Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Etude of Purity #1

I had expected no different response from most of this list--I see all too often how people here dismiss opinions they dislike as "trolling". Given the out-of-tune crap that often passes for music here, I should neither be surprised that most of your ears are too warped to accurately judge the quality of ANYTHING--especially Mr. Daniel Forro, whose own work I am sad to be familiar with for it is no better than the work of a college freshman. Go back to the academy, Daniel, the grown-ups are talking.

I am saddened at the reaction of Mr. DeVelde, however. Sir, I worry that the continual harrassment you have received here has made you overly defensive and suspicious, so that you can no longer recognize when someone has taken a legitimate interest in your methods. I assure you, I am serious! I have studied your theories as best I can, given that you have been regrettably reticent in elucidating them, and tried to fill in the gaps you've left with my own invention. I relied entirely on two chains of Just 3/2s separated by a 5/4 as you stated explicitly was your method. I used Pythagorean triads where I wanted compositional tension and 5-limit triads where I wanted relaxation. Okay, I may have gone out on a limb with the use of F#-45/32 going out of key in the middle section--truthfully I did it because it seemed right to my ears, but perhaps you can educate me with what would have been a better choice? It is a simple minimalist piece, I wrote it to show off the tuning of every chord, so surely you can tell me where I have gone wrong?

And to Cuthbert--my good friend! I am glad to see you in evidence on these lists! I'll never forget our time in Bulgaria. But I am afraid you are mistaken, Marcel has posted only once a piece of *algorithmic* music. It was nice but I am afraid algorithmic music does not, as they say, "count" to a composer's credit. The work of a machine is not composition. So my piece is still the first *real* composition in DeVelde JI.

-Dr. Gilbert S. Sullivan

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

Hello,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "purest_intonation@..." <purest_intonation@...> wrote:
>
> I am saddened at the reaction of Mr. DeVelde, however. Sir, I worry that the continual harrassment you have received here has made you overly defensive and suspicious, so that you can no longer recognize when someone has taken a legitimate interest in your methods. I assure you, I am serious! I have studied your theories as best I can, given that you have been regrettably reticent in elucidating them, and tried to fill in the gaps you've left with my own invention. I relied entirely on two chains of Just 3/2s separated by a 5/4 as you stated explicitly was your method. I used Pythagorean triads where I wanted compositional tension and 5-limit triads where I wanted relaxation. Okay, I may have gone out on a limb with the use of F#-45/32 going out of key in the middle section--truthfully I did it because it seemed right to my ears, but perhaps you can educate me with what would have been a better choice? It is a simple minimalist piece, I wrote it to show off the tuning of every chord, so surely you can tell me where I have gone wrong?
>

My sincerest apologies then!
I didn't think you were serious in any way.

But there's much more to it than simply using 2 chains of fifths seperated by a 5/4, and using Pythagorean for tension and 1/1 5/4 3/2 for tension.

First of all, the 2 Pythagorean chains collapse into the following scale:
1/1 135/128 9/8 1215/1024 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 27/16 16/9 15/8 2/1

What this scale does, is show which ratios you have at your disposal for chord making.
And the scale shows which chord can go to which other chords.
For instance, take a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord.
You will see it can be in 3 places in the scale.
As 1/1 5/4 3/2, as 3/2 15/8 9/4, and as 9/8 45/32 27/16
When you play a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord, you may re-interpret it to be any of the other chords, and thus follow the 1/1 5/4 3/2 by a large number of other chords.
In this way one can modulate and move the "scale" up and down the chains of fifths. (a most effective way of doing this is by "pushing" the Syntonic comma or the Schisma, with "pushing" I mean to indicate a fifth or fourth where the previous scale would give a comma necessitating a reinterpretation of the scale along the chains of fifths.)

Furthermore, points of relaxation mean having harmonic ratios above the bass.
1/1 5/4 3/2 does this for major, 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 does this for minor.

In a "scale" sense, the relaxation point of the "scale" is the 1/1 5/4 3/2 or 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 of the scale I gave above.
The most natural major scale in it for instance is 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1

I'll upload the tunings of all 3 Drei Equale later tonight in a pdf, and also mp3 audio renderings.

With the knowledge I gave above, if one the follows the score and tuning you will see how it works.

