counterintuitive

counterintuitive

A 17 edo electric guitar solo where I purposefully avoid 12 edo "normal"
sounding harmony. If this really works or not I'm still deciding.
It was new territory - at least on guitar - and I need to listen a few more
times as this is hot off the amplifier. I was in a rush to submit it
to ImprovFriday's event. (a good place to visit for more music
http://improvfriday.com)

online play and details
http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=1427

direct download
http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/20111014-STE-002-counter-intuitive.mp3

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

Ah, "maqam Ushshaq". You've discovered it in the opening measures! Very cool improv.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> counterintuitive
>
> A 17 edo electric guitar solo where I purposefully avoid 12 edo "normal"
> sounding harmony. If this really works or not I'm still deciding.
> It was new territory - at least on guitar - and I need to listen a few more
> times as this is hot off the amplifier. I was in a rush to submit it
> to ImprovFriday's event. (a good place to visit for more music
> http://improvfriday.com)
>
> online play and details
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=1427
>
> direct download
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/20111014-STE-002-counter-intuitive.mp3
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thank you Oz!

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ah, "maqam Ushshaq". You've discovered it in the opening measures! Very
> cool improv.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > counterintuitive
> >
> > A 17 edo electric guitar solo where I purposefully avoid 12 edo "normal"
> > sounding harmony. If this really works or not I'm still deciding.
> > It was new territory - at least on guitar - and I need to listen a few
> more
> > times as this is hot off the amplifier. I was in a rush to submit it
> > to ImprovFriday's event. (a good place to visit for more music
> > http://improvfriday.com)
> >
> > online play and details
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=1427
> >
> > direct download
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/20111014-STE-002-counter-intuitive.mp3
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA

Hi all,
I am pleased to propose you (see link here above) a comparison of eight different tuning systems, over Pier Domenico Paradies' Allegro, from Harspichord sonata in A (also known as "Toccata").
Tunings:
01 - Meantone, 31 quarter comma fifths (without septimal notes);
02 - Fokker's 31 just scale centered on A, with septimal notes;
03 - Just intonation, 4 layers of pythagorean fifths, three layers at distances of 5*, 7*, 25* from a base layer;
04 - 31 tet, with septimal notes;
05 - Agricola's monochord (12 notes)
06 - Kirnberger III (letter to Forkel, 12 notes)
07 - 19 tet
08 - Septimal meantone (31 5^0.1 fifths) with septimal notes.

Played at midi organ. Tuned with Scala. Implemented with Timidity++
Soundfont: English Chamber Organ (EngChamberOrgan.SF2);
Public domain score from Petrucci music library
Best wishes!
Claudi Meneghin

To be quite honest, I'm embarrassed and disturbed by the fact that I find the differences rather negligible... I like to think it's because of the fast tempo and all that lively keyboard figuration.

j

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "clamengh" <clamengh@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA
>
> Hi all,
> I am pleased to propose you (see link here above) a comparison of eight different tuning systems, over Pier Domenico Paradies' Allegro, from Harspichord sonata in A (also known as "Toccata").
> Tunings:
> 01 - Meantone, 31 quarter comma fifths (without septimal notes);
> 02 - Fokker's 31 just scale centered on A, with septimal notes;
> 03 - Just intonation, 4 layers of pythagorean fifths, three layers at distances of 5*, 7*, 25* from a base layer;
> 04 - 31 tet, with septimal notes;
> 05 - Agricola's monochord (12 notes)
> 06 - Kirnberger III (letter to Forkel, 12 notes)
> 07 - 19 tet
> 08 - Septimal meantone (31 5^0.1 fifths) with septimal notes.
>
> Played at midi organ. Tuned with Scala. Implemented with Timidity++
> Soundfont: English Chamber Organ (EngChamberOrgan.SF2);
> Public domain score from Petrucci music library
> Best wishes!
> Claudi Meneghin
>

> To be quite honest, I'm embarrassed and disturbed by the fact that I find
the differences rather negligible...

