17 Unsteady Hands

I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday video event weekend.

I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being board.

I hope you enjoy it.

Chris

Online play and embedded video
http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550

direct download
http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3

direct video download (180 megs!)
http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv

Video on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc

Cool :)
Thanks, I did enjoy it a lot!

-Marcel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday video event weekend.
>
> I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being board.
>
> I hope you enjoy it.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Online play and embedded video
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
>
> direct download
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
>
> direct video download (180 megs!)
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
>
> Video on Youtube
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
>

How can I believe your compliment?

Didn't you say everything posted to this list is "out of tune crap"?

If you think I am so shallow that flattery will dull my wits you are gravely
mistaken.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Marcel <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cool :)
> Thanks, I did enjoy it a lot!
>
> -Marcel
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday
> video event weekend.
> >
> > I used my 17 note per octave guitar � doubled as a bass by using my
> (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop
> station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being
> board.
> >
> > I hope you enjoy it.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Online play and embedded video
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
> >
> > direct download
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
> >
> > direct video download (180 megs!)
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
> >
> > Video on Youtube
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
> >
>
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday video event weekend.

Groovy, but what's with the home improvement video?

It seems a mellow guitar sound fits 17 well.

Thanks for the listen, view and comment Gene. 17 does seem to sit very well
with this guitar.

As for the video - these are random video from my dad's place when we were
fixing up to sell and also video of houses we were looking at to buy - all
mashed up with a bunch of effects thrown at them.

The "why" for the video is the ImprovFriday video event weekend - and its
hard to shoot interesting video for everything - so I just made do.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:52 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday
> video event weekend.
>
> Groovy, but what's with the home improvement video?
>
> It seems a mellow guitar sound fits 17 well.
>
>
>

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

LOL :)

I almost was going to include the sentence.
"Even if someone like Carl etc would have posted this music, I would say exactly the same".
But then thought, neh.. he isn't going to misinterpret my post and may even misinterpret that sentence.
Wish now I had included that sentence.

Really, I liked the music.
I even played it twice.
Yes of course it is out of tune. It's 17tet?
But it didn't bother me, and I like the atmosphere your piece gives.
It's both cool and doesn't get uninteresting, I can get into it.
Of the pieces I have heard by you (which is far from all) I like this one best.

If I didn't like it I would've remained silent, or simply have told you what I thought about it.
Now, I had a quick look at a few other videos by you on youtube.
And didn't find anything I really liked (though only watched a few videos), but did find one example that was sooo bad it made me almost fall off my couch in both laughter and dismay at the same time.
I belief it was something called rhythm 2b or something.
It was a live performance you filmed with one guy on a flute and another on drums.
Oh the luck I wasn't in the audience. I'm pretty sure I couldn't have held my laughter and would've had to sneak out to not disturb others lol
Ok is the kind of post you were expecting from me? I already got the blame so I may as well make it haha ;)

-Marcel

>
> How can I believe your compliment?
>
> Didn't you say everything posted to this list is "out of tune crap"?
>
> If you think I am so shallow that flattery will dull my wits you are gravely
> mistaken.
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Marcel <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cool :)
> > Thanks, I did enjoy it a lot!
> >
> > -Marcel
> >
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday
> > video event weekend.
> > >
> > > I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my
> > (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop
> > station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being
> > board.
> > >
> > > I hope you enjoy it.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > Online play and embedded video
> > > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
> > >
> > > direct download
> > > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
> > >
> > > direct video download (180 megs!)
> > > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
> > >
> > > Video on Youtube
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

But it is NOT out of tune. Your ears are. The notes are *exactly* as I
intended them.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Marcel <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> Really, I liked the music.
> I even played it twice.
> Yes of course it is out of tune. It's 17tet?
> But it didn't bother me, and I like the atmosphere your piece gives.
> It's both cool and doesn't get uninteresting, I can get into it.
> Of the pieces I have heard by you (which is far from all) I like this one
> best.
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> But it is NOT out of tune. Your ears are. The notes are *exactly* as I
> intended them.
>
> Chris
>

Ah let me specify what I mean with out of tune then.
When I say out of tune, I mean relative to correct Just Intonation.
If you choose to add a "coloring" to that then of course that's your good right.

-Marcel

Just Intonation is not more "correct" than 12 equal.

Each, and *every* tuning is an arbitrary choice made by the composer (and on
this list one hopes it was an intentional choice).

