Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic A new '5-tet funkwork'

Aaron,

You've done it again. Your skill as a composer has come across in
spades. Congratulations on a well-constructed and well-executed piece
of music! The overall structure, the details, and the timbres, all so
organic, interesting, and, well . . . musical. Not to mention unique
and original! And in such a limiting tuning system -- you were
constrained so as not to be able to vary the intervallic structures
through different modes *or* through different transpositions. Quite
a feat! I enjoyed it immensely. Is this piece going to be available
on your *next* CD?? BTW, I'm *jealous* of your compositional prowess
(but am content to convey that jealousy as admiration).

Would it be out of line for me to guess that this piece, and your
interest in tunings based on primes 2, 3, and 7 such as LaMonte
Young's, are related to one another? That's how I'm hearing it,
anyway. More on this below.

-Paul

P.S.

If I may be allowed a technical note leading to a lighthearted
suggestion . . . if you start with a JI system based on primes 2, 3,
and 7, and temper out any two of the following 'commas':

{49:48, 64:63, 256:243, 1029:1024, 28:27 . . .}

you end up with a 5-tone equal tempered system (assuming you didn't
temper irregularly).

My recent theoretical work, which I've posted about on other lists,
suggests that such a tuning might sound best, in a certain sense, if
it's an 'octave' of 1195.89 cents, rather than 1200 cents, that
you're dividing into 5 equal parts (for a 12-equal 5-limit analogy,
see /tuning-math/message/8512).

If you and your equipment are up for it, and you'd care to indulge my
silly theoretical fetish, and attempt something along these lines, I
think you and I might both enjoy hearing the results, and perhaps
even learn something from the comparison . . .

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> I'm putting up a new piece on my works page:
>
> http://www.akjmusic.com/works
>
> look for '5-tet funk'. Enjoy!
>
> It's basically a groove piece, James Brown without a full rhythm
section (no
> horns or drums) married to Steve Reich, honeymooning in Indonesia!
>
> For the curious, this was made on a Gentoo Linux system, using the
> RTSynth string and wind physical modelling synth, which I love,
because it
> sounds so 'between electronic and acoustic'.
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.dividebypi.com
>
> OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world
made
> for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Prent Rodgers <prentrodgers@...>

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> You've done it again. Your skill as a composer has come across in
> spades. Congratulations on a well-constructed and well-executed piece
> of music! The overall structure, the details, and the timbres, all so
> organic, interesting, and, well . . . musical. Not to mention unique
> and original! And in such a limiting tuning system -- you were
> constrained so as not to be able to vary the intervallic structures
> through different modes *or* through different transpositions. Quite
> a feat! I enjoyed it immensely. Is this piece going to be available
> on your *next* CD?? BTW, I'm *jealous* of your compositional prowess
> (but am content to convey that jealousy as admiration).
>

I join Paul's opinion. Very cool, and very funky, indeed.
Jealousy, BTW, can be used as an incentive to improve oneself :-)

BTW, like Paul, this reminds me a theoretical question that I have
been thinking about a while ago.
I saw on your website that you like to use asymmetrical time
signatures, too - so I would like to ask whether you ever tried to
make music in 5-TET tuning and uncommon time signatures - especially
multiples of 5? And if yes, did you notice something special - that
certain time signatures are "easier" to compose than others, depending
on tuning?
I have posted this question a while back in tuning-math (in
/tuning-math/message/4616). The
theoretical founding is not very solid - but maybe you can tell
something from your own experience?
--
Hans Straub

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Monday 05 April 2004 06:48 pm, Paul Erlich wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> You've done it again. Your skill as a composer has come across in
> spades. Congratulations on a well-constructed and well-executed piece
> of music! The overall structure, the details, and the timbres, all so
> organic, interesting, and, well . . . musical. Not to mention unique
> and original! And in such a limiting tuning system -- you were
> constrained so as not to be able to vary the intervallic structures
> through different modes *or* through different transpositions. Quite
> a feat! I enjoyed it immensely. Is this piece going to be available
> on your *next* CD?? BTW, I'm *jealous* of your compositional prowess
> (but am content to convey that jealousy as admiration).

Thanks for your positive comments, Paul !!!

