undefined

> Thanks so much, John, for describing this process. You know, it
> seems that in "Limp Off to School" there are quite extended
> modulations.... Do you feel that the increased modulatory
> possibilities in 19-tET led you to thinking in that direction?? It
> would seem to me that it might. I really dig those modulations...
>
> __________ _________ _______
> Joseph Pehrson

Yes, the modulation from the +[6 5 1 4] (where +[ denotes the usual
diatonic progression but started one chromatic step higher) done twice
brings it up 2 chromatic steps, then a 4 -[5 4 -[5]] brings it down 2
chromatic steps. The progression for the whole piece is written below,
and the notation is as above with the additional conventions that all
chords are major or minor depending on their root unless otherwise
noted, a chord with a "d" following it denotes a dominant of the new
key (and thus major), and the new key is indicated by */* where the
first * is the root note of the chord in the old key, and the second *
is the same chord related to the new key. |: :| is a repeat. "b"
denotes a diatonically flatted scale degree, as in b7 for the minor
seventh degree from the root rather than the major seventh.

|1 |4 |5 |5 | Intro 3 chromatic steps below target
|1 |4 |5 |6d | key. Now on to target key, which is a
perfect fourth up from the 6d by virtue
of the "d"
|:1 |5 4 |5 |5 :| Ordinary diatonic
|+6 |5 |1 |4 | New key one chromatic step higher
|2 |3d |6/1 |1 | New key tonic on 6th degree of old
|+6 |5 |1 |1 | New key one chromatic step higher
Now we are 3 chromatic steps below the original key.. a 19tet whole
step. This is where the line "No gym class no recreation..." starts.
Note the flatted 6th degree of the old key now functions as the fourth
degree of the new key by the notation -6/4
|-6/4 |4 |-5 |5 |
|4 |4 -5|5 |
Now we are back at the 5th degree of the target key. Here comes the
chorus, "Limp off, limp off to school"
|b7/1 |4 5 |5 |
|1 |4 5 |5 |6d |
|2/1..... etc.

Yes, there are all kinds of cool tricks you can use in 19tet
modulation. The major second is three chromatic steps and the minor
second is two chromatic steps, but since there are pitches in
between these can be used to fool the ear when they are substituted
for the one expected.The two sizes of minor third can be used to great
effect by using a step wise walk down or up, for instance, and every
once in a while sneaking in one of the chromatic steps. I have
uploaded two samples of guitar moving between a functional 4 and 5
chord. See if you can tell what I am doing here, and what the
difference between the two is.

John Starrett

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#441

> > Thanks so much, John, for describing this process. You know, it
> > seems that in "Limp Off to School" there are quite extended
> > modulations.... Do you feel that the increased modulatory
> > possibilities in 19-tET led you to thinking in that direction??
It
> > would seem to me that it might. I really dig those modulations...
> >
> > __________ _________ _______
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
> Yes, the modulation from the +[6 5 1 4] (where +[ denotes the usual
> diatonic progression but started one chromatic step higher) done
twice
> brings it up 2 chromatic steps, then a 4 -[5 4 -[5]] brings it down
2
> chromatic steps. The progression for the whole piece is written
below,
> and the notation is as above with the additional conventions that
all
> chords are major or minor depending on their root unless otherwise
> noted, a chord with a "d" following it denotes a dominant of the
new
> key (and thus major), and the new key is indicated by */* where the
> first * is the root note of the chord in the old key, and the
second *
> is the same chord related to the new key. |: :| is a repeat. "b"
> denotes a diatonically flatted scale degree, as in b7 for the minor
> seventh degree from the root rather than the major seventh.
>
> |1 |4 |5 |5 | Intro 3 chromatic steps below target
> |1 |4 |5 |6d | key. Now on to target key, which is
a
> perfect fourth up from the 6d by
virtue
> of the "d"
> |:1 |5 4 |5 |5 :| Ordinary diatonic
> |+6 |5 |1 |4 | New key one chromatic step higher
> |2 |3d |6/1 |1 | New key tonic on 6th degree of old
> |+6 |5 |1 |1 | New key one chromatic step higher
> Now we are 3 chromatic steps below the original key.. a 19tet whole
> step. This is where the line "No gym class no recreation..." starts.
> Note the flatted 6th degree of the old key now functions as the
fourth
> degree of the new key by the notation -6/4
> |-6/4 |4 |-5 |5 |
> |4 |4 -5|5 |
> Now we are back at the 5th degree of the target key. Here comes the
> chorus, "Limp off, limp off to school"
> |b7/1 |4 5 |5 |
> |1 |4 5 |5 |6d |
> |2/1..... etc.
>
> Yes, there are all kinds of cool tricks you can use in 19tet
> modulation. The major second is three chromatic steps and the minor
> second is two chromatic steps, but since there are pitches in
> between these can be used to fool the ear when they are substituted
> for the one expected.The two sizes of minor third can be used to
great
> effect by using a step wise walk down or up, for instance, and
every
> once in a while sneaking in one of the chromatic steps. I have
> uploaded two samples of guitar moving between a functional 4 and 5
> chord. See if you can tell what I am doing here, and what the
> difference between the two is.
>
> John Starrett

