Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Re: [MMM] Community building: microtonal synth resources

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> All (and mostly Mike M. and John L.),
> > Well, this is what I'm staring at with my Roland gear, and I find it an > off-putting scenario. Maybe a composer who is more interested in generating > the music ahead of time and then entering it laboriously into a myriad of > midi channels would be more complacent. Until and unless instruments > support fully tuneable keyboards (as only a couple of mine do), I limit > myself to scales/intonations that might fit into 12 slots.

Jon,

I don't think this exclusively a senerio where you have to enter "it laboriously into" anything. This sort of task would not be difficult to do in realtime. It would not be difficult to set up an "orchestra" for doing microtonal work. While it will require some work to set up a "head of time", is it really any more than any orchestrator would go thru?

> I'd be curious to hear other people's reactions, and this is only my take > on it, but when the muse strikes, 'perfect' (or near-perfect) is by far > preferable to 'doable'.

It has only been recently that I could say that I have come close to a "perfect" situation, that I can't really say much more on this. I feel I have had to "live" with the things that I have, so compromise has lead to complacency. It is nice to see that there are more options now than 10 years ago.

> Any body have any other ideas?

Can you say "Instrument Database"?

Mike

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Mike,

{you wrote...}
>I don't think this exclusively a senerio where you have to enter "it >laboriously into" anything. This sort of task would not be difficult to do >in realtime.

???

Maybe I'm missing what you were describing. If I, for instance, wanted to replicate the 43-tone per octave version of JI that Harry Partch used, and only had access to an instrument that could tune only one octave at a time, I would have a couple of choices:

1. First, I would choose at least four channels to allocate the number of pitches (3 x 12 plus the leftover 9) to contain the tunings.

2. When composing, I would either have to write the lines and then split them up on separate midi channels for the different 12 note tuned groups, or...

3. Create a keymap, either in some software app or with a master keyboard that would allow it, that would map individual keys on the kbd to individual midi channels. This is the only way I can see to use a synth like this to play, in real time, a tuning that utilizes more than 12 notes per octave at a time.

If you've thought of another way 'round this bit of cumbersome-ness, let me know! I have 4 older Yamaha instruments that react to full keyboard tuning, but I also have Roland and Korg gear (with superior [for my needs] sounds) that only tune repeatedly per octave.

>It would not be difficult to set up an "orchestra" for doing microtonal >work. While it will require some work to set up a "head of time", is it >really any more than any orchestrator would go thru?

Well, as above, I think it is. The one thing an orchestrator does *not* have to do is play one line split up over more than one channel. I've got extensive work with composing/playing/arranging one part per midi channel, but this is a little different.

>It has only been recently that I could say that I have come close to a >"perfect" situation, that I can't really say much more on this. I feel I >have had to "live" with the things that I have, so compromise has lead to >complacency. It is nice to see that there are more options now than 10 >years ago.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you on this! Each year gets closer, and if the latency issues go away I'm quite excited by the soft synth developments.

> > Any body have any other ideas?
>
>Can you say "Instrument Database"?

Is it "data" with a long first "a" or short? :)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@...>

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> Mike,
> > {you wrote...}
> >>I don't think this exclusively a senerio where you have to enter "it >>laboriously into" anything. This sort of task would not be difficult to do >>in realtime.
> > > ???
> > Maybe I'm missing what you were describing. If I, for instance, wanted to > replicate the 43-tone per octave version of JI that Harry Partch used, and > only had access to an instrument that could tune only one octave at a time, > I would have a couple of choices:
> > 1. First, I would choose at least four channels to allocate the number of > pitches (3 x 12 plus the leftover 9) to contain the tunings.
> > 2. When composing, I would either have to write the lines and then split > them up on separate midi channels for the different 12 note tuned groups, or...
> > 3. Create a keymap, either in some software app or with a master keyboard > that would allow it, that would map individual keys on the kbd to > individual midi channels. This is the only way I can see to use a synth > like this to play, in real time, a tuning that utilizes more than 12 notes > per octave at a time.