After you get your head around it, and then try to compose in it you will find yourself successful with many (or all as long as you don't push it) things you do. Other things will make you scratch your head.
I personally see this method offers a lot of insight, but I can see there are more rules to be found. Some I've gotten a feel for but can't pin down yet. Others are still a mystery to me.

-Marcel

> And to Cuthbert--my good friend! I am glad to see you in evidence on these lists! I'll never forget our time in Bulgaria. But I am afraid you are mistaken, Marcel has posted only once a piece of *algorithmic* music. It was nice but I am afraid algorithmic music does not, as they say, "count" to a composer's credit. The work of a machine is not composition. So my piece is still the first *real* composition in DeVelde JI.
>
> -Dr. Gilbert S. Sullivan
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

You know what.
I'll write you a text file with step by step explanation with every chord on how I did Drei Equale no3.
It's a nice short piece which uses many types of chords and techniques.
After you understand it, you will be able to experiment by replacing chords, see where else all those chords can lead. Then make progressions of your own, then compositions of your own, in JI.
And you'll see the truly enormous (!!) advantage JI gives for compositional insight.
Even at this point already.

-Marcel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "purest_intonation@" <purest_intonation@> wrote:
> >
> > I am saddened at the reaction of Mr. DeVelde, however. Sir, I worry that the continual harrassment you have received here has made you overly defensive and suspicious, so that you can no longer recognize when someone has taken a legitimate interest in your methods. I assure you, I am serious! I have studied your theories as best I can, given that you have been regrettably reticent in elucidating them, and tried to fill in the gaps you've left with my own invention. I relied entirely on two chains of Just 3/2s separated by a 5/4 as you stated explicitly was your method. I used Pythagorean triads where I wanted compositional tension and 5-limit triads where I wanted relaxation. Okay, I may have gone out on a limb with the use of F#-45/32 going out of key in the middle section--truthfully I did it because it seemed right to my ears, but perhaps you can educate me with what would have been a better choice? It is a simple minimalist piece, I wrote it to show off the tuning of every chord, so surely you can tell me where I have gone wrong?
> >
>
>
> My sincerest apologies then!
> I didn't think you were serious in any way.
>
> But there's much more to it than simply using 2 chains of fifths seperated by a 5/4, and using Pythagorean for tension and 1/1 5/4 3/2 for tension.
>
> First of all, the 2 Pythagorean chains collapse into the following scale:
> 1/1 135/128 9/8 1215/1024 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 27/16 16/9 15/8 2/1
>
> What this scale does, is show which ratios you have at your disposal for chord making.
> And the scale shows which chord can go to which other chords.
> For instance, take a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord.
> You will see it can be in 3 places in the scale.
> As 1/1 5/4 3/2, as 3/2 15/8 9/4, and as 9/8 45/32 27/16
> When you play a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord, you may re-interpret it to be any of the other chords, and thus follow the 1/1 5/4 3/2 by a large number of other chords.
> In this way one can modulate and move the "scale" up and down the chains of fifths. (a most effective way of doing this is by "pushing" the Syntonic comma or the Schisma, with "pushing" I mean to indicate a fifth or fourth where the previous scale would give a comma necessitating a reinterpretation of the scale along the chains of fifths.)
>
> Furthermore, points of relaxation mean having harmonic ratios above the bass.
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 does this for major, 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 does this for minor.
>
> In a "scale" sense, the relaxation point of the "scale" is the 1/1 5/4 3/2 or 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 of the scale I gave above.
> The most natural major scale in it for instance is 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
>
> I'll upload the tunings of all 3 Drei Equale later tonight in a pdf, and also mp3 audio renderings.
>
> With the knowledge I gave above, if one the follows the score and tuning you will see how it works.
>
> After you get your head around it, and then try to compose in it you will find yourself successful with many (or all as long as you don't push it) things you do. Other things will make you scratch your head.
> I personally see this method offers a lot of insight, but I can see there are more rules to be found. Some I've gotten a feel for but can't pin down yet. Others are still a mystery to me.
>
> -Marcel
>
>
>
> > And to Cuthbert--my good friend! I am glad to see you in evidence on these lists! I'll never forget our time in Bulgaria. But I am afraid you are mistaken, Marcel has posted only once a piece of *algorithmic* music. It was nice but I am afraid algorithmic music does not, as they say, "count" to a composer's credit. The work of a machine is not composition. So my piece is still the first *real* composition in DeVelde JI.
> >
> > -Dr. Gilbert S. Sullivan
> >
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Marcel, haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already? Pampering your
ego under new pseudonyms? Pathetic.