I need to study this some more but right "off the top" it sounds like
you're using a sharper chromatic step in the ascent between 4 and 5
in the second example.... (??)

__________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:

> Yes, there are all kinds of cool tricks you can use in 19tet
> modulation. The major second is three chromatic steps and the minor
> second is two chromatic steps, but since there are pitches in
> between these can be used to fool the ear when they are substituted
> for the one expected.The two sizes of minor third can be used to
great
> effect by using a step wise walk down or up, for instance, and
every
> once in a while sneaking in one of the chromatic steps.

Interesting how different our approaches are. You try to fool the ear
that's used to certain well-established patterns; I try to give it
new patterns to latch onto that are logical enough to stand on their
own . . .

Speaking of fooling the ear, this might be an interesting place to
bring up Graham Breed's progression in Blackjack, that Monz sequenced
here:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/BREEDPMP.mp3

If this is new to you, post your impressions of this
progression . . . do you hear any exact repeats?

<snip>
>
> Speaking of fooling the ear, this might be an interesting place to
> bring up Graham Breed's progression in Blackjack, that Monz
sequenced
> here:
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/BREEDPMP.mp3
>
> If this is new to you, post your impressions of this
> progression . . . do you hear any exact repeats?

What a cool tuning. I was out of the country when the first Blackjack
discussions were going on, and I never caught up. No I don't hear any
exact repeats, although the first and last chord do sound the same to
me. Excellently cool progression.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Speaking of fooling the ear, this might be an interesting place
to
> > bring up Graham Breed's progression in Blackjack, that Monz
> sequenced
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/BREEDPMP.mp3
> >
> > If this is new to you, post your impressions of this
> > progression . . . do you hear any exact repeats?
>
> What a cool tuning. I was out of the country when the first
Blackjack
> discussions were going on, and I never caught up.

Lucky for us -- you are unbiased!

> No I don't hear any
> exact repeats, although the first and last chord do sound the same
to
> me. Excellently cool progression.

Thanks for your remarks. Monz should be given credit for
giving "life" (including the voicings) to this progression that
Graham found "on paper". Before I reveal anything further, will
someone else who is new to this progression tell us what they think
they hear?

<snip>
>
> Thanks for your remarks. Monz should be given credit for
> giving "life" (including the voicings) to this progression that
> Graham found "on paper". Before I reveal anything further, will
> someone else who is new to this progression tell us what they think
> they hear?

Wait, wait... Graham found on paper? I thought math was totally
useless in music.

<snip>
> Thanks for your remarks. Monz should be given credit for
> giving "life" (including the voicings) to this progression that
> Graham found "on paper". Before I reveal anything further, will
> someone else who is new to this progression tell us what they think
> they hear?

