stifled the free evolution of his or any parallel or subsequent style; not about the snootiness or not of using correct terminology.

I'm sorry, but saying a string quartet is a 'song' is ignorant, plain and simple. It may be understandable ignorance in many cases, but it's still ignorance. OTOH, classical musician can be stuffy, I come from that culture and I'm a snob myself. We are never more snobby than when we pretend to not be snobs. :) I think a middle ground is possible where you can educate people new to classics the correct cultural lingo without being off-putting.

Anyway, I'm clearly the dying breed here, judging by CD and ticket sales of art music, a breed that is increasingly marginalized(sp?) by the larger pop culture for the replacement by "consumer culture with entertainment products". It's part of a larger anti-intellect, anti-"high culture" trend, esp. in the US. People who can actually speak with a decent sized vocabulary and say things like "the quartet was played with vigor and aplomb" are viewed as snobby squares. It's too bad, really.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"If you persist in calling a piano sonata or a string quartet a "song", classical music people will look at you like there is a turnip growing out of your nose."
>
>     And meanwhile, calling everything by a very academically specific name is likely to scare anyone not in the classical scene off. I, meanwhile, would likely look at people who made such criticisms like they had their noses up at me (as would, I'm sure, a huge proportion of people not in the classical music scene). :-P
>
> I'll be frank: if I saw someone calling their piece of a music a
> "Sonata" or "Quartet" or even an all encompassing term like "Piece of music" or a "Brilliant Ensemble"...it would strike me as snooty. And I may very well run away from it, taking it as "this person may very well take his/her academic training alone as a reason to think he/she is better than everyone else" and, indirectly, that the piece may well be focused more on mechanical standards and angst by the composer to show how much he/she knows...than relatable emotion.
>
>
>    Even jazz guitarists I know, who take their art every bit as seriously as classical musicians and are just as well trained, don't go around calling music by things like quartets...and even they look funny at people who do.
>
>
> ------------
> But (overall point) how does bowing to the whims of the classical music crowd actually help along the lines of the topic of helping produce microtonal music?
>
> I love Chris V's Debussy quote from his Trax In Space page about this
>
>         "I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it. It is a free art gushing forth, an open-air art boundless as the elements, the wind, the sky, the sea. It
> must never be shut in and become an academic art. - Claude Debussy"
>
>    Even if he was academically trained, his attitude toward music and communicating about it seemed anything but "proper" in so many ways. In my opinion, such an attitude plays a huge part in the playfulness of his music, and the sense of effortless/seamless beauty rather than rushed technique and compositional angst.
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Looking at the definition of "song"...

   It appears the term "song" really was meant to be restricted only to music with singing.
   Meanwhile "track" is supposedly limited to "any of a number of separate sections in the recording on a record, CD, or cassette" and meant to describe a format of recording, rather than actual music.
   So technically most electronic musician and instrumentalists calling their instrumentals "songs" should be sent to the flames of hell (lol/joking).

But the overall point, to me, is coming close enough so people understand the general gist of what you mean.

Aaron>"People who can actually speak with a decent sized vocabulary and say
things like "the quartet was played with vigor and aplomb" are viewed
as snobby squares."

I think I would compromise at something middle ground like "the instrumental was played very enthusiastically". I agree that perhaps calling everything a song is going too far since many "songs" in the public view have no vocals (IE you're right, it was partly ignorant on my part)...but I also think using terms like "aplomb" is kind of like calling a constant slope a derivative just because it's the more sophisticated way to essentially say the same thing with far more chance most people will understand you.

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

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Me>> Looking at the definition of "song"...

>> It appears the term "song" really was meant to be restricted only to music with singing.
.............

>> So technically most electronic musician and instrumentalists
calling their instrumentals "songs" should be sent to the flames of
hell (lol/joking).

MikeB>"WHO CARES ABOUT THIS?

>WHO CARES ABOUT THIS?
>WHO CARES ABOUT THIS?