Don't be disturbed. You're just seeing for yourself why 12-equal won. For
many people, the difference between a compromise non-12 tuning (e.g.,
meantone) and 12-tET is similarly negligible, so 12-equal's flexibility won
the day.

Regards,
Jake

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

They all work fascinatingly well, with the minute differences delectably and barely noticable. At this point, this is a fabulous demonstration as to the phenomenon of tuning as "effect" rather than the true "pitch palette".

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Oct 16, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Jake Freivald wrote:

>> To be quite honest, I'm embarrassed and disturbed by the fact that I find
> the differences rather negligible...
>
> Don't be disturbed. You're just seeing for yourself why 12-equal won. For
> many people, the difference between a compromise non-12 tuning (e.g.,
> meantone) and 12-tET is similarly negligible, so 12-equal's flexibility won
> the day.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Many thanks to all who replied.
As to me, I do notice the differences amnog the tunings, but that's not so strange, since it was just me who made up the whole contraption...
However, my experience is that listening more than once makes the differences more and more noticeable.
Even at a first "glance" :-) when turning from a tuning to another one, differences seem to me rather sensisble.
Afterwards, the ear seems to get accoustomed.
Bests,
Claudi Meneghin

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "clamengh" <clamengh@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA
>

Hi,
thanks for making these interesting tuning comparisons.

> As to me, I do notice the differences amnog the tunings, but that's not so strange, since it was just me who made up the whole contraption...
> However, my experience is that listening more than once makes the differences more and more noticeable.
> Even at a first "glance" :-) when turning from a tuning to another one, differences seem to me rather sensisble.

Yes, well, I suppose I'm not very good at this game, even though I have absolute pitch and I'm a microtonal composer. It's hard for me to hear the tuning in such fast figuration in a texture of only two voices. The intonation of the full chords in the cadences is much easier to hear. I do hear different different flavors in these versions, or, as Oz said:
>At this point, this is a fabulous demonstration as to the phenomenon of tuning as "effect"

Jake wrote:
> You're just seeing for yourself why 12-equal won. For
>many people, the difference between a compromise non-12 tuning (e.g.,
>meantone) and 12-tET is similarly negligible, so 12-equal's flexibility won
>the day.

In my own work I test everything I write against 12tet to make sure it's actually worth the trouble to have the musicians learn to play and sing complicated microtonal stuff using special notation. However, I don't agree with everything Jake says here. 12-equal did not win! No present-day baroque musician would play this piece in 12tet. Especially on a harpsichord 12tet sounds offending, and this piece plus similar ones from the mean-tone era do not need the flexibility of 12tet as they never travel far from the main key.

I'm wondering if the organ sample is a very good choice here. At least for me, its intonation is not that clear. And it's always the same, no matter what the tuning, right? Isn't this different from the behavior of a real pipe organ? If the pipe organ registration includes a 'fifth' stop, for example, wouldn't it be tuned to the fifths of the tuning whereas here there may be a clash?

jn

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

> If the pipe organ registration includes a 'fifth' stop, for example,
> wouldn't it be tuned to the fifths of the tuning whereas here there
> may be a clash?

Mutation stops are always tuned pure.

Kalle

Right, thanks for the correction. How could it be otherwise - I wasn't thinking. (Though they're not tuned pure in tonewheel Hammonds, but that's another matter.)

Still, the chosen organ sound in the examples is not one that makes the intonation very clear (to me).

J

> Mutation stops are always tuned pure.
>
> Kalle
>

Kalle Aho> > If the pipe organ registration includes a 'fifth' stop, for example,
> > wouldn't it be tuned to the fifths of the tuning whereas here there
> > may be a clash?
>
> Mutation stops are always tuned pure.
>
> Kalle
>
Yes: this gives different organ tunings different "characters" in that mutation stop frequencies differ or not from those of the tuning. For example, a C-G combination in just intonation played with flutes (8) + Decima Nona (1 1/3) doesn't yield the "Vox humana" effect it would yield if played in meantone or other temperament with G/C different from 1.5. (due to the coexistence of two different G's).