How strange! Now when I listen to it it seems to repeat every seven
chords. Sounds close to 31tet, sort of.

John Starrett

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Thanks for your remarks. Monz should be given credit for
> > giving "life" (including the voicings) to this progression that
> > Graham found "on paper". Before I reveal anything further, will
> > someone else who is new to this progression tell us what they
think
> > they hear?
>
> Wait, wait... Graham found on paper? I thought math was totally
> useless in music.

You mean lattices? He found the progression using a lattice, not math.

I can tell you this: Blackjack is a subset of 72-tET, and all the
chords in this progression are the best 72-tET approximations to
either 4:5:6:7 or 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 -- and Blackjack has a whole lot of
these chords. So maybe that's where the math comes in.

Math is useful for devising tunings with particular properties. You
want a tuning that can do x, y, and z . . . how do you get it? That's
an engineering problem, and often ends up being quite mathematical,
with all kinds of generalizations to the problem leading to more
mathematics. But once you have the tuning, and understand what it
does, you're not likely to use math while composing . . . unless
you're Iannis Xenakis or Brian McLaren and you're composing using
some mathematical process. A lattice, though, can be very useful when
composing -- except if you're using an ET, in which all the notes
participate in all the same relationships with other notes.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:

> How strange! Now when I listen to it it seems to repeat every seven
> chords.

You are correct. I was hoping more people would listen before this
was revealed. Oh well.

The reason, I believe, that both you and Joseph Pehrson heard this
progression as non-repeating, is 12-tET conditioning. If you
approximated these chords in 12-tET, and observed all the common
tones, the progression would end up drifting a semitone every seven
chords. So in a sense, your ear doesn't immediately recognize the
chord progression, since it's trying to interpret it within a 12-tET
grid. Although the pitch level is the same after every seven chords,
your ear is a bit confused because the intervals have carried you to
a place that "should" be different.

If the chords were exact 7-limit JI tetrads, the chord progression
would drift by the ratio of 2401:2400 every seven chords. This is
less than 1 cent, but is represented by 100 cents in 12-tET.

> Sounds close to 31tet, sort of.

Now your familiarity with 31-tET may be kicking in -- 2401:2400 does
vanish in 31-tET (as it does in 72-tET, the tuning this was actually
in), so this chord progression would "work" in 31-tET. Also, 31-tET
has the best approximations of 7-limit tetrads of any ET with fewer
than 68 notes per octave -- but 72-tET is twice as good.

<snip>
> I can tell you this: Blackjack is a subset of 72-tET, and all the
> chords in this progression are the best 72-tET approximations to
> either 4:5:6:7 or 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 -- and Blackjack has a whole lot
of
> these chords. So maybe that's where the math comes in.
<snip>

Is Blackjack appropriate for fretting a guitar straight across? How
many elements in the subset, and their spacing? I am intrigued.

John Starrett

Paul & John,

Subjects to posts make following threads *so* much easier! :)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> You mean lattices? He found the progression using a lattice, not
> math.

Good. We have a progression, found through a lattice; as far as
progressions go, pretty fine. Just like sometimes we have a melody,
or we have a timbre, or we have ... frogs or something. But those are
just components, so let's take it to the next step:

Someone finish making music out of this thing!

Or not,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Is Blackjack appropriate for fretting a guitar straight across?

Yes -- Dave Keenan has explored this in great depth on the tuning
list. He says he knows what the best "mode" is for choosing a guitar
fretting.

> How
> many elements in the subset,

21 -- thus the name.

> and their spacing?

Some mode of 252525252525252525252 in 72-tET.

Far greater versatility would result from splitting the 5's into 2+3.
This results in a 31-tone scale known as Canasta. Over half of the
tetrads are twice as pure as they are in 31-tET, while the rest are
worse.