Moderators?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

purest_intonation@... wrote:
> I had expected no different response from most of this list--I see all too often how people here dismiss opinions they dislike as "trolling". Given the out-of-tune crap that often passes for music here, I should neither be surprised that most of your ears are too warped to accurately judge the quality of ANYTHING--especially Mr. Daniel Forro, whose own work I am sad to be familiar with for it is no better than the work of a college freshman. Go back to the academy, Daniel, the grown-ups are talking.
>
> I am saddened at the reaction of Mr. DeVelde, however. Sir, I worry that the continual harrassment you have received here has made you overly defensive and suspicious, so that you can no longer recognize when someone has taken a legitimate interest in your methods. I assure you, I am serious! I have studied your theories as best I can, given that you have been regrettably reticent in elucidating them, and tried to fill in the gaps you've left with my own invention. I relied entirely on two chains of Just 3/2s separated by a 5/4 as you stated explicitly was your method. I used Pythagorean triads where I wanted compositional tension and 5-limit triads where I wanted relaxation. Okay, I may have gone out on a limb with the use of F#-45/32 going out of key in the middle section--truthfully I did it because it seemed right to my ears, but perhaps you can educate me with what would have been a better choice? It is a simple minimalist piece, I wrote it to show off the tuning of every chord, so surely you can tell me where I have gone wrong?
>
> And to Cuthbert--my good friend! I am glad to see you in evidence on these lists! I'll never forget our time in Bulgaria. But I am afraid you are mistaken, Marcel has posted only once a piece of *algorithmic* music. It was nice but I am afraid algorithmic music does not, as they say, "count" to a composer's credit. The work of a machine is not composition. So my piece is still the first *real* composition in DeVelde JI.
>
> -Dr. Gilbert S. Sullivan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

Oz, agaaain..
It isn't me.
First of all I wouldn't do such a thing.
And then I wouldn't post or make such music. (which is anything but pampering)
Also look at the email address. It's @... as far as I know this is an email address linked to an internet connection in the USA (I'm in the Netherlands)

-Marcel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel, haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already? Pampering your
> ego under new pseudonyms? Pathetic.
>
> Moderators?
>
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> â© â© â©
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> purest_intonation@... wrote:
> > I had expected no different response from most of this list--I see all too often how people here dismiss opinions they dislike as "trolling". Given the out-of-tune crap that often passes for music here, I should neither be surprised that most of your ears are too warped to accurately judge the quality of ANYTHING--especially Mr. Daniel Forro, whose own work I am sad to be familiar with for it is no better than the work of a college freshman. Go back to the academy, Daniel, the grown-ups are talking.
> >
> > I am saddened at the reaction of Mr. DeVelde, however. Sir, I worry that the continual harrassment you have received here has made you overly defensive and suspicious, so that you can no longer recognize when someone has taken a legitimate interest in your methods. I assure you, I am serious! I have studied your theories as best I can, given that you have been regrettably reticent in elucidating them, and tried to fill in the gaps you've left with my own invention. I relied entirely on two chains of Just 3/2s separated by a 5/4 as you stated explicitly was your method. I used Pythagorean triads where I wanted compositional tension and 5-limit triads where I wanted relaxation. Okay, I may have gone out on a limb with the use of F#-45/32 going out of key in the middle section--truthfully I did it because it seemed right to my ears, but perhaps you can educate me with what would have been a better choice? It is a simple minimalist piece, I wrote it to show off the tuning of every chord, so surely you can tell me where I have gone wrong?
> >
> > And to Cuthbert--my good friend! I am glad to see you in evidence on these lists! I'll never forget our time in Bulgaria. But I am afraid you are mistaken, Marcel has posted only once a piece of *algorithmic* music. It was nice but I am afraid algorithmic music does not, as they say, "count" to a composer's credit. The work of a machine is not composition. So my piece is still the first *real* composition in DeVelde JI.
> >
> > -Dr. Gilbert S. Sullivan
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

🔗purest_intonation@...