There is NO right OR wrong in music. There is only what you personally
prefer.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Marcel <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > But it is NOT out of tune. Your ears are. The notes are *exactly* as I
> > intended them.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Ah let me specify what I mean with out of tune then.
> When I say out of tune, I mean relative to correct Just Intonation.
> If you choose to add a "coloring" to that then of course that's your good
> right.
>
> -Marcel
>
>
>

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Just Intonation is not more "correct" than 12 equal.
>
> Each, and *every* tuning is an arbitrary choice made by the composer (and on
> this list one hopes it was an intentional choice).
>
> There is NO right OR wrong in music. There is only what you personally
> prefer.

Isn't it sad that this has to be explicitly put into words?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Just Intonation is not more "correct" than 12 equal.
>
> Each, and *every* tuning is an arbitrary choice made by the composer (and on
> this list one hopes it was an intentional choice).
>
> There is NO right OR wrong in music. There is only what you personally
> prefer.
>
> Chris

Feel free to belief so.

I belief there are laws similar to the laws of nature underlying music.
(in fact I think it's a mix of laws of nature, ear biology and laws of the brain)
You know by now that I think this way. So see what I post in this light and know it's nothing personal.
You cannot tell me what I should believe or say.

-Marcel

When you, Marcel, say everything posted on this list is out of tune crap -
or the entire Untwelve field of entries are terrible and incompetent YOU are
trying to tell US what to believe.

So if you want the respect of letting you believe what you want - then
return the respect. That is *all* any of us (when not mad as hell) have
asked of you.

Chris

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Marcel <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> Feel free to belief so.
>
> I belief there are laws similar to the laws of nature underlying music.
> (in fact I think it's a mix of laws of nature, ear biology and laws of the
> brain)
> You know by now that I think this way. So see what I post in this light and
> know it's nothing personal.
> You cannot tell me what I should believe or say.
>
> -Marcel
>
>
>
>

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

Marcel wrote:

>I belief there are laws similar to the laws of nature underlying music.

And amazingly, he uses his personal preferences to discover them!

>You cannot tell me what I should believe or say.

No, but Prent can. Prent?

-Carl

Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of sweeping cliches about music, did not Haverstick recently admit that he does not even listen to the music of others here?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> When you, Marcel, say everything posted on this list is out of tune crap -
> or the entire Untwelve field of entries are terrible and incompetent YOU are
> trying to tell US what to believe.
>
> So if you want the respect of letting you believe what you want - then
> return the respect. That is *all* any of us (when not mad as hell) have
> asked of you.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Marcel <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Feel free to belief so.
> >
> > I belief there are laws similar to the laws of nature underlying music.
> > (in fact I think it's a mix of laws of nature, ear biology and laws of the
> > brain)
> > You know by now that I think this way. So see what I post in this light and
> > know it's nothing personal.
> > You cannot tell me what I should believe or say.
> >
> > -Marcel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of sweeping cliches about music, did not Haverstick recently admit that he does not even listen to the music of others here?

Is this a wad?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of sweeping cliches about music, did not Haverstick recently admit that he does not even listen to the music of others here?

Whoa, back up, whoeverthefuckyouare.

Neil referenced not listening to streaming and downloadable files. I don't know how much effort he goes to in other ways to get music, but he's always been supportive of the composer/performers. Certainly, his particular bent comes from being a performer first, and composer second, and he works, AFAIK, in strictly the acoustic (non-computer-electronic) world, but there haven't been many people as generally supportive of new microtonal music than he.

So, anyhow, if you're going to snipe like this, you ought to at least out yourself.

Congratulations on this, Chris. Nice to have the bass in five, too.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday video event weekend.
>
> I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being board.
>
> I hope you enjoy it.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Online play and embedded video
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
>
> direct download
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
>
> direct video download (180 megs!)
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
>
> Video on Youtube
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@> wrote:
> >
> > Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse >than Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of sweeping >cliches about music, did not Haverstick recently admit that he does not >even listen to the music of others here?
>
> Is this a wad?
>

You mean something rich and fertile, lobbed with enthusiasm? I guess so.

Oddly enough, it was thinking of the juxtaposition of all that trivial stuff about "soul" and tuning not mattering and so on, and the fact that your music is obviously full of "soul"- Gene Ward Smith soul to be sure- that finally "got my goat" in this matter.

Grow some backbone, "xenharmonicists", and simply scoff at those who are convinced of the triviality of your endeavours.

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

> Grow some backbone, "xenharmonicists", and simply scoff at those who are convinced of the triviality of your endeavours.
>

Yessir! (Snaps off salute.)

