thanks from ara

ara is now getting sound from his keyboard into fractal tune
smithy . . .

thanks on his behalf to all those who helped . . .

i'm very eager to get on with making microtonal music with him, more
seriously than the couple weeks we've put in so far (which were
cramming sessions in preparation for the semi-disastrous Microthon
performances some of you have heard some of -- ara actually performed
remarkably well, not me though) . . .

once my bass arrives from Freenote, we'll *really* be off and
running . . .

bye for now,
paul

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_3336.html#3336

> ara is now getting sound from his keyboard into fractal tune
> smithy . . .
>
> thanks on his behalf to all those who helped . . .
>
> i'm very eager to get on with making microtonal music with him,
more
> seriously than the couple weeks we've put in so far (which were
> cramming sessions in preparation for the semi-disastrous Microthon
> performances some of you have heard some of -- ara actually
performed
> remarkably well, not me though) . . .
>
> once my bass arrives from Freenote, we'll *really* be off and
> running . . .
>

> bye for now,
> paul

***Where was that performance, Paul?? In California??

Joseph

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Where was that performance, Paul?? In California??

there were two AFMM Microthons, both in NYC. i'm sure Johnny can fill
you in on the details . . . i hope the recordings from the first one
surface one day (not that they're much better than those from the
second one, just different) . . .

Hello All,

I know many of you from my several years on the big tuning list.
But a while back I went no-mail before a trip and never got up the
nervve to go back. I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks, it
looks like it may be safe to go into the water....

I am a clavichordist/harpsichordist general early-music person, and
also a piano and harpsichord tuner-technician with a special
interest in historical tunings. I have decided to put up a web page,
using the easy, idiot-proof program I get free from my ISP, and I
have drafted a page as part of it on classic quarter-comma
meantone tuning, wishing it to be a practical guide for people who
wish to tune their early keyboards thus. Found online at

http://home.mindspring.com/~judithconrad/_wsn/page3.html

If anyone cares to check it out and give me any feedback, I would
appreciate it. Also, there are three spots on the page for 'links', if
someone could suggest sites that would be good and not
completely electronics oriented I would be happy to consider them.

Best,
Judy

Judith Conrad, clavichordist
Music Director, Calvary Baptist Church
747 Broad Street, Providence RI 02907

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., judithconrad@m... wrote:

> http://home.mindspring.com/~judithconrad/_wsn/page3.html
>
> If anyone cares to check it out and give me any feedback, I would
> appreciate it.

well, i'll start with just one comment, and maybe go deeper from
there. you say 1/3-comma meantone doesn't give any pure intervals.
but in fact it gives a pure major sixth, which i find even easier to
tune than a pure major third . . .

judith, overall this looks like a wonderful page, and i especially
like the human touches . . . there are many links that could be
provided, i'll try to post a list tomorrow . . . overall, i'm just
glad that we have yet another fine musician out there extolling the
virtues of tuning systems other than 12-equal!

keep it up,
paul

On 19 Jun 2002, at 21:47, paulerlich wrote:

> well, i'll start with just one comment, and maybe go deeper from
> there. you say 1/3-comma meantone doesn't give any pure intervals. but
> in fact it gives a pure major sixth, which i find even easier to tune
> than a pure major third . . .

You are absolutely right, it does give a pure major sixth, or, one
may think, a pure minor third. I completely forgot, thanks.

But I myself find 1/3 comma meantone extremely uningratiating, as
practiced by moderns anyhow. If I were going to invent a tuning
aimed at providing that pure interval, I'd tune the three fifths or
fourths from c (through g and d) to give the pure interval c-a, then I'd
tune pure minor thirds to either side of c (e flat), g (b flat and e), d
(b and f), and a (f#) -- leaving only decisions to be made on what
you tune g# and c# to. Or you could just leave those two out, it's
supposed to be a more-primitive-sounding tuning, after all. Why
shoudl it have 12 notes in an octave? Very little music before well
into the 17th century needs g#'s or c#'s anyhow.

But instead they just continue the principle of the size of fifths
needed to produce that pure minor third through 12 notes. It's a
pretty rasty fifth, nobody would really design a tuning around it,
would they? Seems to me one should accentuate the positive.

Judy

Judith Conrad clavichordist
http://home.mindspring.com/~judithconrad/index.html

On 19 Jun 2002, at 21:50, paulerlich wrote:

> glad that we have yet another fine musician out there extolling the
> virtues of tuning systems other than 12-equal!