Hello Mr. DeVelde,

I am glad we got this straightened out. I'm rather amused that some thought I was just a pseudonym created by you! Honestly, do people on this list have any sense at all?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:

> But there's much more to it than simply using 2 chains of fifths seperated by a 5/4, and > using Pythagorean for tension and 1/1 5/4 3/2 for tension.

Indeed, I had guessed as much, and I fear I oversimplified my understanding in my hasty reply.

> First of all, the 2 Pythagorean chains collapse into the following scale:
> 1/1 135/128 9/8 1215/1024 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 27/16 16/9 15/8 2/1

Ah, I see. But tell me, in a piece of music that is restricted to a simple major scale as its basis, what need is there for 135/128, 1215/1024, 45/32, 405/256, or 16/9?

> For instance, take a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord.
> You will see it can be in 3 places in the scale.
> As 1/1 5/4 3/2, as 3/2 15/8 9/4, and as 9/8 45/32 27/16

If C is 1/1, that would be C, G, and D, yes? I do not understand the need for a D major in the key of C major.

> When you play a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord, you may re-interpret it to be any of the other
> chords, and thus follow the 1/1 5/4 3/2 by a large number of other chords.

I did this quite a few times in my piece, as I'm sure you've noticed. Where did I make an error?

> Furthermore, points of relaxation mean having harmonic ratios above the bass.
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 does this for major, 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 does this for minor.

Yes yes, this is the most elementary tenet of your theory and I am sure I have grasped it. Unless, perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "point of relaxation"? How are such points created or determined?

> The most natural major scale in it for instance is 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1

Of course, there can be no doubt! This is precisely the major scale I used, modulating occasionally from C to G. In the cases where C is rendered as a Pythagorean triad, it is functioning as the subdominant of G, as prescribed by this scale. Surely that was not an error on my part?

> I'll upload the tunings of all 3 Drei Equale later tonight in a pdf, and also mp3 audio
> renderings.

Much as I would appreciate this, I think I would appreciate more a critique of my own composition. Can you point out the bars that sound erroneous to you?

> After you get your head around it, and then try to compose in it you will find yourself
> successful with many (or all as long as you don't push it) things you do. Other things will > make you scratch your head.

Truly, I thought I had grasped it. I just don't know where I went wrong!

-Dr. G. S. Sullivan

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

HI Gilbert,

> I am glad we got this straightened out. I'm rather amused that some thought I was just a pseudonym created by you! Honestly, do people on this list have any sense at all?
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@> wrote:
>
> > But there's much more to it than simply using 2 chains of fifths seperated by a 5/4, and > using Pythagorean for tension and 1/1 5/4 3/2 for tension.
>
> Indeed, I had guessed as much, and I fear I oversimplified my understanding in my hasty reply.
>
> > First of all, the 2 Pythagorean chains collapse into the following scale:
> > 1/1 135/128 9/8 1215/1024 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 27/16 16/9 15/8 2/1
>
> Ah, I see. But tell me, in a piece of music that is restricted to a simple major scale as its basis, what need is there for 135/128, 1215/1024, 45/32, 405/256, or 16/9?
>

The scale is merely a potential.
The chains "collapse" into it because the octave and fifth must always be pure, and furthermore the smallest step size is 256/243 (meaning that for instance 40/27 can not be a tone because it can't reach 3/2 because 81/80 is not a step size)

> > For instance, take a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord.
> > You will see it can be in 3 places in the scale.
> > As 1/1 5/4 3/2, as 3/2 15/8 9/4, and as 9/8 45/32 27/16
>
> If C is 1/1, that would be C, G, and D, yes? I do not understand the need for a D major in the key of C major.
>

Yes that makes C, G and D.
C major in this scale is not the C major that's being taught at music schools :)
C major as taught at music schools can be 1/1 9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1 (for instance in I-vi-ii-V) or 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 16/9 2/1 or several others.
It depends on how it is harmonized. And even a single monophonic melody will indicate a certain harmonic progression.
I chose 1/1 of the scale as 1/1 for several reasons, one of them is that it sits in the middle of what seems to be most common uses of the major scale.
I don't know for sure myself in certain circumstances whether to voice the subdominant as 4/3 27/16 or 4/3 5/3.