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:29 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> > Grow some backbone, "xenharmonicists", and simply scoff at those who are convinced of the triviality of your endeavours.
> >
>
> Yessir! (Snaps off salute.)

Scoff? I am going to go down to the music school tomorrow and kick
some serialist ass. And once my rampage is finished I'll grab a bum
and teach him group theory too.

-Mike

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@> wrote:
> >
> > Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse
> > than Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of
> > sweeping cliches about music, did not Haverstick recently admit
> > that he does not even listen to the music of others here?
>
> Whoa, back up, whoeverthefuckyouare.
>
> Neil referenced not listening to streaming and downloadable files.
> I don't know how much effort he goes to in other ways to get music,
> but he's always been supportive of the composer/performers.
> Certainly, his particular bent comes from being a performer first,
> and composer second, and he works, AFAIK, in strictly the acoustic
> (non-computer-electronic) world, but there haven't been many people
> as generally supportive of new microtonal music than he.
>

Neil's interest, in any case, is focused on musicians of the caliber of at least Howlin' Wolf, musicians that Sam Phillips is likely to admire. I hope not to offend too many people if I state that the majority of the members of this list do not fall into this category.

I do not appreciate all of Neil's postings, such as his repeated rants against "theory", his implicit dismissals of what does not fall into his cateogry of "deep music" without having listened to the music in question. But to compare him to Marcel is definitely not fair.
--
Hans Straub

For the record, I've snail mailed Neil a CD which we discussed, I plan to
send more and know that other artists have done the same. Neil doesn't
listen at the computer from what I understand.

" Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than
Neil Haverstick's."

BEEEEEP - nice try at a totally erroneous statement. I'm guessing lobawad is
someone we know and is probably trying to demonstrate how the tuning list is
unfair to them via showing how unfair it was to Marcel. In other words a
complete waste of time.

And unlike Marcel everything Neil said he made clear that is was his
personal opinion.

Chris

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:40 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@...> wrote:
> >
> > Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than
> Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of sweeping cliches
> about music, did not Haverstick recently admit that he does not even listen
> to the music of others here?
>
> Whoa, back up, whoeverthefuckyouare.
>
> Neil referenced not listening to streaming and downloadable files. I don't
> know how much effort he goes to in other ways to get music, but he's always
> been supportive of the composer/performers. Certainly, his particular bent
> comes from being a performer first, and composer second, and he works,
> AFAIK, in strictly the acoustic (non-computer-electronic) world, but there
> haven't been many people as generally supportive of new microtonal music
> than he.
>
> So, anyhow, if you're going to snipe like this, you ought to at least out
> yourself.
>
>
>

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

Hans,

No idea why you are out of sorts with Neil. I didn't interpet his posts,
even the Howlin' Wolf post, as I read you seem to have.

What I read from Neil is that Neil is (personally) looking for (and is
interested in) music that has emotion / feel / soul - regardless of the
tuning, instruments, ensemble, whatever.
To me that is pretty sensible - he knows what he likes. Why can't he like
the music he likes in the way he likes it?

Unlike Marcel he didn't ask anyone else to like it too, as far as I can
remember .

Chris

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 4:18 AM, hstraub64 <straub@...> wrote:

>
>
> -
>
> Neil's interest, in any case, is focused on musicians of the caliber of at
> least Howlin' Wolf, musicians that Sam Phillips is likely to admire. I hope
> not to offend too many people if I state that the majority of the members of
> this list do not fall into this category.
>
> I do not appreciate all of Neil's postings, such as his repeated rants
> against "theory", his implicit dismissals of what does not fall into his
> cateogry of "deep music" without having listened to the music in question.
> But to compare him to Marcel is definitely not fair.
> --
> Hans Straub
>
>
>
>

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

Congratulations on spamming my music post thread with nonsense.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:28 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
>
> Congratulations on this, Chris. Nice to have the bass in five, too.
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday
> video event weekend.
> >
> > I used my 17 note per octave guitar � doubled as a bass by using my
> (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop
> station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being
> board.
> >
> > I hope you enjoy it.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Online play and embedded video
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
> >
> > direct download
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
> >
> > direct video download (180 megs!)
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
> >
> > Video on Youtube
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
> >
>
>
>

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

Yes, it seems, since he is suffering from what appears to be chronic amusia.