Further discussion on this would most appropriately be continued on
one of the other lists. By the way, John, if you're intrigued by
this, you should join

tuning-math@yahoogroups.com

where we (especially Graham Breed and Dave Keenan) have devised a
significant number of scales like this, and also try to understand
the general principles behind it all.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Is Blackjack appropriate for fretting a guitar straight across?
>
> Yes -- Dave Keenan has explored this in great depth on the tuning
> list. He says he knows what the best "mode" is for choosing a guitar
> fretting.
>
> > How
> > many elements in the subset,
>
> 21 -- thus the name.
>
> > and their spacing?
>
> Some mode of 252525252525252525252 in 72-tET.
>
> Far greater versatility would result from splitting the 5's into
2+3.
> This results in a 31-tone scale known as Canasta. Over half of the
> tetrads are twice as pure as they are in 31-tET, while the rest are
> worse.
>
> Further discussion on this would most appropriately be continued on
> one of the other lists. By the way, John, if you're intrigued by
> this, you should join
>
> tuning-math@y...
>
> where we (especially Graham Breed and Dave Keenan) have devised a
> significant number of scales like this, and also try to understand
> the general principles behind it all.

I will join up. Sounds interesting. Sorry to ruin the punch line. By
the way, I consider using a lattice to be calculating. Nothing wrong
with that either, in my book. I have gotten guff for insisting that
proofs using diagramatic calculus were real proofs.

In-Reply-To: <9kv799+d3eh@...>
Jon Szanto wrote:

> Good. We have a progression, found through a lattice; as far as
> progressions go, pretty fine. Just like sometimes we have a melody,
> or we have a timbre, or we have ... frogs or something. But those are
> just components, so let's take it to the next step:
>
> Someone finish making music out of this thing!

The "pump" of <http://x31eq.com/magicpump.mp3> was found the
same way, but checking with a keyboard as well. Tempered-out comma pumps
are a good general way of finding chord sequences. I'd like to thank
Joseph Pehrson for waking me up to this, as I'd previously been a bit
suspicious of chord sequences found on lattices.

Graham

Graham,

{you wrote...}
>The "pump" of <http://x31eq.com/magicpump.mp3> was found the >same way, but checking with a keyboard as well. Tempered-out comma pumps >are a good general way of finding chord sequences. I'd like to thank >Joseph Pehrson for waking me up to this, as I'd previously been a bit >suspicious of chord sequences found on lattices.

That's good background on the discovery. I'm sure you will (or can) agree that a chord progression is just a beginning, waiting more material to lift into the realm of music. Architects rarely settle into a state of bliss on the completion of girders and beams of a building, no? So we now need to venture further, and find the rest of the music ready to be unlocked by such a progression!

Separately, unless you intend the effect, we still need more of you in the vocals on your FMac piece! I really get a kick out of it, because it so much reminds me of the Residents. Covers like this sound like they could be in a lounge on Mars somewhere...

Good to have you mucking about with recording/performing, Graham!

Cheers,
Jon

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#515

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
>
> > How strange! Now when I listen to it it seems to repeat every
seven chords.
>
> You are correct. I was hoping more people would listen before this
> was revealed. Oh well.
>
> The reason, I believe, that both you and Joseph Pehrson heard this
> progression as non-repeating, is 12-tET conditioning. If you
> approximated these chords in 12-tET, and observed all the common
> tones, the progression would end up drifting a semitone every seven
> chords. So in a sense, your ear doesn't immediately recognize the
> chord progression, since it's trying to interpret it within a 12-
tET grid. Although the pitch level is the same after every seven
chords, your ear is a bit confused because the intervals have carried
you to a place that "should" be different.
>

Thanks, Paul, for "getting to the bottom" of this! I don't believe
you've ever posted this "explanation" before....

It seemed rather peculiar that I had difficulty realizing that the
progression was repeating after 7 chords... my skills are not
usually so "inept..."