This piece, BTW, was less compositional than 'pseudo-improvisational'. You
see, I designed some software in Python-TKinter, a step-sequencer of sorts,
that I guided through and changed as I went. All I had to do was wait until I
got bored, and stir things up a bit parametrically, so to speak. I'm still
flattered by your response for two exciting reasons: first, the software
worked it's magic enough to transcend a too-rigid algorithmic feeling that
often comes from algorithmic procedures. Secondly, you sensed a 'form', which
I did sort of plan. The program will evolve if left alone by itself, and the
major sectional shifts come from the 'stirring it up' that the human user
does to keep things interesting. One detail at the end I planned was to have
the texture thin out to a single note, the specific details of which were
irrelevant for me ave that the last note be one of the highet in the fade-out
sequence.

So, it's exciting to me as a proof-of-concept: with the right sonic software,
and the right program being manipulated real-time, there is musical and even
formal power in using a quasi-algorithmic 'compositional' approach. I think
the musicality in large part came from how excellent and realistically
RTSynth responds as if it were a real-life acoustic instrument made of wires
and wood, which I think most feeling human beings respond to implicitely.

When I think about all this, my caveat is this: algorithmic approaches are a
wonderful way of producing large amounts of material, but without 'editing',
they will tend to sound meaningless before long. The other important thing is
to pick the right algorithm from the start--one that tends to sound musical.
I believe that inside subtlely varied repetition lies the key. Most crappy
sounding algorithmic stuff sounds bad because there is no 'cognitive
packaging'--no way of reducing the excess of random information which tends
to dull the mind into thinking it is hearing white noise and nothing else.
Musical structure becomes evident through repetition (and by that I don't
just mean literal repetition, but I obviously include that as well)

And of course, interesting lifelike timbres are better than crappy General
MIDI ones. I can't listen to something, even something well written, if it
doesn't have at least a halfway decent timbre. If the music is interesting,
it might be sufficient to have only a half-good timbre. Most wavetable-type
synths have shitty violins and oboes, for example. I wouldn't be caught dead
using that type of sound. Quick decay sounds tend to fare better on such
modules, and even though my old Korg X5-DR sucks ass for most sounds, the
percussion is pretty good, even by todays standards. A sampler or wavetable
synth ought to be judged on its bowed-string sound, and most fail the test
miserably. Even bowed physical-models tend to suck, IMHO. RTSynth has a great
struck string synthetic sound not because you are actually fooled into
thinking its literally an acoustic instrument, but that it behaves in the
musical way that a real instruument does in all their nuance.

One more comment--in a way, I was not constrained by 5 pitches only per
octave, but aided !!!! The listener to an algorithmic piece in 5-tet I think
is less aware of any algorithm than they would be in a larger ET. That's my
hypothesis. We could even call it 'Johnson's law': evidence of mechanical
procedure is directly proportional to scale size.

> Would it be out of line for me to guess that this piece, and your
> interest in tunings based on primes 2, 3, and 7 such as LaMonte
> Young's, are related to one another? That's how I'm hearing it,
> anyway. More on this below.

From what I see below this makes sense.....I'm turned on by the way two
intervals of ny sort of comma apart will beat--I love it! And the beating of
5tet holds the same type of beauty for me. More below.

> -Paul
>
>
> P.S.
>
> If I may be allowed a technical note leading to a lighthearted
> suggestion . . . if you start with a JI system based on primes 2, 3,
> and 7, and temper out any two of the following 'commas':
>
> {49:48, 64:63, 256:243, 1029:1024, 28:27 . . .}
>
> you end up with a 5-tone equal tempered system (assuming you didn't
> temper irregularly).

I didn't know this, but I tried it in Scala....fascinating!!!!

> My recent theoretical work, which I've posted about on other lists,
> suggests that such a tuning might sound best, in a certain sense, if
> it's an 'octave' of 1195.89 cents, rather than 1200 cents, that
> you're dividing into 5 equal parts (for a 12-equal 5-limit analogy,
> see /tuning-math/message/8512).
>
> If you and your equipment are up for it, and you'd care to indulge my
> silly theoretical fetish, and attempt something along these lines, I
> think you and I might both enjoy hearing the results, and perhaps
> even learn something from the comparison . . .

I'd love to do something with this info...if I were to work like I did on
'5tet funk', my software would need modification to have impure octaves, of
course, which is a good deal of work....