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

jonszanto wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil<chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>> Just Intonation is not more "correct" than 12 equal.
>>
>> Each, and *every* tuning is an arbitrary choice made by the composer (and on
>> this list one hopes it was an intentional choice).
>>
>> There is NO right OR wrong in music. There is only what you personally
>> prefer.
>
> Isn't it sad that this has to be explicitly put into words?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

Nobody can speak of the Stickman the way Iobawad or whatever his real
name has spoken. Neil is a virtuoso in music, a master of microtonal
guitar and an exponent of diverse tuning systems based on practicality
much rather than obsessive mathematical fetishes on what is allegedly
"correctly tuned".

To compare Neil Haverstick, the icon of the Non-Twelve, to as illiterate
and horseblinded a tightwad as Marcel is utter sacriledge. I shall have
none of it in these forums.

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> For the record, I've snail mailed Neil a CD which we discussed, I plan to
> send more and know that other artists have done the same. Neil doesn't
> listen at the computer from what I understand.
>
> " Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than
> Neil Haverstick's."
>
> BEEEEEP - nice try at a totally erroneous statement. I'm guessing lobawad is
> someone we know and is probably trying to demonstrate how the tuning list is
> unfair to them via showing how unfair it was to Marcel. In other words a
> complete waste of time.
>
> And unlike Marcel everything Neil said he made clear that is was his
> personal opinion.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:40 AM, jonszanto<jszanto@...> wrote:
>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad"<lobawad@...> wrote:
>>> Marcel's closed-minded convictions as evidenced here are no worse than
>> Neil Haverstick's. Less bad, for amongst his stream of sweeping cliches
>> about music, did not Haverstick recently admit that he does not even listen
>> to the music of others here?
>>
>> Whoa, back up, whoeverthefuckyouare.
>>
>> Neil referenced not listening to streaming and downloadable files. I don't
>> know how much effort he goes to in other ways to get music, but he's always
>> been supportive of the composer/performers. Certainly, his particular bent
>> comes from being a performer first, and composer second, and he works,
>> AFAIK, in strictly the acoustic (non-computer-electronic) world, but there
>> haven't been many people as generally supportive of new microtonal music
>> than he.
>>
>> So, anyhow, if you're going to snipe like this, you ought to at least out
>> yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

Nice and groovy. There is even a small descending Ushshaq trichord
somewhere along the Bluesy melodies. In 17 equal that would be:

141 + 141 cents.

Let's see if you can find where you did that!

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

christopherv wrote:
> I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday video event weekend.
>
> I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being board.
>
> I hope you enjoy it.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Online play and embedded video
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
>
> direct download
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
>
> direct video download (180 megs!)
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
>
> Video on Youtube
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

>"Neil is a virtuoso in music, a master of microtonal guitar and an exponent of diverse tuning systems based on practicality much rather than obsessive mathematical fetishes on what is allegedly "correctly tuned". To compare Neil Haverstick, the icon of the Non-Twelve, to as illiterate and horseblinded a tightwad as Marcel is utter sacriledge. I shall have none of it in these forums."

    Ironic because I swear, on these forums, we seem to have a whole lot of, even a majority, of people appearing to care more about if mathematical theory meets certain scientific criteria than if it actually is received well in their compositions.  Neil seems to differ in that way not only from Marcel, but most of us, including myself even a few years back...even Igs has noted that about the scene in his Untwelve interview.

  Nowadays I will never say I support a certain scale system or idea until I try it in real life composition and show it to at least a few people (or more, if I can access it).  Often times I find the most mathematically elegant formulas and/or the ones most closely aligned to psychoacoustics produce either very artificial emotions or flat-out don't hold (IE Tenney Height over 7-odd-limit).
  Out of the people on here I think Neil, Igs, and Chris, in particular, should be commended for the amount of testing they do of musical theories via actual music.
  Chris and Neil, in particular, do very little theory talk and a whole lot of music and, ditto...they are among the most influential (indirectly) for showing, to the rest of us, which theories truly "make it or break it".  This composition sounds folksy and heartfelt...very individual and non-serious/"academic", loaded with slides and Hendrix-esque chords.  What many people who teach music may consider "playful flaw-edness"...is what makes this piece so fun. Keep it up!

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

> Often times I find the most mathematically elegant formulas and/or the ones most closely aligned to psychoacoustics produce either very artificial emotions or flat-out don't hold (IE Tenney Height over 7-odd-limit).

Aren't you doing the very thing you complain of here? If someone wants to stick to, say, the 15-odd limit why does that make their music bad?

