New Music on Soundclick

Micromusers:

I've put a new piece up on SoundClick.com, "The Stick Shift Chevy
Shake". See http://www.soundclick.com/PrentRodgers and look for the
first song on the list to hear it.

Liner Notes:
This piece is based on a chord progression consisting of seven chords:
F minor, Ab major, G minor, A# major, A-- minor, C-- major, F minor, C
minor, F major. Each chord is played 1-3 beats before moving to the
next chord. There are five different major variations that play this
chord progression. Each has a different approach to the sound, from
driving unison instruments, to slow contemplation, to reggae-like
beat, jazz, and world-beat.

Some of the techniques include glissandi and unusual envelopes. For
example, the tuba plays some long slides using the following Csound
ftable:

f331 0 129 -6 1 4 1 4 1 16 0.7857 16 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4 0.5514
4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4
0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314
4 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 ; 0 g30 7:4 D+ to E++

The shape of the function table takes a note from the 3/2 of the scale
down to the 8/7, a drop of 7/4, almost an octave. There are another
10-12 up and down glissandi used at different points.

Another useful glissando is the up and down and back function table.
For each note in the major and minor 6 note just scale that I use,
there is a function table to take the note up to the next degree, and
then down to the previous one. An example of the function table:

f308 0 1024 -7 1 512 1 0 1.1 256 1.1 0 .9166667 256 .9166667 0 ; g7 2
3 1 = C D- B-

This function table takes a note on the second degree of the just
minor scale up to the third degree, and then down to the first. In
ratios, it starts at 12:11, up to 6:5, down to 1:1. There is a
different glissando function table for every step in the major and
minor six note scale.

The six notes I use for minor are 1:1, 12:11, 6:5, 4:3, 3:2, 12:7 and
finally 2:1. If reduced, they can be written as 12:12, 12:11, 12:10,
12:9, 12:8, 12:7 and 12:6, or 12:11:10:9:8:7:6. The second degree
(12:11) is a pleasantly harsh note, and the six degree (12:7) is also
challenging. The six tones of the major scale are 1:1, 9:8, 5:4, 11:8,
3:2, 7:4 and 2:1. In shorthand, they are 8:9:10:11:12:14:16. I make
heavy use of triads. In the major scale, the key ones are 4:5:6 and
7:9:11. The 7:9:11, with its heavy tension is resolved to the 4:5:6 in
many different inversions. The same technique in the minor scale takes
the 12:10:8 as the resolution of the 11:9:7.

There is a good deal of indeterminacy in the piece, where each
instrument has many choices at each point. It may be silent, or play
one of several possible chords, in several different rhythms. It will
always play in the same key as all the other instruments. The time
spent in each key is indeterminate, but always 1-4 or more beats,
sometimes 0 beats. The result of skipping a chord changes the
character of the progression in interesting ways.

The title is taken from a tongue twister used in some bilingual
classrooms to help teach English to immigrant children. Try saying
"stick shift chevy" five times fast. Or even twice!

Prent Rodgers
Mercer Island, WA
http://prodgers13.home.comcast.net
http://www.xanga.com/Music1024
http://www.soundclick.com/PrentRodgers

Prent,

Downloading now, more questions/comments after I listen, but...

{you wrote...}
>There is a good deal of indeterminacy in the piece...

Ahem, yes. I recently stuck both feet, plus a small cat, in my mouth when I mused that you didn't do much in the way of algorithmic work. Damn, I hate being *that* wrong!

Would/could you refresh our memories as to what tools, if not custom, that you use for generating such indeterminate patterns and phrases - is it all in Csound code?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Prent Rodgers"

/makemicromusic/topicId_6068.html#6068

<prentrodgers@c...> wrote:
> Micromusers:
>
> I've put a new piece up on SoundClick.com, "The Stick Shift Chevy
> Shake". See http://www.soundclick.com/PrentRodgers and look for the
> first song on the list to hear it.
>

***As usual, Prent's work IMHO, is some of the best microtonal work
around... Personally, I'm a bit more fond of some of the "old
standbys" such as _Mirror Walk_. I think the *random* processes are
more evident in some of the newer things as it seems Prent is
experimenting with more "open" forms... although I may have this
wrong... Some of the _Chevy.._ piece sounds a little like "Prent
Rodgers meets Frank Zappa...": that's not necessarily
a "criticism..."

J. Pehrson

On Thursday 15 April 2004 09:06 pm, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> Prent,
>
> Downloading now, more questions/comments after I listen, but...
>
> {you wrote...}
>
> >There is a good deal of indeterminacy in the piece...
>
> Ahem, yes. I recently stuck both feet, plus a small cat, in my mouth when I
> mused that you didn't do much in the way of algorithmic work. Damn, I hate
> being *that* wrong!
>
> Would/could you refresh our memories as to what tools, if not custom, that
> you use for generating such indeterminate patterns and phrases - is it all
> in Csound code?

Prent, Jon, everyone---

I am always amazed at what Prent is able to do algorithmically. It remains
exemplary work in the respect. Bravo, Prent !!!

And...I always enjoy the delicious things you do with panning.

It's always interesting to me what a *personality* your music has, too, Prent.
It's instantly recognizable as you, right away. This goes against the grain
of most algorithmic things in my experience, and that's no small
achievement!!