Best,

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 06:08 am, hstraub64 wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> > Aaron,
> >
> > You've done it again. Your skill as a composer has come across in
> > spades. Congratulations on a well-constructed and well-executed piece
> > of music! The overall structure, the details, and the timbres, all so
> > organic, interesting, and, well . . . musical. Not to mention unique
> > and original! And in such a limiting tuning system -- you were
> > constrained so as not to be able to vary the intervallic structures
> > through different modes *or* through different transpositions. Quite
> > a feat! I enjoyed it immensely. Is this piece going to be available
> > on your *next* CD?? BTW, I'm *jealous* of your compositional prowess
> > (but am content to convey that jealousy as admiration).
>
> I join Paul's opinion. Very cool, and very funky, indeed.
> Jealousy, BTW, can be used as an incentive to improve oneself :-)
>
> BTW, like Paul, this reminds me a theoretical question that I have
> been thinking about a while ago.
> I saw on your website that you like to use asymmetrical time
> signatures, too - so I would like to ask whether you ever tried to
> make music in 5-TET tuning and uncommon time signatures - especially
> multiples of 5? And if yes, did you notice something special - that
> certain time signatures are "easier" to compose than others, depending
> on tuning?
> I have posted this question a while back in tuning-math (in
> /tuning-math/message/4616). The
> theoretical founding is not very solid - but maybe you can tell
> something from your own experience?

Sure. I've definately fooled around with assymetrical time signatures in any
of the ET's I've improvised or composed in.

Here's what I've noticed: straight lines of chromaticism, without twists and
turns or a change in rhythmic value, will force a certain metrical scheme.
But a composer can always force a line to fit their desired scheme by 'bending
a line to their will' by repeating a note, extending a rhythmic value,
briefly changing direction, omitting notes, etc. So, in short, the effect of
an ET on meter is a feature only if you choose to make it one, I guess ;)
Granted, the way in which one has to side-step becomes a 'rhtyhmic feature', I
suppose, of that tuning or temperament....

My interest in assymetrical meters is really not tied to tuning at all, but to
assymetry. But in the end, sometimes a good ol' 4/4 is the greatest thing for
what you need to express--I try not to limit prematurely what I might want to
use. In other words 'Kill your Buddhas' and be free !!

To be honest, although your question is a provocative and interesting one,
mostly, I use a particular tuning because of its harmonic resources (19tet,
22tet, 31tet, and pals), and/or its non-harmonic resources (5tet,7tet and
pals) without regard for its metrical implications at all, which, as I stated
above, can be side-stepped!! Reading Ivor Darreg's essays have really opened
my mind to exploring it all. However, life is short, and I'd rather stick to
a few and exhaust them and know them well than be a 'jack of all tunings,
master of none'. Prent Rodger's work with Tonality Diamonds surpasses
Partch's own, if you ask me (for timbral reasons), and titillates me to try
my hand at using them, esp. algorithmically (there seem to be no 'wrong
notes' ;) ). Ditto Kraig Grady's work (the small amount I have heard is
*exquisite*---BTW, if you are reading this Kraig--how can I buy all of your
CD's ? ) with CPSes....

And, if I hadn't found the universe too large to begin with, I ask Gene a
harmless question, and he comes back with a pile of suggested scales that I
now have to explore after everything else...... !!!!!!!

Ars Longa, Vide Breve, right?

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

P.S. The passing thought just occured to me: perhaps the more 'inharmonic
scales' and 'otonal and utonal and CPSes' are easier to improv and and simple
algorithmicpov in than are the harmonic, extended meantone-types (19,31,etc),
which by their nature, demand a precise compositional treatment of harmonic
resources, or a sophisticated algorithm that would take them into account?
Either way, it seems that one can pay less concern to pitch in the inharmonic
ones, etc., and contruct music more abstractly and more focussed on rhythm,
etc. There is a certain attraction for me in this, but I love both paradigms.
I am not making a value judgement here.

______________
OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 01:00 am, Prent Rodgers wrote:
> Aaron,
> This is a great piece of work. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to the
> sounds as they changed through the piece. Is that the physical
> modeling at work?
>
> Prent Rodgers

Thank you Prent ! And, as you know, you works are fantastically colorful and
inspiring...I look to them as a benchmark of sorts. What's all the more
amazing is how you are able to get such interesting and *gorgeous* results
with algorithmic procedures (if I glean correctly your compositional process
from your webpage description)

As for your question, yessir, as I had mentioned, Linux has and is growin' up,
and now has in its lineup of freeware the *fantastic* string and wind
physical modelling synth 'RTSynth'.

Cheers,
Aaron.