Thanks Paul. Good excuse to mention I'm playing an all-Froberger
concert on Triple Fretted Clavichord in meantone on July 28,
Sunday afternoon, in Fall River MA. Also I'm playing the complete
Johannes Pachelbel Musikalisches Sterbensgedancken (musical
death-thoughts) on harpsichord at my church in Providence RI as a
Hiroshima Day meditation on Tuesday evening August 6, probably
in some slightly-modified meantone sort of thing. I'll post the details
at least on the website, on the list if people are interested.

Judy

Judith,

Hello back and welcome to our little corner!

{you wrote...}
>I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks, it looks like it may be >safe to go into the water....

Sure, just look at the palm trees swaying in the breeze - c'mon in, the water's fine!

>I have decided to put up a web page, using the easy, idiot-proof program I >get free from my ISP...

See below.

>Found online at
>
>http://home.mindspring.com/~judithconrad/_wsn/page3.html
>
>If anyone cares to check it out and give me any feedback, I would
>appreciate it.

Very nicely done, especially since you are using a built-in tool. Paul has already offered some musical advice on the site. Since I've spent the last 6 years or so cultivating one or more websites, there are some little 'advice-lettes' I could offer, but it might be more appropriate in private email (i.e. this might not be the appropriate forum). If this is of interest to you, let me know later on...

Beyond that, happy to have you here!

Cheers,
Jon (ListMom)

Judy,

{you wrote...}
>Also I'm playing the complete Johannes Pachelbel Musikalisches >Sterbensgedancken (musical death-thoughts) on harpsichord at my church in >Providence RI as a
>Hiroshima Day meditation on Tuesday evening August 6, probably in some >slightly-modified meantone sort of thing. I'll post the details at least >on the website, on the list if people are interested.

Oh, Please Do! I don't want to discourage you from posting to the main tuning list, as their raw number of members is higher than here on MMM; that said, since the focus of this forum is actually *making* microtonal music, I welcome, applaud, encourage, and cajol all members to announce concerts, CD releases, radio/internet airplay, and release of new online recordings.

To Music!

Cheers,
Jon

> On 19 Jun 2002, at 21:47, paulerlich wrote:
>
> > well, i'll start with just one comment, and maybe go deeper from
> > there. you say 1/3-comma meantone doesn't give any pure intervals.
> > but in fact it gives a pure major sixth

To which I replied, brain thoroughly disengaged,

> If I were going to invent a tuning aimed
> at providing that pure interval, I'd tune the three fifths or fourths
> from c (through g and d) to give the pure interval c-a, then I'd tune
> pure minor thirds to either side of c (e flat), g (b flat and e), d (b
> and f), and a (f#)
[...]
> But instead they just continue the principle of the size of fifths
> needed to produce that pure minor third through 12 notes.

Having awoken with the synapses sparking again, obviously if you
tune 1/3 comma fifths around the "circle" (a circle that is closed
only by a wolf fifth so big NOBODY wiould recognise it as a fifth),
any two notes 3 steps apart will make a pure minor third, so this is
the same exact tuning -- the tuner just thinks about it differently.
The problem with third comma for 16th and 17th century music
(and I know there is at least one recording, on WildBoar, of
Froberger I think, in this very tuning), is that the fifths are just too
bad for the ear to bear, and the major thirds are SMALLER than
pure, wjhich is disconcerting.

However, if I were a modern composer wanting to write in a stylized
but yet new early-tuning-type environment, I think one could write
something that exploited those pure minor thirds in quite a
delightful way. Just a suggestion. Most of the modern pieces for
harpsichord I have that are written for explicitly unequal tunings
seem to call for Werckmeister III or something else fairly mild,
which the modern ear doesn't even necessarily recognise as
different. There are other approaches.

Judy

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., judithconrad@m... wrote:

> Having awoken with the synapses sparking again, obviously if you
> tune 1/3 comma fifths around the "circle" (a circle that is closed
> only by a wolf fifth so big NOBODY wiould recognise it as a fifth),
> any two notes 3 steps apart will make a pure minor third,

except for three of those pairs. if the wolf is at G#-Eb, then the
pairs Eb-F#, Bb-C#, and F-G# will not make pure minor thirds (which
should be obvious since they're augmented seconds by spelling).