Me> Often times I find the most mathematically elegant formulas and/or
the ones most closely aligned to psychoacoustics produce either very
artificial emotions or flat-out don't hold (IE Tenney Height over
7-odd-limit).

Gene>"Aren't you doing the very thing you complain of here? If someone wants
to stick to, say, the 15-odd limit why does that make their music bad?"

   I'm not doing that very thing at all.  My point is that said highly respected formulas, such as Tenney Height and several others, often fall the cracks IE "flat out don't hold".  So if someone wanted to compose in 15-odd-limit...it very well may work out and "break the theory"...and more power to them!

   Granted, in the past I was somewhat obsessed with things like optimizing scales for critical band and low-limit constraints but, through actual composition, I've learned there are several opportunities opened up when you realize those theories hold "much of the time, but nowhere near all of it".  Hence my newer scales embrace the 11th and sometimes even the 15th limit and don't always focus on widely-spaced critical-band-avoiding interval...  This is because I'm in full recognition that a fair deal of what my ears (and a good few ears of people I know) hear as good flat out contradicts the "perfect formulas" on this list...and while I of course listen to top theorists...I by now means take their word as Gospel or being without loop-holes that can be musically exploited.

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

At 03:47 AM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
>For the record, I've snail mailed Neil a CD which we discussed, I plan to
>send more and know that other artists have done the same. Neil doesn't
>listen at the computer from what I understand.

And I don't blame him. I hate listening at the computer. It's
the way of things though. Sigh.

That said, Neil's frequent criticism of stuff he's never heard is
very annoying.

-Carl

At 05:34 AM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
>To compare Neil Haverstick, the icon of the Non-Twelve, to as illiterate
>and horseblinded a tightwad as Marcel is utter sacriledge. I shall have
>none of it in these forums.

That's true. -Carl

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    I'm not doing that very thing at all.  My point is that said highly respected formulas, such as Tenney Height and several others, often fall the cracks IE "flat out don't hold".  So if someone wanted to compose in 15-odd-limit...it very well may work out and "break the theory"...and more power to them!

Tenney Height isn't a highly respected formula for consonance. It's an
extreme simplification. Something like HE is supposed to be an
improvement on it. HE also has problems with it and can also be
improved on.

I wish everyone would stop taking half-formed models as stifling
restrictions on their artistic freedom. It's just research and it's
meant to be a step in the right direction. Take it with a grain of
salt and feel free to improve on it.

The truth is that Carl at one point threw stuff like that out there as
an attempt to oversimplify and try to bring you up to speed on the
bleeding edge in music theory research when you first joined the list.
That's because the bleeding edge in music theory research is often
found on the tuning list, unfortunately. You seem to have
misinterpreted this as an attempt to indoctrinate you and tell you to
deny your own existence and the existence of your percepts and
observations for fear of social reprisal. I don't think that that was
anyone's intention, and I'm sorry that you got so turned off from the
theory that's being developed around here from it.

-Mike

>"I wish everyone would stop taking half-formed models as stifling restrictions on their artistic freedom. "

    At first because for every statement I made (including musical/sound-file examples) far as making what I believed to be a good scale, someone would chime in "you're breaking Harmonic Entropy!" or "you're breaking Critical Band Dissonance!" or even "learn X theories first...otherwise your music will always be pseudo-scientific garbage!"
   I felt forced to either use the theories or not be taken seriously...and eventually...I just gave up and learned to follow my ears no matter how much hate for "ignoring the rules" gets thrown at me for doing so.

>"The truth is that Carl at one point threw stuff like that out there as an attempt to oversimplify and try to bring you up to speed on the bleeding edge in music theory research when you first joined the list."

  Truth is also, Carl may well have been honestly been trying to help but, in many cases, he was forcing theories down my throat IE, like many others, he seemed to refuse that I could understand something fairly well (far as theories) without also agreeing with it. 

>"You seem to have misinterpreted this as an attempt to indoctrinate you and tell you to

deny your own existence and the existence of your percepts and observations for fear of social reprisal. "

   Well, the social reprisal shows evidence.  Despite my never saying anything like "My theory is the only way to do music"...a good few people on this list have repeatedly shown they are nearly as angry at me as Marcel.  You and a good few others flamed out at my for calling Debussy's pieces "songs" and then saying "so I made a small terminology mistake, it's not that big a deal", Carl has flamed out at me countless times for "false advertising" when I said my scales take critical band dissonance into account (not to mention odd-limits), several people denied I make music despite my posting well over 10 total songs to this list...  