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > I'm putting up a new piece on my works page:
> >
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/works
> >
> > look for '5-tet funk'. Enjoy!
> >
> > It's basically a groove piece, James Brown without a full rhythm
>
> section (no
>
> > horns or drums) married to Steve Reich, honeymooning in Indonesia!
> >
> > For the curious, this was made on a Gentoo Linux system, using the
> > RTSynth string and wind physical modelling synth, which I love,
>
> because it
>
> > sounds so 'between electronic and acoustic'.
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.dividebypi.com
> >
> > OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
> > for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'
>
> [MMM info]------------------------------------------------------
> More MMM music files are at http://www.microtonal.org/music.html
> ------------------------------------------------------[MMM info]
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> To be honest, although your question is a provocative and
interesting one,
> mostly, I use a particular tuning because of its harmonic resources
(19tet,
> 22tet, 31tet, and pals), and/or its non-harmonic resources
(5tet,7tet and
> pals) without regard for its metrical implications at all, which,
as I stated
> above, can be side-stepped!!

Have you done stuff in 22 or 31? Anything you'd like to share?

As for 3, 4, 5, and 7 equal, they are interesting to me because you
can add harmony to them and end up with JI in the 5, 7, 9 and 13 odd
limits respectively. If you'd taken your 5et piece as a starting
point towards creating a 9-limit piece I think it could have made
even grumpy old Gene happy. I guarantee it would have sounded very
different; it would allow you to shape and structure along a new
dimension. If you wanted to, you could change instead to 9-limit in
some temperament, which allows you an added dynamism from comma pumps.
All of those 7-limit linear temperaments, as well as equal
temperaments, would then be possibilities for you to use.

In the 7 or 9 limits, one way to notate chords is by a triple of
integers, incidentally. That can be quite useful.

> And, if I hadn't found the universe too large to begin with, I ask
Gene a
> harmless question, and he comes back with a pile of suggested
scales that I
> now have to explore after everything else...... !!!!!!!

Oh, as you can see I am full of suggestions.

> Ars Longa, Vide Breve, right?
>
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.dividebypi.com
>
> P.S. The passing thought just occured to me: perhaps the
more 'inharmonic
> scales' and 'otonal and utonal and CPSes' are easier to improv and
and simple
> algorithmicpov in than are the harmonic, extended meantone-types
(19,31,etc),
> which by their nature, demand a precise compositional treatment of
harmonic
> resources, or a sophisticated algorithm that would take them into
account?

See above. I think creating alorithmic music in 19, 31 etc would be
easy enough to do along the lines I suggested.

> Either way, it seems that one can pay less concern to pitch in the
inharmonic
> ones, etc., and contruct music more abstractly and more focussed on
rhythm,
> etc. There is a certain attraction for me in this, but I love both
paradigms.
> I am not making a value judgement here.

To me, 5-equal is an *outline*. That is how I've sometimes used it.
It is too bland and dull to simply stop there by my sensibilities.

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 12:31 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > When I think about all this, my caveat is this: algorithmic
>
> approaches are a
>
> > wonderful way of producing large amounts of material, but
>
> without 'editing',
>
> > they will tend to sound meaningless before long.
>
> I seem to be in a minority here, but I much prefer Juggler. Does your
> algorithm allow you to take note of harmony, by the way?

Yes, yes, you like Juggler. :)

No-it doesn't. It's a step-sequencer with some extra features.

> > One more comment--in a way, I was not constrained by 5 pitches only
>
> per
>
> > octave, but aided !!!! The listener to an algorithmic piece in 5-
>
> tet I think
>
> > is less aware of any algorithm than they would be in a larger ET.
>
> Doesn't that take an already static piece and make it even more
> static? To me, not enough happened in an uninteresting tuning.

What is wrong with stasis?

Is Debussy's 'De Pas sur la neige' static? David Beardsley's guitar
landscapes? Steve Reich? Mompou's piano music? Takemitsu's film score for
'Gaudi'? If so, I'm in good company writing music of 'stasis'. If you don't
like it, or 5tet--of course, that's a subjective matter.

We Westerners are always running around, looking for savings while talking on
our cell phones. We NEED stasis. We need space to breathe and think and be
aware of the subtle.

In fact, I would harldy even call it static, what I just did in '5tet funk'.
There is too much gradual and not-so-gradual evolution going on.
Maybe you find 5tet inherently static or not pregnant with possibilities?
I find it a wonderful, small little canvas on which to paint/draw.

> > From what I see below this makes sense.....I'm turned on by the way
>
> two
>
> > intervals of ny sort of comma apart will beat--I love it! And the
>
> beating of
>
> > 5tet holds the same type of beauty for me. More below.
>
> What sort of comma is your sort of comma?

'ny' was supposed to be 'any'....not 'my' !!! lol !!!!