> The problem with third comma for 16th and 17th century music
> (and I know there is at least one recording, on WildBoar, of
> Froberger I think, in this very tuning), is that the fifths are
just too
> bad for the ear to bear,

i've heard that froberger and my ear does not agree.

> and the major thirds are SMALLER than
> pure, wjhich is disconcerting.

to most of us, living in the 12-equal environment we do,
disconcerting it certainly is . . . but with a decent amount of
exposure, these sound no worse than major thirds larger than pure by
the same amount . . .

and don't forget salinas, who was likely the first to realize (in the
16th century) that the chain of 1/3-comma meantone fifths actually
closes, without a wolf, on a 19-tone keyboard such as the one he had
(split accidentals, plus a key between B and C and a key between E
and F) . . . seems like a fruitful avenue for a modern composer to re-
explore . . .

Hello, there, Judith Conrad, and please let me add my welcome to
MakeMicroMusic -- with thanks for your Web page on 1/4-comma
meantone, including the practical comments on tuning by ear.

Here my comments relate mainly to the portion of the meantone era with
which I'm most familiar, the late 15th to early 17th centuries.

One factor which could have led a musician such as Francisco Salinas
(1577) to lean toward 1/3-comma meantone is that this tuning is almost
identical to 19-tone equal temperament as advocated by Guillaume
Costeley (1570), who describes his circulating 19-tone keyboard with
each diatonic whole-tone divided into three parts. His instrument has
split keys for the five usual accidentals, plus extra keys for E# and
B# to achieve a complete circulating temperament.

With 1/4-comma meantone, a circulating system involves a more
elaborate instrument of 31 notes -- such as the _archicembalo_ or
"superharpsichord" of Nicola Vicentino (1555), and the later
instruments of Scipione Stella and Fabio Colonna (as described in
Colonna's treatise of 1618).

While Zarlino considers 1/3-comma rather "languid" in comparison with
1/4-comma or his own 2/7-comma (major and minor thirds equally
impure), the 19-tone equal system has had considerable popularity in
the 20th century -- in the compositions of Joel Mandelbaum, for
example -- while the 31-tone system as advocated, implemented and
composed for by Adriaan Fokker has served as the basis for a school of
music in the Netherlands.

My own favorite practical tuning for the more esoteric side of
meantone is two 12-note manuals in 1/4-comma meantone (Eb-G#
arrangement) at the distance of an enharmonic diesis apart (128:125,
~41.06 cents). This is, of course, much easier to implement with a
synthesizer and two MIDI keyboards, with a reconstruction of a period
instrument -- although one could possibly tune a two-manual
harpsichord in this fashion. Here's a piece I composed that might
illustrate this kind of style through some actual music:

http://value.net/~mschulter/invoc4a.mid

I have an idea on how this _might_ be done in theory on a two-manual
harpsichord, but as a practical harpsichordist you'd be the person to
say if it's feasible and/or wise -- I'd love to share my idea, maybe
via e-mail, and seek your real-world feedback. It basically involves
placing the lower manual in a usual Eb-G# meantone, and simply
carrying your method based on pure major thirds for another 12 notes,
with each note on the upper manual a diesis higher than its
counterpart on the lower manual.

Composers such as Vicentino and Colonna use the diesis or "fifthtone"
as an expressive melodic interval, emulating the enharmonic genus of
the ancient Greeks, where a semitone was divided into two dieses.

They also use novel kinds of intervals like neutral thirds and sixths,
about halfway between the usual major and minor sizes. Mary Beth
Ackerley, a gifted composer and performer, has expressed great
interest in this music, for example sharing here a custom electronic
instrumentation of a passage by Colonna; the discussion should be
available in our archives at Yahoo.

Having this fifthtone music performed on historical instruments would
give another side of the picture. Unfortunately, we have only a few
complete pieces that I know of, but lots of examples and some sections
of madrigals by Vicentino. While one piece by Colonna does call for a
full circulating tuning of 31 notes, many of the pieces or examples
can each fit on an instrument with two 12-note manuals a diesis apart,
or 24 notes in all.

A fine point: 12-tone equal temperament could be called "1/11-comma
meantone," since each fifth is narrowed by about 1.96 cents, or
roughly 1/11 of the syntonic comma (81:80 or ~21.51 cents). To achieve
pure 5:4 major thirds, the full comma must be dispersed over a chain
of four fifths -- as is done in 1/4-comma. In 12-equal or 1/11-comma,
only about 4/11 of the comma is dispersed, leaving major thirds impure
by about 7/11 comma, or ~13.69 cents.