It reminds me of those old "Mystery Houses" in New Hampshire... I
don't know if they have them any more. They were houses that were
BUILD on a slant, as a tourist attraction. When you went inside,
everything looked "normal" (being, similarly, on a slant) but water
would be at an angle in a glass, etc., etc.

This is the kind of "weird illusion" I'm getting here!
____________ ___________ ___________
Joseph Pehrson

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#517

> Paul & John,
>
> Subjects to posts make following threads *so* much easier! :)
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > You mean lattices? He found the progression using a lattice, not
> > math.
>
> Good. We have a progression, found through a lattice; as far as
> progressions go, pretty fine. Just like sometimes we have a melody,
> or we have a timbre, or we have ... frogs or something. But those
are just components, so let's take it to the next step:
>
> Someone finish making music out of this thing!
>
> Or not,
> Jon

My piece in blackjack for trombone and electronics is not yet ready
to be publicly exhibited... It uses lattices to formulate harmonies,
and will be about 12 minutes. But no listening until it's finished...

___________ _________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#519

By the way, I consider using a lattice to be calculating. Nothing
wrong with that either, in my book. I have gotten guff for insisting
that proofs using diagramatic calculus were real proofs.

But, John, this is no different than studying "traditional harmony"
in a 12-tET harmony textbook!

EVENTUALLY, it becomes *internalized* but, when encountering a "Brave
New World" (Tempest) everything is totally new...

____________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#529

> In-Reply-To: <9kv799+d3eh@e...>
> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> > Good. We have a progression, found through a lattice; as far as
> > progressions go, pretty fine. Just like sometimes we have a
melody,
> > or we have a timbre, or we have ... frogs or something. But those
are
> > just components, so let's take it to the next step:
> >
> > Someone finish making music out of this thing!
>
> The "pump" of <http://x31eq.com/magicpump.mp3> was found
the
> same way, but checking with a keyboard as well. Tempered-out comma
pumps
> are a good general way of finding chord sequences. I'd like to
thank
> Joseph Pehrson for waking me up to this, as I'd previously been a
bit
> suspicious of chord sequences found on lattices.
>
>
> Graham

Well, of course, as we "wander" around the lattices creating
uncharted harmonies, some "good" some "bad" and some truly "ugly"...
so this is where, of course, the mclaren "subjectivity"
and "relativity" comes in. Maybe some would call it "taste" or "lack
thereof" in certain cases...

________ ________ ___________
Joseph Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010810083101.00a82ec0@...>
Jon Szanto wrote:

> That's good background on the discovery. I'm sure you will (or can)
> agree that a chord progression is just a beginning, waiting more
> material to lift into the realm of music. Architects rarely settle into
> a state of bliss on the completion of girders and beams of a building,
> no? So we now need to venture further, and find the rest of the music
> ready to be unlocked by such a progression!

Well, chord sequences yield well to analysis, are simple yet difficult to
get right, and directly related to tuning. So we should expect to hear a
lot about them here. I expect architects would be quite pleased at
discovering a framework for a new shape of building, although not knowing
any I can't be sure. For the progression of the heading, Joe P was very
taken with Joe M's voicing of something I only worked out to illustrate a
feature of the lattice. I thought I'd try the same idea when I decided to
write a piece from scratch to demonstrate a new temperament. To me,
that's a success for reductionist theory, so I'm all for more of it!

> Separately, unless you intend the effect, we still need more of you in
> the vocals on your FMac piece! I really get a kick out of it, because
> it so much reminds me of the Residents. Covers like this sound like
> they could be in a lounge on Mars somewhere...

Ah yes! I got the microphone on Monday, and I'm quite pleased with the
results, but obviously won't turn into a great singer overnight. So I
thought I'd hide behind the TX81Z.

Again the Residents get mentioned! I know who they are, but I'm not
really familiar with their music so can't comment on this.

> Good to have you mucking about with recording/performing, Graham!

As long as people are listening, I'll keep letting this stuff out. I like
your Angels Excerpt, as far as it goes.