But since you asked, my sort of comma is the septimal comma, I guess ;)

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 12:50 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > To be honest, although your question is a provocative and
>
> interesting one,
>
> > mostly, I use a particular tuning because of its harmonic resources
>
> (19tet,
>
> > 22tet, 31tet, and pals), and/or its non-harmonic resources
>
> (5tet,7tet and
>
> > pals) without regard for its metrical implications at all, which,
>
> as I stated
>
> > above, can be side-stepped!!
>
> Have you done stuff in 22 or 31? Anything you'd like to share?

Sketches only at this point. Nothing to share yet. I like the near-east Indian
flavor of minor mode in 22-tet, with its sharp 2nd degree....

As for 31---it's resources are vast enough to be a bit intimidating right now.
I'm justing getting my ankles wet, but I see that Fokker was right and that
one could live their whole compositional life devoted to 31 without missing
much of anything. It's got that placid quality of JI, too, when you want/need
it.

> As for 3, 4, 5, and 7 equal, they are interesting to me because you
> can add harmony to them and end up with JI in the 5, 7, 9 and 13 odd
> limits respectively. If you'd taken your 5et piece as a starting
> point towards creating a 9-limit piece I think it could have made
> even grumpy old Gene happy. I guarantee it would have sounded very
> different; it would allow you to shape and structure along a new
> dimension. If you wanted to, you could change instead to 9-limit in
> some temperament, which allows you an added dynamism from comma pumps.

Are those anything like penis pumps?

But seriously, I'm a bit behind in the theory of what you're talking about
with pumps and such, and the adding of harmony to make JI with 3,4,5,7 equal.

Let me take a stab and glean that for instance, you mean just making a dyad
out of one of the notes from 5-tet by adding a JI note above it (which would
be equivalent to 5-tet augmented by mirrors of itself at certain JI
transpositions). Am I right to say thhis is what you're talking about. And,
if I *am* right, why didn't you say it in English from the get go? ;)

> All of those 7-limit linear temperaments, as well as equal
> temperaments, would then be possibilities for you to use.
>
> In the 7 or 9 limits, one way to notate chords is by a triple of
> integers, incidentally. That can be quite useful.
>
> > And, if I hadn't found the universe too large to begin with, I ask
>
> Gene a
>
> > harmless question, and he comes back with a pile of suggested
>
> scales that I
>
> > now have to explore after everything else...... !!!!!!!
>
> Oh, as you can see I am full of suggestions.
>
> > Ars Longa, Vide Breve, right?
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Krister Johnson
> > http://www.akjmusic.com
> > http://www.dividebypi.com
> >
> > P.S. The passing thought just occured to me: perhaps the
>
> more 'inharmonic
>
> > scales' and 'otonal and utonal and CPSes' are easier to improv and
>
> and simple
>
> > algorithmicpov in than are the harmonic, extended meantone-types
>
> (19,31,etc),
>
> > which by their nature, demand a precise compositional treatment of
>
> harmonic
>
> > resources, or a sophisticated algorithm that would take them into
>
> account?
>
> See above. I think creating alorithmic music in 19, 31 etc would be
> easy enough to do along the lines I suggested.

You'll have to show me how harmonic music of the contrapuntal rhythmic
independence and sophistication I'm talking about could be algorithmically
generated.....

> > Either way, it seems that one can pay less concern to pitch in the
>
> inharmonic
>
> > ones, etc., and contruct music more abstractly and more focussed on
>
> rhythm,
>
> > etc. There is a certain attraction for me in this, but I love both
>
> paradigms.
>
> > I am not making a value judgement here.

> To me, 5-equal is an *outline*. That is how I've sometimes used it.
> It is too bland and dull to simply stop there by my sensibilities.

Not mine....!!

Some people love bananas (myself for instance). Others say 'heh' when offered
a banana.
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> > When I think about all this, my caveat is this: algorithmic
> approaches are a
> > wonderful way of producing large amounts of material, but
> without 'editing',
> > they will tend to sound meaningless before long.
>
> I seem to be in a minority here, but I much prefer Juggler. Does
your
> algorithm allow you to take note of harmony, by the way?
>
> > One more comment--in a way, I was not constrained by 5 pitches
only
> per
> > octave, but aided !!!! The listener to an algorithmic piece in 5-
> tet I think
> > is less aware of any algorithm than they would be in a larger ET.
>
> Doesn't that take an already static piece and make it even more
> static?

Have you heard LaMonte Young's 5-hour (or whatever) piece "The Well-
Tuned Piano"? If so, am I correct to presume it's far too static for
your taste?