   And when people are asked why they do this...they never say "oh well, your music is bad, the chord in part X sounds wolf-ish..."  Instead they always point the finger at the theory and it as some sort of "proof of pseudoscience" or evidence of some sort of cryptic personality defect of mine...even when I simply release a sound example with a new tuning I created.
   And I am far from the first under that gun: John Sullivan got accused similarly that his matched-to-ear formulas were "arbitrary" and was directed to follow "real theories" like HE. 

    It seems like an all or nothing game: either you agree with the theories or are presumed only to not believe in them due to lack of knowledge...and it you make music without explaining the theory, you're nothing.  I wonder what would happen if we all, including Marcel, simply re-tuned a general MIDI song to tunings we enjoy (with slight note edits allowed), toss them into a bin and randomly re-name the files...and listen.  I'm betting a bunch of people who have whined for years they "hate" a tuning/scale theory actually would like it in practice when they can't use personal theory/preferences of composers (or lack of adherence to certain pet theories) as a reason to hate it.

>" I don't think that that was anyone's intention, and I'm sorry that you got so turned off from the theory that's being developed around here from it.

   Thing is, I'm not tuned off to the theory, I'm just one of those crazy people who can see both great and very lacking things in a theory at the same time who feels forced to say either "I support this established microtonal music theory 100% and will never disagree with any conclusions made through it" or "I disagree with some conclusions made through this theory...thus I must have a personality problem and need to learn more about it until I worship it so much as most others around here".

    It just things could be a LOT more productive here...if people started "rating" each others' progress by music and not by adherence to certain theories.
    It seems no one here can post a piece of music on here in peace anymore without a nasty rant popping up about some theory or historical precedent the composer has somehow "ignored" or "abused"...

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

help me out just a bit - is it in the guitar part alone?

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Nice and groovy. There is even a small descending Ushshaq trichord
> somewhere along the Bluesy melodies. In 17 equal that would be:
>
> 141 + 141 cents.
>
> Let's see if you can find where you did that!
>
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> christopherv wrote:
> > I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday
> video event weekend.
> >
> > I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my
> (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop
> station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being
> board.
> >
> > I hope you enjoy it.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > Online play and embedded video
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
> >
> > direct download
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
> >
> > direct video download (180 megs!)
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
> >
> > Video on Youtube
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

> At first because for every statement I made (including
>musical/sound-file examples) far as making what I believed to be a
>good scale, someone would chime in "you're breaking Harmonic Entropy!"
>or "you're breaking Critical Band Dissonance!" or even "learn X
>theories first...otherwise your music will always be pseudo-scientific
>garbage!"

Michael- I'm sorry you had this experience. Can we start over?
For what it's worth I don't remember anyone ever dissing your scales
like this, but I could be wrong. If you can find any examples of me
doing it please send them to me on or off list so I can
profusely apologize.

> Well, the social reprisal shows evidence. Despite my never saying
>anything like "My theory is the only way to do music"...a good few
>people on this list have repeatedly shown they are nearly as angry at
>me as Marcel.

Yes, that's how I remember it too- you never made such claims. I've
been mad at you for making emotional replies to things I and others
have written, seemingly before having careful read them. And for
posting long emotional messages that I perceive as being offtopic.

>Carl has flamed out at
>me countless times for "false advertising" when I said my scales take
>critical band dissonance into account (not to mention odd-limits),
>several people denied I make music despite my posting well over 10
>total songs to this list...

When you first joined we had a positive interaction. I wanted to
give you better terminology to describe your scales. That backfired
because you happily used it without understanding it, to the point of
pseudoscience, and when I pointed out these inaccuracies we got into
trouble. I don't recall ever saying your scales were bad or broke
some theory. I never say that about people's scales.

Finally, you explained that you were just trying to do what I first
suggested- use more precise terminology. So I backed off and I think
you mostly stopped doing it. To be fair to me you did show up here
already using terminology you read in Sethares in a pseudoscientific
or exaggerated manner. That was your first post, about your consonance
maximizer program. I said I thought it was a great idea (it is) and
encouraged you to post samples. (Eventually you sent me an executable,
but I never got it to work.)

> And I am far from the first under that gun: John Sullivan got
>accused similarly that his matched-to-ear formulas were "arbitrary"
>and was directed to follow "real theories" like HE.