Jon,

Ok, these steps are still needed, except that a program could be put between the MIDI source and the synth that would "rechannelize" the data to the proper channels.

I am currently working on such a program, but I also think that this could be done with some sequencers (such as Logic, I have not implemented this yet, so I am not completely positive about this).

I realize that there is a problem with "processing latency", but currently my intention is to create a program for a single performer (something I could use live), and all my tests so far I have heard to latency (or should I say have felt no latency). I still get the impression that my weighted controller is actually a piano, and the sound feels like it is coming out properly. Now I just have to dig into the 5050 and retune some things to get a real feel for this...

> If you've thought of another way 'round this bit of cumbersome-ness, let me > know! I have 4 older Yamaha instruments that react to full keyboard tuning, > but I also have Roland and Korg gear (with superior [for my needs] sounds) > that only tune repeatedly per octave.

Well, my solution (not the best, but an attempt around other device limitations) does depend on the synth being about to be retuned on its own, with each channel having its own table. I would like to add the "pitch bend" stuff, but that adds a whole new level of problems to deal with, and reduces the number of channels even more...

>>It would not be difficult to set up an "orchestra" for doing microtonal >>work. While it will require some work to set up a "head of time", is it >>really any more than any orchestrator would go thru?
> > > Well, as above, I think it is. The one thing an orchestrator does *not* > have to do is play one line split up over more than one channel. I've got > extensive work with composing/playing/arranging one part per midi channel, > but this is a little different.

It does require some work, but the only real solution is a completely software based system (and a fast computer)... Or how about a piano? Can you imagine what the original instrument builders had to go thru to build the first Lutes? Where do you put those "blasted" frets? Or do we make it sound cool and have no frets? Leave it to the musicians to figure out where to put their fingers?

If we are now the instrument builders, should the task really be any easier? We are only working with the things that we have at the moment, same as the guy who build his lute out of Pine.

I really do understand your intentions thou, I guess these are things that have to be added to the Implementation list. Our "Lutes" can improve, too.

> Oh, I absolutely agree with you on this! Each year gets closer, and if the > latency issues go away I'm quite excited by the soft synth developments.
> > >>>Any body have any other ideas?
>>
>>Can you say "Instrument Database"?
> > > Is it "data" with a long first "a" or short? :)

There's a difference? Is there two entries in Webster's dictionary for 'data'? Huh, I'm confused???

Mike

🔗John Loffink <jloffink@...>

I agree, getting a 12 note per octave microtuning synthesizer to do a 43
tone per octave scale is a pain. You're better off starting with an
instrument that has multiple note per octave capability.

John Loffink
jloffink@...

The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/

>
> Maybe I'm missing what you were describing. If I, for instance, wanted
to
> replicate the 43-tone per octave version of JI that Harry Partch used,
and
> only had access to an instrument that could tune only one octave at a
> time,
> I would have a couple of choices:
>
> 1. First, I would choose at least four channels to allocate the number
of
> pitches (3 x 12 plus the leftover 9) to contain the tunings.
>
> 2. When composing, I would either have to write the lines and then
split
> them up on separate midi channels for the different 12 note tuned
groups,
> or...
>
> 3. Create a keymap, either in some software app or with a master
keyboard
> that would allow it, that would map individual keys on the kbd to
> individual midi channels. This is the only way I can see to use a
synth
> like this to play, in real time, a tuning that utilizes more than 12
notes
> per octave at a time.
>
> If you've thought of another way 'round this bit of cumbersome-ness,
let
> me
> know! I have 4 older Yamaha instruments that react to full keyboard
> tuning,
> but I also have Roland and Korg gear (with superior [for my needs]
sounds)
> that only tune repeatedly per octave.
>

Re: [MMM] Community building: microtonal synth resources

🔗Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Michael McGonagle <fndsnd@...>

🔗John Loffink <jloffink@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>