Graham

>> By the way, I consider using a lattice to be calculating. Nothing
>> wrong with that either, in my book. I have gotten guff for
>>insisting
>> that proofs using diagramatic calculus were real proofs.
>
> But, John, this is no different than studying "traditional harmony"
> in a 12-tET harmony textbook!

What is no different?

> EVENTUALLY, it becomes *internalized* but, when encountering a
"Brave
> New World" (Tempest) everything is totally new...

If you are objecting to my statement, I don't get the objection. I am
saying that looking at a lattice diagram to pull out some structure is
just like calculating, where calculating means pulling out some
structure by symbolic means. Pulling out some structure is good.
Algebra is symbolic, and most proofs are done using symbols and
algebraic manipulations. But there are valid proofs using nonstandard
symbols, like knot diagrams, for instance. All I am saying is that
finding structure in a tuning using lattice diagrams is as valid as
finding the same structure by listening to the sound, or by knowing
about the structure because it has been fully internalized, or using
some calculational mathod. I don't agree with Brian that math is
useless in composition (just because I never do in my simple
songwriting doesn't mean I think it is invalid).

> ____________ _______ ______
> Joseph Pehrso

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#545

> >> By the way, I consider using a lattice to be calculating.
Nothing wrong with that either, in my book. I have gotten guff for
> >>insisting that proofs using diagramatic calculus were real proofs.
> >
> > But, John, this is no different than studying "traditional
harmony" in a 12-tET harmony textbook!
>
> What is no different?
>
> > EVENTUALLY, it becomes *internalized* but, when encountering a
> "Brave New World" (Tempest) everything is totally new...
>
> If you are objecting to my statement, I don't get the objection. I
am saying that looking at a lattice diagram to pull out some
structure is just like calculating, where calculating means pulling
out some structure by symbolic means. Pulling out some structure is
good.
> Algebra is symbolic, and most proofs are done using symbols and
> algebraic manipulations. But there are valid proofs using
nonstandard
> symbols, like knot diagrams, for instance. All I am saying is that
> finding structure in a tuning using lattice diagrams is as valid as
> finding the same structure by listening to the sound, or by knowing
> about the structure because it has been fully internalized, or
using
> some calculational mathod. I don't agree with Brian that math is
> useless in composition (just because I never do in my simple
> songwriting doesn't mean I think it is invalid).
>

Hi John...

No, I wasn't really objecting to your statement. I guess I thought
that when you said "calculating" you meant something negative. Most
people if they would speak of a work of art as being "calculated"
would be deprecating it, I think...

But, I see that's not the spirit in which this was meant...

In a way, composing with "traditional harmony" is the same kind of
calculation. There are various patterns that have been established,
both by custom, and by the way the system is set up.

I remember how affronted I was in music school when I first had to
learn all this stuff, before I had composed a sizable amount of my
*own* music.

The teachers always made "predictive" statements: ii must be
followed by V, etc., etc., and I found it stifling...

Only later did I realize that it was valuable to know the "common
practice" even if one wasn't intending to do it.

But, to a young composer, those classes are the "pits..."

__________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Well, of course, as we "wander" around the lattices creating
> uncharted harmonies, some "good" some "bad" and some
truly "ugly"...
> so this is where, of course, the mclaren "subjectivity"
> and "relativity" comes in. Maybe some would call it "taste"
or "lack
> thereof" in certain cases...

Hmm . . . Joseph . . . maybe you are (I know I am) getting distracted
by the melody, and the poor recording quality (everything got
distorted), in Graham's "magicpump" piece (sorry Graham). Perhaps
Graham, with help from Monz, could just create a MIDI file of the
chord progression itself . . . Joseph would probably have a very
different opinion of it then (I'm guessing).

Sorry Jon, I know this seems like decomposing rather than composing,
but I think this could clarify a lot of things, and I think there's
some harmony of great beauty and novelty lurking just beneath the
surface of . . . what most of us probably heard in
Graham's "magicpump" piece.