You could also think a major triad, played with a "cornet combination" to be:
1) "sharp" if played in just intonation (mutation stops resonate with the tuning)
2) "rounded if played in other temperaments (mutation stops cause beats against the tuning, whence some "Vox Humana" effect)

>I'm wondering if the organ sample is a very good choice here.
Not necessarily the best one... but at this time I am working on organ sound fonts, so I have used this one (EnglishChamberOrgan.sf2).

>At least for me, its intonation is not that clear. And it's always the same, no matter what the tuning, right?

Did you mean "pitch"? Yes, it is always the same.

>Isn't this different from the behavior of a real pipe organ?
Well I am afraid I do not understand exactly the point here...the only microtonal real pipe organ I know about is the Huygens Fokker foundation's one, which, if I am not wrong, is tuned in 31 edo.
Bests!
Claudi
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA
>
Best wishes

. And it's always the same, no matter what the tuning, right?
>
> Did you mean "pitch"? Yes, it is always the same.
>
> >Isn't this different from the behavior of a real pipe organ?

No, I meant the sample, but that was just my confusion: as was pointed out by Kalle and so well explained by you, the mutation stops are tuned pure, and not according to the tuning system (in which case a different sample should be used for each tuning).

Anyway, it would be nice to hear the examples with a harpsichord sound.

Juhani

Juhani wrote:

> 12-equal did not win! No present-day baroque musician would play this piece
> in 12tet. Especially on a harpsichord 12tet sounds offending, and this piece
> plus similar ones from the mean-tone era do not need the flexibility of 12tet
> as they never travel far from the main key.

Fair enough, on all counts. To be more precise about it: Even if I
agree that no baroque musician would play this piece in 12-tET, most
people would listen to it in 12-tET without blinking. Most musicans
who don't specialize in baroque music would have no problem learning
this music in 12-tET (witness everyone from Yngwie Malmsteen to
innumerable baroque guitarists). 12-tET is the dominant tuning, in
part because most people don't have ears as sensitive as those on this
list.

I'm not trying to rain on the microtonal parade. I think there's a ton
here that's interesting. When I say that 12-tET "won", I'm saying it
in the sense that Microsoft "won" in software -- there may still be
competition, it may not be the best generally or even the best for
most specific purposes, but it's still the default. That makes the
microtonal community the equivalent of Apple. :)

Regards,
Jake

If you had a small organ with few ranks of pipes, one rank could be used for
more than one thing. A flute rank could be used for am octave such as 16,
8, 4, 2, and/or 1'; a s well as mutations and mixtures. In that case the
mutations and mixtures would follow the tuning and would not be pure.

fg

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Juhani <jnylenius@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> . And it's always the same, no matter what the tuning, right?
> >
> > Did you mean "pitch"? Yes, it is always the same.
> >
> > >Isn't this different from the behavior of a real pipe organ?
>
> No, I meant the sample, but that was just my confusion: as was pointed out
> by Kalle and so well explained by you, the mutation stops are tuned pure,
> and not according to the tuning system (in which case a different sample
> should be used for each tuning).
>
> Anyway, it would be nice to hear the examples with a harpsichord sound.
>
> Juhani
>
>
>