I found Aaron's 5-equal piece put me in a relaxed, meditative state,
one of heightened sensitivity, less cluttered with the usual chatter
of conscious thinking that normally infects my brain. Such effects
give music the potential for great spiritual power, IMHO. As
Westerners, the sources of inspiration for such music typically come
from outside our own culture, IMO. I think some of my own acoustic
guitar noodlings I shared recently touch on these areas a bit. Thanks
to some leads passed on to my by a few members of these lists, I'm
about to begin talking to a few luthiers I've been directed to, to
implement the "Shrutar" tuning Dave Keenan and I developed, which I
know will accentuate these effects . . . of course I'll be sharing
the results with you all when the time comes . . .

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" >
>
> However, life is short, and I'd rather stick to
> a few and exhaust them and know them well than be a 'jack of all
> tunings, master of none'. Prent Rodger's work with Tonality
> Diamonds surpasses Partch's own, if you ask me (for timbral
> reasons), and titillates me to try my hand at using them, esp.
> algorithmically (there seem to be no 'wrong notes' ;) ). Ditto
> Kraig Grady's work (the small amount I have heard is
> *exquisite*---BTW, if you are reading this Kraig--how can I buy
> all of your CD's ? ) with CPSes....
>
> And, if I hadn't found the universe too large to begin with, I ask
> Gene a harmless question, and he comes back with a pile of
> suggested scales that I now have to explore after everything
> else...... !!!!!!!
>
> Ars Longa, Vide Breve, right?
>

Oh yes <sigh>, very true... I have more than enough labour getting
familiar just with 22-tet - every tuning system is a universe, and
every one you enter you do so as a beginner again - this tends to be
frustrating and keeps me going back to 12-tet, which itself is still
far from being fully explored IMHO.

> P.S. The passing thought just occured to me: perhaps the
> more 'inharmonic scales' and 'otonal and utonal and CPSes' are
> easier to improv and and simple
> algorithmicpov in than are the harmonic, extended meantone-types
> (19,31,etc), which by their nature, demand a precise compositional
> treatment of harmonic resources, or a sophisticated algorithm that
> would take them into account?
> Either way, it seems that one can pay less concern to pitch in the
> inharmonic ones, etc., and contruct music more abstractly and more
> focussed on rhythm, etc.

Yes - systems where everything is more or less inharmonic and those
where everything is more or less harmonic (like 5tet) are, in a way,
alike in this aspect. I have used whole tone scales (6tet) in some
algorithmic music of mine, for the same reason of not having to
bother about dissonances. Tone systems with both consonances and
dissonances, I think, require much more algorithmic intelligence -
of course, this is much more interesting, too!
--
Hans Straub
http://home.datacomm.ch/straub

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:

> I found Aaron's 5-equal piece put me in a relaxed, meditative
state,
> one of heightened sensitivity, less cluttered with the usual
chatter
> of conscious thinking that normally infects my brain.

Prent's stuff, or Michael Harrison, do that for me, but to me 5-et
sounds like a single sustained chord. That can work (In C, for
instance) but I don't think 5-et is as interesting as creeping from C
to E and back to C again, or whatever it is Riley did.

Such effects
> give music the potential for great spiritual power, IMHO. As
> Westerners, the sources of inspiration for such music typically
come
> from outside our own culture, IMO.

Of all my pieces, the one which got the most enthusiastic reception
from you was Kotekant, which isn't nearly as complex as most things
I've done, but which derives its inspiration from Gamelan. I didn't
think it was one of my better efforts and was surprised by your
reaction.

I think some of my own acoustic
> guitar noodlings I shared recently touch on these areas a bit.
Thanks
> to some leads passed on to my by a few members of these lists, I'm
> about to begin talking to a few luthiers I've been directed to, to
> implement the "Shrutar" tuning Dave Keenan and I developed, which I
> know will accentuate these effects . . . of course I'll be sharing
> the results with you all when the time comes . . .

Is that related to Shrutar temperament?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> Let me take a stab and glean that for instance, you mean just
making a dyad
> out of one of the notes from 5-tet by adding a JI note above it
(which would
> be equivalent to 5-tet augmented by mirrors of itself at certain JI
> transpositions). Am I right to say thhis is what you're talking
about.

No, I meant that you add 9-limit otonal or utonal chord indictations,
and then compute what the 5-et values turn into. Because of the
particular properties of 5-et, this is possible with it and with no
other equal temperament. In the same way, 3-et connects to the 5-
limit, 4-et to the 7-limit, and 7-et to the 13-limit.