>WHO CARES?"

My point exactly. Carl brought it up...with a long list of (*&)(*&'s, implying what the...was my problem for calling something that was not 100% technically a song.

My point (sarcastically) is "oh my Lord...what a crime!"...IE that people who start fights over such slight errors in phrasing aren't really helping, but rather just scaring "less sophisticated" people away from music. So a song technically is supposed to involve vocals...but who should care that much if someone calls something without vocals a song?

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

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

Michael,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Is there really any point on calling out hard-working people with best intentions give honest compliments just because happen to miss one slight convention!

Considering you are the person that took umbrage over my mis-application of which particular sub-genre of contemporary electronic music you had created (knowing exactly which of the dozens, probably hundreds of categories), considering you actually point to specific styles of pieces that use four beats to the bar (not that this is just a metric construction, but an entire genre to you)...

... the lease we could ask for in return is that you understand the difference between a song - which has lyrics - and other types of compositions.

It isn't that hard, and it doesn't hurt in the least to want to refer to things the best we can. I do. You should to, and not try to turn it into some bizarre kind of elitist/populist thing.

Really.

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

I 've met more a term "standards", not tunes for jazz works. But it has also more concrete sense and should be used only for this. Not every jazz composition became "standard".

And the reason why many works are called songs, even instrumental, can be they were originally songs.

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2011, at 5:40 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:36 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael >> <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not taking it back. Now, how about we get back on topic and >>> actually discuss retuning of Debussy songs (or whatever you want >>> to call them)?
>>
>> In classic music you don't call something a song unless it >> actually is; Mendelssohn called some piano pieces "songs without >> words" but I don't recall anyone calling them "songs", even so. >> Even songs are sometimes not called songs; they are likely to be >> called chansons or lieder. If you persist in calling a piano >> sonata or a string quartet a "song", classical music people will >> look at you like there is a turnip growing out of your nose.
>
> The really irritating one is when jazz guys call everything "tunes."
>
> "Yeah man, gotta learn some tunes for the gig this weekend."
> "What tunes are you learning?"
> "Gotta learn some Radiohead tunes, a few Debussy tunes, I'm working on
> this Bad Plus tune 'Everybody Wants To Rule The World'"
> "I thought that was a Tears For Fears tune?"
>
> etc. Most irritating part of jazz music student culture.
>
> -Mike

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

I've never met anybody who would have beeen scared by a proper term used in music. Even very complex things can be explained if necessary. There's no reason to call a piece for string quartet a "song". It's only your personal feeling. To make unnecessary confusion by using improper terminology is ignorance pure. One of reasons why we should study is to learn and use right terminology of subject. It has nothing to do with academic or scientific. It's about the communication.

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2011, at 6:13 AM, Michael wrote:

>> "If you persist in calling a piano sonata or a string quartet a >> "song", classical music people will look at you like there is a >> turnip growing out of your nose."
>
> And meanwhile, calling everything by a very academically > specific name is likely to scare anyone not in the classical scene > off. I, meanwhile, would likely look at people who made such > criticisms like they had their noses up at me (as would, I'm sure, > a huge proportion of people not in the classical music scene). :-P
>
> I'll be frank: if I saw someone calling their piece of a music a
> "Sonata" or "Quartet" or even an all encompassing term like "Piece > of music" or a "Brilliant Ensemble"...it would strike me as > snooty. And I may very well run away from it, taking it as "this > person may very well take his/her academic training alone as a > reason to think he/she is better than everyone else" and, > indirectly, that the piece may well be focused more on mechanical > standards and angst by the composer to show how much he/she > knows...than relatable emotion.
>
>
> Even jazz guitarists I know, who take their art every bit as > seriously as classical musicians and are just as well trained, > don't go around calling music by things like quartets...and even > they look funny at people who do.

Marcel

🔗john777music <jfos777@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗m.develde@...

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Juhani <jnylenius@...>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>