Yeah, pretty much. In physics there are real theories too. And
if you want to run an experiment on the LHC, you have to use them.
These lists are a bit like particle accelerators -- a precious
community resource. Real theories are discussed here. Music theory
will never be as impressive as physics, but it is a serious field
nonetheless and you shouldn't expect to use the apparatus if you
don't demonstrate competence. It's really that simple.

> It seems like an all or nothing game: either you agree with the
>theories or

That's right. You have to either agree to the theories OR show
you have better ones. All other "theorizing" isn't really theorizing
at all. Because to do real theorizing, that is what is required.
And if you do the other kind of theorizing I will call you on it
10 out of 10 times. Because to do so is to disrespect everyone who
loves the truth and I won't sit by. Reality's a bitch.

> Thing is, I'm not tuned off to the theory, I'm just one of those
>crazy people who can see both great and very lacking things in a
>theory

No Michael, you're not. This is a bona fide delusion and you will
not make progress until you disavow it.

> It just things could be a LOT more productive here...if people
>started "rating" each others' progress by music and not by adherence
>to certain theories.

I never evaluate music according to some theory. Never have, never
will and frankly, I haven't seen anyone else doing this either.

> It seems no one here can post a piece of music on here in peace
>anymore without a nasty rant popping up about some theory or
>historical precedent the composer has somehow "ignored" or "abused"...

I honestly think you should consider if the things that upset you
so much actually exist. Why get upset about something unless you
have to? I don't mean this to attack or disparage you. I sincerely
want to help.

-Carl

>"Michael- I'm sorry you had this experience. For what it's worth I don't remember anyone ever dissing your scales like this, but I could be wrong."

I remember one example where I made a scale using only 16th harmonic notes (harmonics 16-32) and a whole bunch of people claimed I was simply copying the harmonic series. Same goes when I made a 9-tone PHI scale and someone said it was a subset of the infinite scale PHI^x/2^y. An I've seen John's music posted and then his formula fished out a compared to "a bad/wrong version of Tenney Height". In general, it's a problem with people forcing things to be pigeon-holed to the nearest known theory...rather than taken as their own (if unknowingly strongly influenced) ideas.

>"Can we start over? "

Of course. My point isn't to hold a grudge with you or anyone else...but to express new ideas in peace and promote an environment where others are also free to do so.

Me>"Carl has flamed out at me countless times for "false advertising" when
I said my "scales take critical band dissonance into account (not to mention odd-limits), several people denied I make music despite my posting well over 10 total songs to this list...

Carl (in response)>"When you first joined we had a positive interaction. I wanted to give you better terminology to describe your scales. That backfired because you happily used it without understanding it, to the point of pseudoscience,"

    I did understand it just...not to your standards.  For example, I know what odd-limit vs. prime-limit is but not countless historical interpretations, o-tonal vs. u-tonal but not everything about Harry Partch, implications of Harmonic Entropy and Tenney Height but not all the involved equations...
Plus...I know at least an acceptable definition (though there are different ones for different circumstances) for periodicity (IE one I double-checked with a physicist), I have long known what critical band dissonance is (even if I didn't use your preferred "roughness" term for it), etc.  I'm no expert, but I know a fair deal, enough not to make it productive for me to bury my head in the sand about it.

   What I did get blatantly wrong in the past, as I recall, was what "equal beating" meant as I thought beating took place based on an exponential/logarithmic scale more over an arithmetic scale.  IE my PHI scales at that time were the logarithmic equivalent of equal beating.

     This misunderstanding was much due to looking at Jacques Dudon's scale formulas and seeing they were exponential...plus the fact critical band dissonance only changes it's curve mildy between octaves (IE seems more on a logarithmic scale).  I misused the term "equal beating" as being logarithmic and it took looking at a few of Mike B's posts to look at things like "Drats" the right way.  You may well have also posted something about arithmetic vs. logarithmic...but, as I were call, you were so busy making posts about how I was deliberately false-advertising that I had a tough time finding any wheat in all the chaff.

>"Yes, that's how I remember it too- you never made such claims. I've been mad at you for making emotional replies to things I and others have written, seemingly before having careful read them."

I had honestly carefully read a lot of the responses...and admittedly usually understood maybe 80% of what was said the first time around. But that apparently didn't stop people from saying "you must have never read it at all" because I missed 20%. The most obvious example of this would be the winding argument about how Noble Mediants were the same as my PHI scale...and it actually took Margo, one of the writers of the paper, to convince people what I was doing was NOT the same thing. The sound samples and how different they sounded from other Noble Mediant examples apparently weren't enough, and even my own descriptions of my own theory weren't taken as honest. No kidding I got emotional in such situations...people were coming at me as "guilty until proven innocent"...can you blame me?

