New Microtonal Piece at mp3.com - Tsantsa Circle Dance

I've made a new piece using the Partch Tonality Diamond, posted to
MP3.com.

A MP3 version is available at http://www.mp3.com/PrentRodgers under
the name Tsantsa Circle Dance and another version (different
randomization) as Circle Dance #2 Tsantsa Celebration. I can burn a
CD for those who hate spam from mp3.com.

Here are some notes about the music, which also appear on the MP3
page. The piece is based on a movement across the utonalities of the
Partch Tonality Diamond. At each step, I play the otonalities of that
tonality step.

The primary tonality is what I call D++, an 8:7 above the center of a
tonality diamond based on C as 1:1. The song moves around the diamond
by utonality steps in a kind of circle of chords, from D++ (8:7) to F
(4:3) to A flat (8:5), C (1:1), G-- (16:11), to A# (16:9) and back to
D++. If you voice the chords just right, you can go around this cycle
three times and end up with a kind of chromatic scale that drops an
octave; 18 steps from start to finish.

The song spends most of its time in D++ major otonality. The opening
section uses a horn glissando on a triad 7:9:11 to the triad 8:10:12.
The glide is gradual over a whole note. At the start of the glide,
there is a prominent difference tone three octaves below the 9:11:14.
At the end, the difference tone is one octave below the 10:12:16. I
play around with shifting difference tones all throughout the piece,
some more prominently than others.

The instruments used are trombones, tuba, flute, cello, violin,
guitar, finger piano, and percussion. Bass gongs that glissando down
appear at different times.

The title is taken from the South American native Jivaro warriors, who
smeared themselves with blood and danced with the shrunken heads of
their enemies dramatizing the killing. Tsantsa is the native word for
shrunken head. Imagine hearing the trombone glissandos across the
forest valley, the triumphant victory dance of revenge.

Set the riffmobile to triademonium, sit back and listen to the
changes. Notice your head getting smaller?

The voicings of the chords are what make the circle of tonalities
interesting. For example, to move through D++, F, Ab, C, G--, D++, I
voice the D++ as 4:5:6, F as 3:4:5, Ab as 5:6:8, C as 4:5:6, G- as
5:6:8, and D++ now as 3:4:5. Repeat the cycle with F as 5:6:8, Ab as
4:5:6, C as 3:4:5, G- as 4:5:6, and D++ as 5:6:8. The third time,
voice F as 4:5:6, Ab as 3:4:5, C as 5:6:8, and G- as 3:4:5, back to
D++ as 4:5:6. This creates a descending chromatic-like scale on the
high notes of the chords. I call them A+, A-, Ab, G, G--, F, Gb, F, E-
-, E, D--, D, D++, C, C, C, B--, A#, back to A+, the 3:2 above D++.
Notice that it doesn't really always descend. Sometimes I hang out at
G- or C for a clean 4:5:6. Sometimes I include the 7:9:11 or its
revoicing as 9:11:14, or 11:14:18. Sometimes there is a glissando
from the lower number ratios to the higher or visa versa. Lots of
activity at all times.

The rhythm is based on cycles of 2:4:6 or 4:6:2 or 6:2:4,
imultaneously or opposed.

The sounds are all created using Csound and the McGill University
Master Samples, plus some of my own for the finger piano. I use
Csound to create the piece. The beauty of Csound for me is the
ability to control every instrument's envelope individually for every
note, including crescendo and decrescendo, and all the other
musically relevant articulations that make a composition come alive.
I also make use of the ability in Csound to move pitches around,
through a function table to control glissando for every note,
individually. Finally, Csound makes it possible to base the tuning on
non-twelve-tone-to-the-octave tunings. In my case, Csound has allowed
me to explore the Partch Tonality Diamond, for the past six years.
There is no other way to make music for me. Source code is on my home
page at http://home.attbi.com/~prodgers13/.