> > See above. I think creating alorithmic music in 19, 31 etc would
be
> > easy enough to do along the lines I suggested.
>
> You'll have to show me how harmonic music of the contrapuntal
rhythmic
> independence and sophistication I'm talking about could be
algorithmically
> generated.....

We could try my proposed collaboration and see what results from it.
How would you like to be the first person to write something in some
temperament or other?

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>On Wednesday 07 April 2004 12:31 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> >
>> Doesn't that take an already static piece and make it even more
>>
>>static? To me, not enough happened in an uninteresting tuning.
>> >>
>
>What is wrong with stasis?
>
>Is Debussy's 'De Pas sur la neige' static? David Beardsley's guitar >landscapes? Steve Reich? Mompou's piano music? Takemitsu's film score for
>'Gaudi'? If so, I'm in good company writing music of 'stasis'. If you don't >like it, or 5tet--of course, that's a subjective matter.
>
>We Westerners are always running around, looking for savings while talking on >our cell phones. We NEED stasis. We need space to breathe and think and be >aware of the subtle.
>
>In fact, I would harldy even call it static, what I just did in '5tet funk'. >There is too much gradual and not-so-gradual evolution going on.
>Maybe you find 5tet inherently static or not pregnant with possibilities?
>I find it a wonderful, small little canvas on which to paint/draw.
>
There's a bit on Complexity vs. Simplicity on Kyle Gann's blog
http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/

I don't think there's any archives for this site so check it out now.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 02:28 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > Maybe you find 5tet inherently static or not pregnant with
>
> possibilities?
>
> Yeah, I think it is inherently pretty much of a snore-fest; the first
> et with real possibilities seems to me to be 7, but in general I am
> not a fan of single digit ets except as a sketch of something far
> more complex.
>
> > I find it a wonderful, small little canvas on which to paint/draw.
>
> It occurs to me we might be able to do a very interesting sort of
> collaboration, as an experiment. If you would send me a 5-equal piece
> in the form of a score, such as a Scala seq file or a midi file, I
> could take it and convert it into something with an elaborate
> harmonization, and send it back to you as a seq or midi file, and
> then you could go from there. That way, you could if you wanted learn
> how this method works. From my experience it is a powerful technique
> and one more than one person ought to know.

Hey, now that would be interesting !!!!!

Let's do it ! Let's try a small, less than 1 minute little appetizer first,
and see how it goes?

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...>

/makemicromusic/topicId_5935.html#5945

> I join Paul's opinion. Very cool, and very funky, indeed.
> Jealousy, BTW, can be used as an incentive to improve oneself :-)
>
> BTW, like Paul, this reminds me a theoretical question that I have
> been thinking about a while ago.
> I saw on your website that you like to use asymmetrical time
> signatures, too - so I would like to ask whether you ever tried to
> make music in 5-TET tuning and uncommon time signatures - especially
> multiples of 5? And if yes, did you notice something special - that
> certain time signatures are "easier" to compose than others,
depending
> on tuning?
> I have posted this question a while back in tuning-math (in
> /tuning-math/message/4616). The
> theoretical founding is not very solid - but maybe you can tell
> something from your own experience?
> --
> Hans Straub

***I think there is very little correlation between pitch and meter,
unless one chooses to implement, specifically, a system that caters
to this (say total serialization of all the parameters...) This is
one reason that composers have varied so in their strengths in either
direction. Take Schoenberg, for instance... he developed a very
sophisticated notion of pitch and pitch manipulation and, yet, his
rhythmic structures are, basically, the old traditional "classical"
forms... On the other end, composers such as Steve Reich and Philip
Glass have fairly primitive pitch palettes and complex rhythmic
structures.

A composer such as Brian Ferneyhough tries to have complexity in
*both* the pitch and rhythmic realm, and some players seem to feel
this is "overkill..."

So, the question remains whether increasing complexity in *both*
pitch and metric realms is really a desirable attribute or not..

Also look at Partch... complex pitch, pretty simple rhythms.

Maybe at least *one* of these "perception vectors" has to be relaxed
a bit in order for us to appreciate the other... (??)

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"

/makemicromusic/topicId_5935.html#5948

> P.S. The passing thought just occured to me: perhaps the
more 'inharmonic
> scales' and 'otonal and utonal and CPSes' are easier to improv and
and simple
> algorithmicpov in than are the harmonic, extended meantone-types
(19,31,etc),
> which by their nature, demand a precise compositional treatment of
harmonic
> resources, or a sophisticated algorithm that would take them into
account?
> Either way, it seems that one can pay less concern to pitch in the
inharmonic
> ones, etc., and contruct music more abstractly and more focussed on
rhythm,
> etc. There is a certain attraction for me in this, but I love both
paradigms.
> I am not making a value judgement here.
>

***This is an interesting P.S. thought :) and probably it seems true
on the overall. However, such algorithmic spinning out of CPSs, for
example, I've found less than enthralling (and I've heard people do
this...).