>"To be fair to me you did show up here already using terminology you read in Sethares in a pseudoscientific or exaggerated manner."

Honestly, I had read Sethares for months before joining the list, plus relay e-mailed to him. And no, I did not get 100% of his theory right, but I did know a good proportion of it. What I do remember getting "wrong" was applying his theory as-applies-to-sine-waves while most people, apparently, consider it as applying to full harmonic-series-containing instruments.

>"That was your first post, about your consonance maximizer program."
Which did and still does work. It breaks all partials in the sound file into an array via FFT and then aligns them to the nearest harmonics in a scale (where the scale is repeated on octaves starting at around 40hz and going up to about 20500hz). Furthermore, it aligns everything to a scale where all harmonics are about 12/11 or more apart...rather than the usual 17/16-ish apart of the 12TET semitones (which is close to maximum critical band dissonance) and puts every other partial going up in frequency on opposite stereo channels so the partials are twice as far apart in each ear.

I showed a sample of this program on this list or the tuning list and Mike B thought it was an awesome DSP effect. Other people may think otherwise but it does what it was designed to do: align timbre and tuning and then push notes further away from each other to avoid the critical band. Look through my audio/example files...

>"Music theory will never be as impressive as physics, but it is a serious field nonetheless and you shouldn't expect to use the apparatus if you don't demonstrate competence. It's really that simple."

I think you are confusing my effort as an effort toward trying to achieve some sort of "new psycho-acoustics", rather than what I'm really aiming for which is making microtonal music more listenable for most people. I'm not trying to do a scientific survey on subjects any more than my brother (jazz guitarist's) band is every time they check for crowd response at a concert. Admittedly though, I occasionally feel forced to use "psycho-acoustic lingo" to get across that I'm looking for a common ground between most listeners...whereas on forums like this using terms like "more relaxed sounding" or "more tense sounding" or "having more tonal color" just don't cut it.

>"I honestly think you should consider if the things that upset you so much actually exist. Why get upset about something unless you have to? I don't mean this to attack or disparage you. I sincerely want to help."

The flames people threw around when I committed "grand theft" by using the term "song" for a non-vocal piece, for example, certainly did exist. I actually appreciate it when people correct me...so long as they don't do it with some nasty side comment along the lines of "read x paper first, you ignorant moron" or say "you're wrong" without providing "right" alternatives until far later.

If I could get to the point I saw people saying, to me and others "I like/dislike the sound of x sound example or scale you made" and asked the composer why he did it said way (the scale or the composition) and only then moved on to comparisons/criticism vs. other "theories" and did so with the idea of presenting alternatives rather than a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude...I'd feel I was in much safer waters.
Heck, I'm pretty sure just about everyone here would...I get a strong sense a huge majority of people here are very intelligent and are trying to help this art grow, even the "cranks". :-) Hey, if they wanted money or fame...let's face it: microtonal music is probably about the least popular and least rock-star-ish alternative. :-P

Michael, I honestly wish you the best. I think you will
experience much greater satisfaction if you get off the
defensive and honestly consider what I, Mike B., and Chris V.,
and others have been telling you. -Carl

I'm betting it is something I did with the whammy pedal. But I really can't
pursue it.

A time stamp would be great - otherwise...

Chris

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> help me out just a bit - is it in the guitar part alone?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Nice and groovy. There is even a small descending Ushshaq trichord
>> somewhere along the Bluesy melodies. In 17 equal that would be:
>>
>> 141 + 141 cents.
>>
>> Let's see if you can find where you did that!
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> --
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>>
>> christopherv wrote:
>> > I made a video of a microtonal piece to go along with the ImprovFriday
>> video event weekend.
>> >
>> > I used my 17 note per octave guitar – doubled as a bass by using my
>> (original) whammy pedal and of course looped to infinity via the loop
>> station. I throw in using the viola bow and steel slide to keep from being
>> board.
>> >
>> > I hope you enjoy it.
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> > Online play and embedded video
>> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=550
>> >
>> > direct download
>> >
>> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-loop-17unsteady-hands.mp3
>> >
>> > direct video download (180 megs!)
>> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/daily20110303-17-unsteady-hands.wmv
>> >
>> > Video on Youtube
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAKHCqBNhfc
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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