Gentlemen (that would be Paul, Joe, Graham, Monz),

{Paul, you wrote...}
>Perhaps Graham, with help from Monz, could just create a MIDI file of the >chord progression itself . . . Joseph would probably have a very different >opinion of it then (I'm guessing).

I guess, if you keep it to simple timbres so we don't have squabbles about "but it beats on my sound card" and stuff like that.

>Sorry Jon, I know this seems like decomposing rather than composing

Yes, somewhat.

>but I think this could clarify a lot of things, and I think there's some >harmony of great beauty and novelty lurking just beneath the surface of . >. . what most of us probably heard in Graham's "magicpump" piece.

I won't deny beauty and novelty; in fact, if more people sought such qualities in all endeavors we'd be living in a very nice world. However, you might be a bit generous when you say "most of us" -- yes, there is some interest, but not on the level of daily digressions on this one or two progressions. If what you are working on is a chord progression that has some intrinsic quality but seems to be buried by other aspects (recording, etc.) and you need to get it together, then do so. And maybe you guys could correspond in a collaborative mode, and then come back and post the new sound file when you've got something. And then go from there and take it from a chord progression to either a complete progression and backing textures/instrumental pallette, looped a few times, that others could take as a 'bed' and put some melodies on, or maybe one of you can bite the bullet and try to do something with it yourself - there's a concept!

We are all for the process here, but I also want us to keep in mind that, for many people, looking at a raw chord progression can get somewhat tedious *if* it is not a direct path, the culmination point of said path being a form of music that people can listen to and see how it affects them. Just as we would find it tedious to have long discussions on the tools of digital recording *unless* they led to some actual results. Fortunately, that particular thread bore fruit. I want you guys to be fruit bearers too!

So...Go For It! But maybe also think about the posts, and whether any of the basic discussion can be amongst the participants and you can report back when you've made some progress? Sound OK?

Cheers,
Jon

A digression about a progression...

One of the things this has gotten me remembering is the chord
progression from the end of "Revelation in the Courthouse Park" of
Partch, the devastating moment when Agave realizes she holds the head
of her son, Dionysus.

If you want to hear this progression as reduced to two of Partch's
Chromelodeons, you can do so from the following page (you must have
RealAudio installed):

http://www.corporeal.com/instbro/inst12.html

(Click on the b/w photo of the Chromelodeon to start the streaming)

[As an aside, and with other examples of chord progressions, you may
see more photos and hear an extended bit, along with Partch's
commentary, on the Chromelodeons at the following page:]

http://www.corporeal.com/art_inst/incrinst/index.html

But you start to get a glimpse of the emotional quality in this when
Partch introduces it in the film "The Dreamer That Remains"; the
opening sequence uses his performance of it, and then accompanied by
visuals of the instruments -- the power starts to come through.

Yet it isn't until it is fleshed out with an entire instrumentation,
and the harmonies of the progression are expanded beyond the grid to
other musical elements. The promise of a harmonic movement is
fulfilled (well, to me) as the setting becomes a backdrop for a
harrowing emotional experience, conveyed with an orchestration of
daring and extremes.

I'll try and get that segment whipped into an mp3 and put it up for a
while so people can think about the progress of progressions...

Best,
Jon

Paul wrote:

> Hmm . . . Joseph . . . maybe you are (I know I am) getting distracted
> by the melody, and the poor recording quality (everything got
> distorted), in Graham's "magicpump" piece (sorry Graham). Perhaps
> Graham, with help from Monz, could just create a MIDI file of the
> chord progression itself . . . Joseph would probably have a very
> different opinion of it then (I'm guessing).

I've uploaded MP3s both with and without the tuning morph. You can set
them to repeat play. I happen to like the distortion, so it stays,
although it's not very drastic on this part.