Prent Rodgers
Mercer Island, WA

Email: PrentRodgers@...
Home Page: http://home.attbi.com/~prodgers13/
Music: http://www.mp3.com/PrentRodgers

"It's cold, but it's a damp cold."

Prent,

I wrote a bit about the piece over at the ATL, but I thought I'd just mention here that one of the most amazing things about your work of the last few years is how 'organic' the end result sounds. It isn't simply a matter of using samples as the sound-starting point, but the fact that you use Csound to facilitate music that, if all things were equal, you would probably make in another way: by building acoustic instruments and playing live, or by having a good amount of tuned samples at your disposal and either playing live or sequencing.

Whatever, the music *always* comes across as something that you actually *hear*, and have then utilized the tool (Csound) to realize what you have heard/imagined. I find that a very impressive feat, considering the steps to that realization.

What I think would be wonderful, and I only took one brief stab at this, would be a very good midi sequence to .sco translator; many people on this list have used boxes (TX-81Z/802 and others) to make music of wide tuning varieties, but the timbral resources are limited. If I were to be able to 'mock-up' a piece this way, have a good sample base, and at least get *started* by translating to Csound in a similar manner, I think many of the pieces composed by some around here (Joe P. comes to mind) would really blossom with the abilities that Csound can bring to bear.

This is primarily because, like your music, you have found a fairly personal path for making Csound do your bidding, one that most don't have the same mindset to tackle. But your end result is SO compelling that I long for, and if time comes available, that I would love to find a better path to using Csound as the final step in a compositional progress.

Ramble, ramble, ramble; you know you've got deep fans around here, Prent!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "prentrodgers" <prentrodgers@a...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2780.html#2780

> I've made a new piece using the Partch Tonality Diamond, posted to
> MP3.com.
>

***Well, since this is "real" music, I think I'll talk about it
*here* rather than on the "theory" list.

If anybody before had any objections of some of the use of repetition
in some of the earlier CSOUND efforts by Prent Rodgers, they are
surely "laid to rest" in this new piece. CSOUND, by it's nature, of
course, lends itself to this kind of algo approach; it's hard to get
it to do *anything* otherwise. I've been pretty disapppointed, on
the overall, by CSOUND efforts, as evidenced in the Boucher book and
also on the mp3 CSOUND website. I mean, I admire the fact that
people can get CSOUND to make music, since I, myself, have had
trouble with it, but the actual *quality* of the music still seems to
be questionable. To my ear, only Prent Rodgers and Jeff Harrington
have been able to "master" the beast.

And, then, there were still quite a few repetitions in the earlier
Rodgers. It didn't bother *me* particularly, but those with a
more "through-composed" mindset might gripe about the length.
However, these questions are now resolved with the
greater "development" in this recent piece, besides the timbral
variety, which was always there, there seems more *motific*
development, outside of "recycled" snippets, and a greater sense
of "formal" scheme, for what it's worth (that's worth more to some
than to others... certainly not a big part of
contemporary "minimalism...")

In any case, the harmonic progressions, harmonic development and the
variation in form signal, to my ear, a "quantum leap" for Prent
Rodgers.

I'm beginning now to think, in fact, that Prent could be one of the
hidden "great" composers of our time...

J. Pehrson

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>If anybody before had any objections of some of the use of repetition in >some of the earlier CSOUND efforts by Prent Rodgers, they are surely "laid >to rest" in this new piece.

Why would anyone object to repetition?

>CSOUND, by it's nature, of course, lends itself to this kind of algo >approach; it's hard to get it to do *anything* otherwise.

This is not a correct statement. Csound is no more algorhymically-oriented than a sequencer and cut-and-paste. You just haven't worked with Csound enough to be aware of this.

>I've been pretty disapppointed, on the overall, by CSOUND efforts, as >evidenced in the Boucher book and also on the mp3 CSOUND website. I mean, >I admire the fact that people can get CSOUND to make music, since I, >myself, have had trouble with it, but the actual *quality* of the music >still seems to be questionable. To my ear, only Prent Rodgers and Jeff >Harrington have been able to "master" the beast.