> > When you play a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord, you may re-interpret it to be any of the other
> > chords, and thus follow the 1/1 5/4 3/2 by a large number of other chords.
>
> I did this quite a few times in my piece, as I'm sure you've noticed. Where did I make an error?
>

In several places the progression does not make sense to me, and several times you seem to rest on a Pythagorean chord, and at other times you're using a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord where my ear does not expect one.

> > Furthermore, points of relaxation mean having harmonic ratios above the bass.
> > 1/1 5/4 3/2 does this for major, 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 does this for minor.
>
> Yes yes, this is the most elementary tenet of your theory and I am sure I have grasped it. Unless, perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "point of relaxation"? How are such points created or determined?
>

Well this is the thing I'm having most trouble with to put in writing right now.
I feel it myself now most of the time correct after studying Beethoven. But I'm going to have to sit down for a long time to describe a rule set for this.. sorry!
The most obvious way is of course rhythm btw.
For instance a "phrase", chords that progress both in tuning and in rhythm to a point of rest (often really with a short rest or held chord at this point).
You seem to have used a Pythagorean chord several times at such a point. Of course one can use a Pythagorean chord at such a point no matter the rhythm, but then it is to be used as strong tension, held tension, prepared / made clear that it is tension by what came before and resolved after.
I guess I'm talking about cadences but I have never studied normal music theory, all I'm telling you is what I've found out myself in my tuning research (then I find the names that fit with what I found on wikipedia haha)

> > The most natural major scale in it for instance is 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
>
> Of course, there can be no doubt! This is precisely the major scale I used, modulating occasionally from C to G. In the cases where C is rendered as a Pythagorean triad, it is functioning as the subdominant of G, as prescribed by this scale. Surely that was not an error on my part?
>

This major scale is suitable for I-IV-ii-V-I progressions for instance.
And yes, one can see a Pythagorean triad on C as the subdominant of G.
That's not an error at all.
And I'm very glad someone paid attention! :-D

> > I'll upload the tunings of all 3 Drei Equale later tonight in a pdf, and also mp3 audio
> > renderings.
>
> Much as I would appreciate this, I think I would appreciate more a critique of my own composition. Can you point out the bars that sound erroneous to you?
>

If you're really serious about this particular composition, can you then send the tuning to me (for instance written next to the notes).
Then I will have a look and see if I can explain why certain things don't work.

I'll also say that contrary to your super mastering ;) it doesn't sound very good. The floating piano sound and crude playing don't exactly help with making things sound good ;) Wouldn't sound right in 12tet either.

> > After you get your head around it, and then try to compose in it you will find yourself
> > successful with many (or all as long as you don't push it) things you do. Other things will > make you scratch your head.
>
> Truly, I thought I had grasped it. I just don't know where I went wrong!
>
> -Dr. G. S. Sullivan
>

Well you've shown you've grasped it more than I thought anybody did at this point!
I very very glad you have given it serious attention.

However, I'm myself at the point of my research where it has only just become practical to use.
I have not yet gathered enough rules out of it to be able to give you a clear set of rules and if you follow those that you then cannot make any mistakes.
You need a certain insight into how all this works in actual music, and then carefully work out progressions.
This is why I can't recommend you any stronger than to study the Drei Equale.
Drei Equale no2 is nice and clean, easy to follow.
And I've just finished no3, which has very strong progressions and is the most interesting of the 3 I think.
I'm going to upload the midi and audio renderings now, and will make a text file tomorrow with detailed explanations on what's going on in no3.
I'm convinced that after studying it your eyes will quickly open to how certain parts of music function and you'll make very strong music of your own in no time :)

-Marcel

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

Hi Lowabad,

> > If C is 1/1, that would be C, G, and D, yes? I do not understand the >need for a D major in the key of C major.
>
> You need it for V/V, for one thing. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to study "common practice" before attempting to rewrite it.
>
> Not that it is necessarily necessary, that is, a needed necessity, to study something old in order to make something new, but come on, look at the name of thing: COMMON practice. The theory is derived from an enormous, in duration and dimension, body of work. The composers of old were not really "obeying" the rules of "common practice", so much as WRITING the rules of common practice. It was a joint effort.*
>

Ah but I think they were mostly "finding" the rules of music :)
And common practice theory is trying to make sense of the rules of music that all those composers in the past have used in their composition simply because their ears and brain understood those rules.