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

OK, yes, it is possible to derive stops from a single rank. But if
there is a separate rank of pipes for the mutation stop, then it is
tuned pure.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Freeman Gilmore <freeman.gilmore@...> wrote:
>
> If you had a small organ with few ranks of pipes, one rank could be used for
> more than one thing. A flute rank could be used for am octave such as 16,
> 8, 4, 2, and/or 1'; a s well as mutations and mixtures. In that case the
> mutations and mixtures would follow the tuning and would not be pure.
>
> fg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Juhani <jnylenius@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > . And it's always the same, no matter what the tuning, right?
> > >
> > > Did you mean "pitch"? Yes, it is always the same.
> > >
> > > >Isn't this different from the behavior of a real pipe organ?
> >
> > No, I meant the sample, but that was just my confusion: as was pointed out
> > by Kalle and so well explained by you, the mutation stops are tuned pure,
> > and not according to the tuning system (in which case a different sample
> > should be used for each tuning).
> >
> > Anyway, it would be nice to hear the examples with a harpsichord sound.
> >
> > Juhani
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Freeman Gilmore> If you had a small organ with few ranks of pipes, one rank could be used for
> more than one thing. A flute rank could be used for am octave such as 16,
> 8, 4, 2, and/or 1'; a s well as mutations and mixtures. In that case the
> mutations and mixtures would follow the tuning and would not be pure.
>
> fg
Yes, that's correct indeed. I wonder how such mutations could sound. Sooner or later I'll try some experiments. Probably every combination would have a "Vox Humana" characters.
In this case: yes, that would be different from the behaviour of a pipe organ.

Juhani> Anyway, it would be nice to hear the examples with a harpsichord sound.

Yes, sooner or later I'll set up one. But the whole .seq file should be reworked to be played on a harpischord sound font (just as playing harpischord rather than organ is different).

Bests,
Claudi
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA
>[...]

Also most electronic organs work this way. The Hammond organ draw bars are
tempered, not tuned pure, and that is a big part of its characteristic
sound, the draws bars [overtones] do not beat with the corresponding other
notes when played together. This only works because all the tones are
signwaves.

fg

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:18 AM, clamengh <clamengh@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Freeman Gilmore> If you had a small organ with few ranks of pipes, one rank
> could be used for
> > more than one thing. A flute rank could be used for am octave such as 16,
> > 8, 4, 2, and/or 1'; a s well as mutations and mixtures. In that case the
> > mutations and mixtures would follow the tuning and would not be pure.
> >
> > fg
> Yes, that's correct indeed. I wonder how such mutations could sound. Sooner
> or later I'll try some experiments. Probably every combination would have a
> "Vox Humana" characters.
> In this case: yes, that would be different from the behaviour of a pipe
> organ.
>
> Juhani> Anyway, it would be nice to hear the examples with a harpsichord
> sound.
>
> Yes, sooner or later I'll set up one. But the whole .seq file should be
> reworked to be played on a harpischord sound font (just as playing
> harpischord rather than organ is different).
>
> Bests,
> Claudi
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA
> >[...]
>
>
>

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

Freeman, thanks for the information, this was interesting. The electric organs I knew about; I was unsure about pipe organs. The 31-tet Fokker organ was mentioned; it's a very small one, and in case anyone is wondering, it only has 8' and 4' stops, no mutation stop fifths.

jn

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "clamengh" <clamengh@...> wrote:
>
> Freeman Gilmore> If you had a small organ with few ranks of pipes, one rank could be used for
> > more than one thing. A flute rank could be used for am octave such as 16,
> > 8, 4, 2, and/or 1'; a s well as mutations and mixtures. In that case the
> > mutations and mixtures would follow the tuning and would not be pure.
> >
> > fg
> Yes, that's correct indeed. I wonder how such mutations could sound. Sooner or later I'll try some experiments. Probably every combination would have a "Vox Humana" characters.
> In this case: yes, that would be different from the behaviour of a pipe organ.
>
> Juhani> Anyway, it would be nice to hear the examples with a harpsichord sound.
>
> Yes, sooner or later I'll set up one. But the whole .seq file should be reworked to be played on a harpischord sound font (just as playing harpischord rather than organ is different).
>
> Bests,
> Claudi
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLFwxn0AkJA
> >[...]
>