Personally, I've found that working with hexanys, for example,
involves a *lot* of conscious compositional thinking and hearing, if
the music is going to be "interesting..." I admit "interest" is a
subjective judgement but *I* know it when I hear it, and I'm willing
to believe that others do as well... :)

best,

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...>

/makemicromusic/topicId_5935.html#5961

wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday 07 April 2004 12:31 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Doesn't that take an already static piece and make it even more
> >>
> >>static? To me, not enough happened in an uninteresting tuning.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What is wrong with stasis?
> >
> >Is Debussy's 'De Pas sur la neige' static? David Beardsley's
guitar
> >landscapes? Steve Reich? Mompou's piano music? Takemitsu's film
score for
> >'Gaudi'? If so, I'm in good company writing music of 'stasis'. If
you don't
> >like it, or 5tet--of course, that's a subjective matter.
> >
> >We Westerners are always running around, looking for savings while
talking on
> >our cell phones. We NEED stasis. We need space to breathe and
think and be
> >aware of the subtle.
> >
> >In fact, I would harldy even call it static, what I just did
in '5tet funk'.
> >There is too much gradual and not-so-gradual evolution going on.
> >Maybe you find 5tet inherently static or not pregnant with
possibilities?
> >I find it a wonderful, small little canvas on which to paint/draw.
> >
> There's a bit on Complexity vs. Simplicity on Kyle Gann's blog
> http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/
>
> I don't think there's any archives for this site so check it out
now.
>
>
> --
> * David Beardsley
> * microtonal guitar
> * http://biink.com/db

***Yes there is, David. It's calle "PostClassic Archives" and all
the older Gann material is on it.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗akjmicro <akjmicro@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_5935.html#5952
>
> > In fact, I would harldy even call it static, what I just did
> in '5tet funk'.
> > There is too much gradual and not-so-gradual evolution going on.
> > Maybe you find 5tet inherently static or not pregnant with
> possibilities?
> > I find it a wonderful, small little canvas on which to paint/draw.
> >
>
> ***I also enjoyed it... but maybe about 2/3 the way through I was
> thinking "hmmm. I'm 'getting' this by now..."
>
> Maybe after listening to it for quite a bit *longer* I would have
> gotten more into a Cage or Feldman mood, and my perception would
have
> changed as I "relaxed" with it... dunno... but I guess a
> possibility...

Joseph,

I think you a right in that the piece is probably a bit too long.
Manuel Op de Coul had the same reaction-liking it, but getting
impatient. I had that reaction, too, listening to it the other day.

OTOH, you're also right--certain music should be listened to in the
right mood--when you are willing to suspend your sense of time.

Best,
Aaron.

P.S. I still want people like 'Juggler' without having to use it
forever more as the measuring stick by which all my future
compositions will be judged. I'm not always going to write in that
particular style!!! It's frankly getting annoying to constantly
hear 'Good-but not 'Juggler' good'. But, I can own that it's annoying
for me, if everyone insist on the pointless comparisons....

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_5935.html#5986

> >> >***The *meters* may be complex in Partch, but the rhythms
*sound*
> >> >relatively simple... i.e. reiterative.
> >>
> >> What do you think of the rhythms in the Bartok string quartets?
> >>
> >
> >###Relatively simple... ie.e reiterative... (not to say I don't
like
> >them... :)
>
> Is this term, "reiterative", a technical term? I'm not familiar
> with it.
>

%%%No, not really. I just mean that the pulse durations are the same
and repeat, which is different from the more "complex" non-repeating
style...

> >> >I'm comparing this to, say, a Wuorinen or Ferneyhough metric
and
> >> >rhythmic setup...
> >>
> >> I'll have to get into some of that.
> >
> >***Then you'll see where I'm coming from... btw, I'm not
*advocating*
> >that style of meter/rhythm...
>
> I just downloaded four sample mp3s from Wuorinen's site; I don't
> hear anything particularly interesting in the rhythms... I looked
> up Ferneyhough on Amazon, and will listen shortly...
>
> -Carl

***Well, I never said they were "interesting... " :) I'm just
saying that in some of these styles the composers are loath to repeat
the pulses... everything has to vary all the time...