I should indeed start to study normal music theory more seriously as I seem to be hitting a lot of very similar concepts.
However, this could be a disadvantage too.
Not knowing it well gives me a fresh look at things.
And normal music theory, besides being right a lot, is in no doubt wrong and confusing a lot too.

> *Which doesn't mean smoking a joint and then making an effort, though when it comes to some of those guys I wouldn't be suprised....
>

I know I'm Dutch, but I even gave up drinking alcohol a few years back haha.

-Marcel

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Ah but I think they were mostly "finding" the rules of music :)
> And common practice theory is trying to make sense of the rules of >music that all those composers in the past have used in their >composition simply because their ears and brain understood those >rules.

I understand this, but either way, I think it is very obvious that the
what makes music music is far more about the verbs and prepositions than about the nouns. The fact that Beethoven doesn't consist of a stream of parallel major thirds is vastly, enormously, more defining
than how any major thirds are specifically tuned.

The nouns are important, too, it wouldn't be Beethoven with only neutral thirds, saying tuning doesn't matter is a cop out, but still,
the main ingredient is motion.

>
> I should indeed start to study normal music theory more seriously as I seem to be hitting a lot of very similar concepts.
> However, this could be a disadvantage too.
> Not knowing it well gives me a fresh look at things.
> And normal music theory, besides being right a lot, is in no doubt wrong and confusing a lot too.

I was looking at some of my old theory books the other day, and was shocked at how crappy the understanding of "common practice" has become in the last half-century or so. Still, even in the dank shadow of 12-tET any decent education distinguishes between a diminished fourth and a major third, etc.
>
>
>
> > *Which doesn't mean smoking a joint and then making an effort, though when it comes to some of those guys I wouldn't be suprised....
> >
>
>
> I know I'm Dutch, but I even gave up drinking alcohol a few years back haha.

Alcohol is good for you. Er... I hope. :-) I was referring to the composers of old- I can imagine Beethoven's ear medicine being opium-laced alchohol. Having read 19th-century medicinal recipes ("take one pound good Turkey opium..." is something I remember, really), that's a serious joke.

🔗Marcel <m.develde@...>

Hi Gilbert,

I've been a bad teacher of my own theory haha.
I had one more "minor" kink in it.

(though this shouldn't have mattered when playing purely in major, it did kinda complicate things)

Please see my folder for the PDF file of no2 and no3 and new base JI scale:
/makemicromusic/files/Marcel/

I'll write a text document soon as promised with deeper explanations.