The 'quality' issue is very subjective, and I know that you are couching it in these terms. But to cast the tool - Csound - as the problem is not a viable line of reasoning. It is very difficult to use, and it did not germinate in an attempt to write conventional music of through-composed, structure/development-oriented musics. That Prent uses it that way is compelling and interesting, but it is not Csound's fault if the musics made with it haven't lit your fire!

>And, then, there were still quite a few repetitions in the earlier >Rodgers. It didn't bother *me* particularly, but those with a more >"through-composed" mindset might gripe about the length.

Then they should listen to other music.

>In any case, the harmonic progressions, harmonic development and the >variation in form signal, to my ear, a "quantum leap" for Prent Rodgers.

Well, it's a newer path, that's for sure. Hopefully, we all grow in different directions as we live our lives.

>I'm beginning now to think, in fact, that Prent could be one of the hidden >"great" composers of our time...

I've thought this for a long time...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_2780.html#2785

> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >If anybody before had any objections of some of the use of
repetition in
> >some of the earlier CSOUND efforts by Prent Rodgers, they are
surely "laid
> >to rest" in this new piece.
>
> Why would anyone object to repetition?
>

***Some people believe undue repetition without variation reflects a
lack of invention.

> >CSOUND, by it's nature, of course, lends itself to this kind of
algo approach; it's hard to get it to do *anything* otherwise.
>
> This is not a correct statement. Csound is no more algorhymically-
oriented than a sequencer and cut-and-paste. You just haven't worked
with Csound enough to be aware of this.
>

***Well, have *you??* My impression is that it it rather "modular'
and certain pitch-classes are "set-up" and then "realized" or
articulated. Is this an incorrect statement??

> >I've been pretty disapppointed, on the overall, by CSOUND efforts,
as
> >evidenced in the Boucher book and also on the mp3 CSOUND website.
I mean,
> >I admire the fact that people can get CSOUND to make music, since
I,
> >myself, have had trouble with it, but the actual *quality* of the
music
> >still seems to be questionable. To my ear, only Prent Rodgers and
Jeff
> >Harrington have been able to "master" the beast.
>
> The 'quality' issue is very subjective, and I know that you are
couching it in these terms. But to cast the tool - Csound - as the
problem is not a viable line of reasoning. It is very difficult to
use, and it did not germinate in an attempt to write conventional
music of through-composed, structure/development-oriented musics.
That Prent uses it that way is compelling and interesting, but it is
not Csound's fault if the musics made with it haven't lit your fire!
>

***Based upon the work that I *have* done
with computer music, and that includes the *predecessor* to CSOUND,
Music4 and such like, I would blame the difficulty of using the
*tool* which creates "shortcuts" like using the same pitches over and
over. It's easier to program *one* list of pitches, after all, than
a lot of "interacting" ones... I don't believe the originators of
computer music really had any "esthetic agenda." The people *I* met
working with such things, were as much interested in
older "conventional" developmental music as the "experimental..."

> >And, then, there were still quite a few repetitions in the earlier
> >Rodgers. It didn't bother *me* particularly, but those with a
more
> >"through-composed" mindset might gripe about the length.
>
> Then they should listen to other music.
>

*** I know Paul Erlich felt that Prent's music was too
long and repetitive, and others made such statements as well. I'm
somewhat "in the middle" on that issue, sometimes "enjoying"
minimalism, depending on the timbres.