Since meantone focuses so much on the purity of the thirds, the
syntonic comma seems a natural unit of measurement. In 12-equal, each
fifth is more precisely tempered by 1/12 of the Pythagorean comma
(531441:524288, ~23.46 cents) by which 12 pure fifths exceed 7 pure
octaves, thus making the 12-note circle close with each fifth equally
impure. Since the syntonic comma is about 11/12 the size of the
Pythagorean comma, this is equivalent to 1/11-comma meantone.

On meantone accidentals in the 16th century, I would say that at least
by the second quarter of the century, C# and G# are quite routine and
frequently used. They are often essential for cadential semitones, or
for closing sonorities with major thirds above the lowest note -- as
with E-G# in the Phrygian mode on E.

Your comments remind me, however, that around 1480-1520, there were
evidently some differences on the best choice of accidentals for a
"standard" 12-note tuning, with Ramos (1482) favoring Ab-C#, and
Schlick describing a compromise where Ab-C is reasonably serviceable
while E-G# is marginally accidental for quick ornamental use in
cadences to A. Lindley cites some passages from Schlick's organ music
to illustrate these usages.

By the 1520's, however, the increasing use of thirds in closing
sonorities, and the preference that these thirds be major, may have
favored G# as a routine inflection, and thus Eb-G# as the standard
tuning for 12-note keyboards.

These are my general impressions, based on my experience with
16th-century music. The Ab/G# question and Renaissance approaches to
accidentals (written or unwritten) is something I also discuss a bit
in a FAQ article at Todd McComb's fine Early Music FAQ Site of the
Medieval Music and Arts Foundation:

http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/hex.html

By the way, having written this and then read the latest Digest which
arrived in the meantone -- or meantime -- I might add that while indeed I
regard the choice of intervals as a matter of style, the reactions of
Renaissance musicians coming in the 16th century from their stylistic
viewpoints is, at least in part, a matter of record as well as
guessing.

In 1581, for example, Vincenzo Galilei, who regards the 12-note equal
temperament of the lute as a special perfection of this instrument,
nevertheless finds the same tuning less palatable on the harpsichord with
its more "vehement" timbre -- and expresses a preference for the 2/7-comma
meantone of his teacher Zarlino, even though he regards the distinction
between Ab and G# in theory a "defect" of meantone.

There are some debates and discussions on this in the early 17th century,
with Mersenne sometimes expressing mixed feelings. One comment is that
equal semitones might not sound so strange if they were more familiar --
but meantone was evidently the norm, in 12 notes or sometimes up to 31.

Mark Lindley suggests that Froberger, for example, wrote certain pieces
which would actually sound best with equal semitones; but for the most
part, this tuning was viewed as appropriate to lute rather than
keyboards. Both the convenience of fretting a polyphonic lute so that the
same step could be used as a major or minor semitone across strings, and
the milder timbre, might explain this acceptance of equal semitones on the
lute in a stylistic context where meantone for keyboards is the norm.

By the way, just as a few people proposed or experimented with something
like 12-equal on keyboards (although a circulating meantone in 19 notes or
31 provides a more idiomatic alternative), Galilei reports that some
people added special frets to the lute to get purer thirds than the usual
equal semitones would provide. While Galilei pokes fun at this as a
gimmick not necessary for a truly talented performer (such as himself), he
remarks suggest that the period predilection for 5:4 and 6:5 thirds
prompted custom fretting by some performers even on the lute.

Again, welcome to MakeMicroMusic.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

On 21 Jun 2002, at 3:59, M. Schulter wrote:

> Hello, there, Judith Conrad, and please let me add my welcome to
> MakeMicroMusic

Hi Margot, I was hoping you were on this list too! I had thought
about sending my nmeantone essay to you for comment.

And by the way, if I don't add all your (and Paul's) wonderful ideas
other meantones to the page, it's not because I don't think you are
right. It's becasuse I want the focus of the page to be how easy it
is to do this one tuning on your own instrument, by ear. So many
people nowadays seem so intimidated out of even trying, partly by
the fact that all the instructions come with electronically generated
numbers to six decimal points, and they think that much accuracy
is necessary. I submit that if you can't hear it, it doesn't matter, at
least to you while you are learning. Training your ear does matter.