-Marcel

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> HI Gilbert,
>
>
> > I am glad we got this straightened out. I'm rather amused that some thought I was just a pseudonym created by you! Honestly, do people on this list have any sense at all?
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Marcel" <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > > But there's much more to it than simply using 2 chains of fifths seperated by a 5/4, and > using Pythagorean for tension and 1/1 5/4 3/2 for tension.
> >
> > Indeed, I had guessed as much, and I fear I oversimplified my understanding in my hasty reply.
> >
> > > First of all, the 2 Pythagorean chains collapse into the following scale:
> > > 1/1 135/128 9/8 1215/1024 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 27/16 16/9 15/8 2/1
> >
> > Ah, I see. But tell me, in a piece of music that is restricted to a simple major scale as its basis, what need is there for 135/128, 1215/1024, 45/32, 405/256, or 16/9?
> >
>
>
> The scale is merely a potential.
> The chains "collapse" into it because the octave and fifth must always be pure, and furthermore the smallest step size is 256/243 (meaning that for instance 40/27 can not be a tone because it can't reach 3/2 because 81/80 is not a step size)
>
>
> > > For instance, take a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord.
> > > You will see it can be in 3 places in the scale.
> > > As 1/1 5/4 3/2, as 3/2 15/8 9/4, and as 9/8 45/32 27/16
> >
> > If C is 1/1, that would be C, G, and D, yes? I do not understand the need for a D major in the key of C major.
> >
>
>
> Yes that makes C, G and D.
> C major in this scale is not the C major that's being taught at music schools :)
> C major as taught at music schools can be 1/1 9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1 (for instance in I-vi-ii-V) or 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 16/9 2/1 or several others.
> It depends on how it is harmonized. And even a single monophonic melody will indicate a certain harmonic progression.
> I chose 1/1 of the scale as 1/1 for several reasons, one of them is that it sits in the middle of what seems to be most common uses of the major scale.
> I don't know for sure myself in certain circumstances whether to voice the subdominant as 4/3 27/16 or 4/3 5/3.
>
>
>
> > > When you play a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord, you may re-interpret it to be any of the other
> > > chords, and thus follow the 1/1 5/4 3/2 by a large number of other chords.
> >
> > I did this quite a few times in my piece, as I'm sure you've noticed. Where did I make an error?
> >
>
>
> In several places the progression does not make sense to me, and several times you seem to rest on a Pythagorean chord, and at other times you're using a 1/1 5/4 3/2 chord where my ear does not expect one.
>
>
> > > Furthermore, points of relaxation mean having harmonic ratios above the bass.
> > > 1/1 5/4 3/2 does this for major, 1/1 1215/1024 3/2 does this for minor.
> >
> > Yes yes, this is the most elementary tenet of your theory and I am sure I have grasped it. Unless, perhaps, I misunderstand what you mean by "point of relaxation"? How are such points created or determined?
> >
>
>
> Well this is the thing I'm having most trouble with to put in writing right now.
> I feel it myself now most of the time correct after studying Beethoven. But I'm going to have to sit down for a long time to describe a rule set for this.. sorry!
> The most obvious way is of course rhythm btw.
> For instance a "phrase", chords that progress both in tuning and in rhythm to a point of rest (often really with a short rest or held chord at this point).
> You seem to have used a Pythagorean chord several times at such a point. Of course one can use a Pythagorean chord at such a point no matter the rhythm, but then it is to be used as strong tension, held tension, prepared / made clear that it is tension by what came before and resolved after.
> I guess I'm talking about cadences but I have never studied normal music theory, all I'm telling you is what I've found out myself in my tuning research (then I find the names that fit with what I found on wikipedia haha)
>
>
>
> > > The most natural major scale in it for instance is 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
> >
> > Of course, there can be no doubt! This is precisely the major scale I used, modulating occasionally from C to G. In the cases where C is rendered as a Pythagorean triad, it is functioning as the subdominant of G, as prescribed by this scale. Surely that was not an error on my part?
> >
>
>
> This major scale is suitable for I-IV-ii-V-I progressions for instance.
> And yes, one can see a Pythagorean triad on C as the subdominant of G.
> That's not an error at all.
> And I'm very glad someone paid attention! :-D
>
>
>
> > > I'll upload the tunings of all 3 Drei Equale later tonight in a pdf, and also mp3 audio
> > > renderings.
> >
> > Much as I would appreciate this, I think I would appreciate more a critique of my own composition. Can you point out the bars that sound erroneous to you?
> >
>
>
> If you're really serious about this particular composition, can you then send the tuning to me (for instance written next to the notes).
> Then I will have a look and see if I can explain why certain things don't work.
>
> I'll also say that contrary to your super mastering ;) it doesn't sound very good. The floating piano sound and crude playing don't exactly help with making things sound good ;) Wouldn't sound right in 12tet either.
>
>
>
> > > After you get your head around it, and then try to compose in it you will find yourself
> > > successful with many (or all as long as you don't push it) things you do. Other things will > make you scratch your head.
> >
> > Truly, I thought I had grasped it. I just don't know where I went wrong!
> >
> > -Dr. G. S. Sullivan
> >
>
>
> Well you've shown you've grasped it more than I thought anybody did at this point!
> I very very glad you have given it serious attention.
>
> However, I'm myself at the point of my research where it has only just become practical to use.
> I have not yet gathered enough rules out of it to be able to give you a clear set of rules and if you follow those that you then cannot make any mistakes.
> You need a certain insight into how all this works in actual music, and then carefully work out progressions.
> This is why I can't recommend you any stronger than to study the Drei Equale.
> Drei Equale no2 is nice and clean, easy to follow.
> And I've just finished no3, which has very strong progressions and is the most interesting of the 3 I think.
> I'm going to upload the midi and audio renderings now, and will make a text file tomorrow with detailed explanations on what's going on in no3.
> I'm convinced that after studying it your eyes will quickly open to how certain parts of music function and you'll make very strong music of your own in no time :)
>
> -Marcel
>