Using meantone names, it is:

E# Gb *G G G Ab Abt A#
Db D# F E Eb E# Et E#
B# C C C# C# D B# B Db
A# A# A# A Bb A# *Abt Abt A#

Where t is a half-flat. The *s show dissonant notes. That's not quite as
I played it: I added a passing notes between the last two chords, but they
won't make any sense on the lattice. Which is:

Db----Ab
Et/-\-B / \
/ \ /Abt\
A#----E#----B#
\ G /---D
\ /
/ C#\
Eb/-\-Bb
/ \
A-----E
/ \ Gb/---Db
/ \ / / \
F-----C \ / \
D#----A#----E#

The Abt looks like it belongs to the E3 otonality, but is in fact on the
level below.

Graham

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#551

Thanks, Jon, for these Partch "progressions..."

He really can make something "rich and strange (_Tempest)" from
concordances...

____________ _________ ____
Joseph Pehrson

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#574

> Paul wrote:
>
> > Hmm . . . Joseph . . . maybe you are (I know I am) getting
distracted
> > by the melody, and the poor recording quality (everything got
> > distorted), in Graham's "magicpump" piece (sorry Graham). Perhaps
> > Graham, with help from Monz, could just create a MIDI file of the
> > chord progression itself . . . Joseph would probably have a very
> > different opinion of it then (I'm guessing).
>
> I've uploaded MP3s both with and without the tuning morph. You can
set
> them to repeat play. I happen to like the distortion, so it stays,
> although it's not very drastic on this part.
>
> Using meantone names, it is:
>
> E# Gb *G G G Ab Abt A#
> Db D# F E Eb E# Et E#
> B# C C C# C# D B# B Db
> A# A# A# A Bb A# *Abt Abt A#
>
> Where t is a half-flat. The *s show dissonant notes. That's not
quite as
> I played it: I added a passing notes between the last two chords,
but they
> won't make any sense on the lattice. Which is:
>
> Db----Ab
> Et/-\-B / \
> / \ /Abt\
> A#----E#----B#
> \ G /---D
> \ /
> / C#\
> Eb/-\-Bb
> / \
> A-----E
> / \ Gb/---Db
> / \ / / \
> F-----C \ / \
> D#----A#----E#
>
> The Abt looks like it belongs to the E3 otonality, but is in fact
on the
> level below.
>
>
> Graham

Hi Graham!

Quite frankly, when you play these examples with a simple dotted
quarter followed by an eighth, followed by a quarter note in rhythm,
I get totally distracted. The progression is much more sophisticated
than that.

Could you please just play the chords "straight" rather than with
such simplistic rhythmic "elaboration..." ??

Thanks!

_________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_441.html#551
>
> Thanks, Jon, for these Partch "progressions..."
>
> He really can make something "rich and strange (_Tempest)" from
> concordances...

I really wish I could access these . . . it's one of the few websites
that I always get a "connection lost" message from when I try to
stream audio . . . Jon, perhaps you could send me these clips
privately?

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>I really wish I could access these . . . it's one of the few websites that >I always get a "connection lost" message from when I try to stream audio . >. . Jon, perhaps you could send me these clips privately?

No kidding? You are the first person that has ever reported a problem with the RealAudio content! You've got RealAudio installed? It's not a firewall issue (certainly not if you can access other RA sites)?

Answer those questions, and I'll try to do a reverse conversion on the clips (or post them elsewhere or something). Kind of a drag up/downloading again, but I am always the willing servant...

Awaiting your answers, as it may help others too!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> You've got RealAudio installed?

Yup!

> It's not a firewall
> issue (certainly not if you can access other RA sites)?

You would seem to be correct.

> Answer those questions, and I'll try to do a reverse conversion on
the
> clips (or post them elsewhere or something).

Maybe send me the .ra files by e-mail? Try just one first.

Paul,

{you wrote...}
> > It's not a firewall issue (certainly not if you can access other RA sites)?
>
>You would seem to be correct.

So you *can* get other RA stuff... hmmmm... very curious.

>Maybe send me the .ra files by e-mail? Try just one first.

Will do.

Cheers,
Jon