Which brings to mind Jeff's suggestion that 1/2 comma meantone
is the easiest pf all to tune. The only way I can figure to do this
other than to do the math and use a monochord is to tune a pure
beatless 9/8 major second, 9/8 to the sixth power being very close
to 2 (and therefore the sequence c-d-3-f#-g#-a#-c' with all seconds
pure gives quite close to an octave), then you split the difference
between them making g to produce equally-beating 5ths with c and
d', and the same with a, b, c# d# and f. Sounds neat. The problem
is, I don't think I can do it. I'll try it on the harpscihord when I get a
moment, but hearing a pure beatless 9/8 major second is not a
skill I think I have. I have never seen beatless seconds given as a
test in any tuning directions I can remember ever! Am I forgetting
something?

> My own favorite practical tuning for the more esoteric side of
> meantone is two 12-note manuals in 1/4-comma meantone (Eb-G#
> arrangement) at the distance of an enharmonic diesis apart (128:125,
> ~41.06 cents).

It sounds lovely. I own enough clavichords now that I could in fact
stack them -- but there's quite a bit of variability in the pitch one
gets from a clavichord. I am told Bermudo actually said you get
enharmonics on the clavichord by pushing harder, so you don't
need split keys (which would prove he wasn't talking about quarter
comma meantone, or that he strung his clavichords really light, I
think -- Bermudo's treatise was published in Germany in the '50's,
but I haven't been able to find a copy, and the Stevenson
paraphrase is wonderful but omits the parts on tuning...)

In any case, I now have a 17th century clavichord on order which is
a copy of the only one I have found in copyable condition that has
enharmonic splits, and what it has is split d#/e flat in every octave.
Just one accidental between g and a, no choice of g sharp or a flat.

And by the way, finding a good builder who was willing to take on
the task of building me that was a monumental soap opera. And I
don't have it yet, the soap opera may continue yet a while. I own
the Fabiano Colonna book on the Sambuca Lincea, but my best
guess is that finding a reputable builder to build me that one is just
not going to happen.

Best,
Judy

On 21 Jun 2002, at 10:25, judithconrad@... wrote:

> Which brings to mind Jeff's suggestion that 1/2 comma meantone
> is the easiest pf all to tune. The only way I can figure to do this
> other than to do the math and use a monochord is to tune a pure
> beatless 9/8 major second, 9/8 to the sixth power being very close to
> 2

Well, actually, it's one comma over. not thinking straight again.
Second cup of coffee on the way, I still don't see how to halve it
aurally.

Judy

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., judithconrad@m... wrote:

> Which brings to mind Jeff's suggestion that 1/2 comma meantone
> is the easiest pf all to tune. The only way I can figure to do this
> other than to do the math and use a monochord is to tune a pure
> beatless 9/8 major second, 9/8 to the sixth power being very close
> to 2 (and therefore the sequence c-d-3-f#-g#-a#-c' with all seconds
> pure gives quite close to an octave), then you split the difference
> between them making g to produce equally-beating 5ths with c and
> d', and the same with a, b, c# d# and f. Sounds neat. The problem
> is, I don't think I can do it. I'll try it on the harpscihord when
I get a
> moment, but hearing a pure beatless 9/8 major second is not a
> skill I think I have. I have never seen beatless seconds given as a
> test in any tuning directions I can remember ever! Am I forgetting
> something?

try 9/4, 9/2, or 9/1.

> In any case, I now have a 17th century clavichord on order which is
> a copy of the only one I have found in copyable condition that has
> enharmonic splits, and what it has is split d#/e flat in every
octave.
> Just one accidental between g and a, no choice of g sharp or a flat.
>
> And by the way, finding a good builder who was willing to take on
> the task of building me that was a monumental soap opera. And I
> don't have it yet, the soap opera may continue yet a while.

good luck and congratulations!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_3336.html#3439

> Hello, there, Judith Conrad, and please let me add my welcome to
> MakeMicroMusic -- with thanks for your Web page on 1/4-comma
> meantone, including the practical comments on tuning by ear.
>
> Here my comments relate mainly to the portion of the meantone era
with
> which I'm most familiar, the late 15th to early 17th centuries.
>

***Thanks so much, Margo, for your contribution here, which I'm
printing out. It's *mostly* review, but there were a few points I
was totally unfamiliar with, and also it's good to have all this
material in one place...

Joe Pehrson