best,

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_unknown.html#2787

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > *** I know Paul Erlich felt that Prent's music was too
> > long and repetitive, and others made such statements as well.
I'm
> > somewhat "in the middle" on that issue, sometimes "enjoying"
> > minimalism, depending on the timbres.
>
>
> Then there is the other extreme. Too much change to the point of
> alienation.
>
> I've tried them both. Music that repeats, and music that never
> repeats. Music that has polyrhythmic dense layers where meters
change
> constantly, and on the other extreme, single voice music.
>
> I can enjoy either of them if done well, and amuse myself privately
> with allot of stuff I'll likely never share in these forums.
>
> It seems possible that Paul has some kind of ideal inner image of
> music which only he will be able to make manifest in the real
world.
> He mentioned his "inner music" once, and made me eager to hear it.
> Hopefully I will one day. It's much easier to assume the judgement
> seat, than it'll ever be to dive into the challenges and treasures
> that microtonality presents to us. History remembers the Music and
> rarely the Critic (read Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical
Invective").
>
> All I can affirm is I've personally never read a single post, paper
> or article that moves my soul like a good piece of microtonal music
> does, and probably never will. That's just me though - hard to work
> up the goose-pimples over text for me.
>
> Tuning is about Music, Music is about Emotions, and Emotions are
> about People. Hopefully we can harness the efforts of many in this
> Emotional Journey.
>
> J:L

****Hi Jacky!

Well, I probably should have let Paul speak for himself here, so
sorry Paul, when you get around to reading this. It was just in the
course of a discussion I had had with him some time ago concerning
Rodgers music, but he may have an entirely different opinion by now.

So, I just brought all of this up in a spirit of good will and
discussion... After all, I've already said that I thought Prent
could be our modern-day Beethoven... so my position on his music is
certainly clear.

Joseph

Joe,

Hey, we're both OK in communicating, so for those on the list, I'll just make it clear for all that our speaking on this subject is *without* rancor. Joe and I have been around the block before, so we know each other well enough that we leave that kind of crap behind...

{you wrote...}
>***Some people believe undue repetition without variation reflects a lack >of invention.

Of course. I don't think *anything* Prent has done is "without variation", and even if it did, there are ways of "undue repetition" that facilitate other things. Much of the electronica and dance music, especially Euro-tech stuff, would easily fall into this category, but while it might fail to move 'composers' and educated/academic ears, it completely and fully meets its demands to move (and on the dance floor, to boot!) a large populace. You can't simply write it off.

>***Well, have *you??*

I don't proffer opinions about stuff I don't know or experience, or if I feel that I am approaching that, I insert suitable caveats so my 'take' on things is well known.

>My impression is that it it rather "modular' and certain pitch-classes are >"set-up" and then "realized" or articulated. Is this an incorrect statement??

It seems fairly incorrect, or at the very least your "impression" lacks suitable experience with the Csound totality to infer as much.

>***Based upon the work that I *have* done with computer music, and that >includes the *predecessor* to CSOUND, Music4 and such like, I would blame >the difficulty of using the *tool* which creates "shortcuts" like using >the same pitches over and
>over.

Don't blame the tool, blame the user. If they haven't plumbed the depths of what can be done, it sure as hell isn't Csound's fault. Else how do you account for Prent? He's using the same tool, with addendums, that the others are. You might as well say the violin is so difficult that you can't do much more than open strings and first positions, which would mean most of the string music of the last 250 couldn't have happened.

>It's easier to program *one* list of pitches, after all, than a lot of >"interacting" ones...

It may be easier, but so what? That is why people pick a way of working (score paper and pencil, loop-based programs, sequencers, algo-comp tools, etc.) that match what they want to do.

>I don't believe the originators of computer music really had any "esthetic >agenda." The people *I* met working with such things, were as much >interested in
>older "conventional" developmental music as the "experimental..."

Things are much different now.

>*** I know Paul Erlich felt that Prent's music was too long and >repetitive, and others made such statements as well.

Too bad, but all music needn't please all ears. And I think Paul would prefer to speak for himself, as would all of us...

>I'm somewhat "in the middle" on that issue, sometimes "enjoying" >minimalism, depending on the timbres.

Yep, to each his own. Even with minimalist composers that I *do* like, I don't think I've ever like *everything* they've done. I bet most everyone would feel the same about their favorite composer/performers, right?

Cheers,
Jon