One minor note of criticism is that I'd like to hear more formal
deliniation--sharp sectional boundaries where contrasting themes can come in
and retreat and/or be developed. This piece cried out to me for this more
than others of yours I've heard. Just my opinion of course. One weakness of
current algorithmic approaches is that these kind of decisions *must* be made
by a human, global aesthetic intelligence, and not be left to
chance/procedure, to be most effective. OTOH, the chips may fall (by chance)
in just the right way if you're lucky on a given day.....

As always, Prent, I enjoyed it immensely!!!

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

Joe,
I agree with the reference to Zappa. I've always enjoyed Peaches En
Regalia. For a comparison of one section of mine with his, see my
weblog at http://www.xanga.com/music1024.

Aaron,
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the suggestion about better
organization of the material. I may have been seduced by process a bit
too much on this piece.

Prent Rodgers

Jonathan,

My use of algorithms and indeterminacy is very primative. Each
instrument is presented with a list of alternatives to play at a given
time. Sometimes that list is small, sometimes large. Sometimes the
selection chosen is influenced to repeat the same choice made last
time, or different from the last time, or just random. There are many
choices made per second, influencing articulation, envelope,
glissando, notes, chords, and other factors.

The tool is a preprocessor to Csound, written in Pascal. Details at
http://prodgers13.home.comcast.net/Techniques/samples.htm. A primative
example is here:
suppose you had the following macros:

.c__maj1-1 &C.
.c__maj1-2 &D+.
.c__maj1-3 &E.
.c__maj1-4 &F++.
.c__maj1-5 &G.
.c__maj1-6 &A++.

Then suppose that at some point in the song, you didn't care if the
program picked C, D, E, or any other of the six notes. In the program,
you could use the random macro facility like this:

&c__maj1-*.

In addition, I use triads extensively:

.c__maj3u-a135 &c__maj1-1.o+1 &c__maj1-3. &c__maj1-5.
.c__maj3u-b246 &c__maj1-2.o+1 &c__maj1-4. &c__maj1-6.
.c__maj3u-a351 &c__maj1-3. &c__maj1-5. &c__maj1-1.o+1
.c__maj3u-b462 &c__maj1-4. &c__maj1-6. &c__maj1-2.o+1
.c__maj3u-a513 &c__maj1-5. &c__maj1-1.o+1 &c__maj1-3.
.c__maj3u-b624 &c__maj1-6. &c__maj1-2.o+1 &c__maj1-4.

Then in the music, I can ask for:

&c__maj3u-a*.

The tool will pick any of the inversions of the 4:5:6 triad. If I pick

&c__maj3u-b*.

The tool will then pick any of the inversions of the 7:9:11 triad.

Prent

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Would/could you refresh our memories as to what tools, if not
custom, that
> you use for generating such indeterminate patterns and phrases - is
it all
> in Csound code?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Prent Rodgers"
<prentrodgers@c...> wrote:
> Micromusers:
>
> I've put a new piece up on SoundClick.com, "The Stick Shift Chevy
> Shake". See http://www.soundclick.com/PrentRodgers and look for the
> first song on the list to hear it.

Excellent! The expressive glissandi add yet another dimension to your
already rich style. Keep it up! You should be getting film-score
offers in no time . . . :)

> Liner Notes:
> This piece is based on a chord progression consisting of seven
chords:
> F minor, Ab major, G minor, A# major, A-- minor, C-- major, F
minor, C
> minor, F major. Each chord is played 1-3 beats before moving to the
> next chord. There are five different major variations that play this
> chord progression. Each has a different approach to the sound, from
> driving unison instruments, to slow contemplation, to reggae-like
> beat, jazz, and world-beat.
>
> Some of the techniques include glissandi and unusual envelopes. For
> example, the tuba plays some long slides using the following Csound
> ftable:
>
> f331 0 129 -6 1 4 1 4 1 16 0.7857 16 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4
0.5514
> 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4
> 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 4 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4
0.5314
> 4 0.5514 4 0.5714 4 0.5514 4 0.5314 ; 0 g30 7:4 D+ to E++
>
> The shape of the function table takes a note from the 3/2 of the
scale
> down to the 8/7, a drop of 7/4, almost an octave. There are another
> 10-12 up and down glissandi used at different points.

*scratches head* 3/2 down to 8/7 would be a drop of 21:16. You mean
down to the 6/7? Something doesn't add up.

> The six notes I use for minor are 1:1, 12:11, 6:5, 4:3, 3:2, 12:7
and
> finally 2:1. If reduced, they can be written as 12:12, 12:11, 12:10,
> 12:9, 12:8, 12:7 and 12:6, or 12:11:10:9:8:7:6.

Though it probably doesn't matter on this list, technically you'd
want to write this as 1/(12:11:10:9:8:7:6), since these are
denominators under a common numerator, not numerators over a common
denominator. 12:11:10:9:8:7:6 would refer to the same chord as
6:7:8:9:10:11:12, a "major" or "otonal" chord. People tend to
interpret ratios as *frequency* ratios, regardless of whether the
numbers ascend or descend. Or, 12:11:10:9:8:7:6 could refer to a
decending arpeggio, 6:7:8:9:10:11:12 an ascending arpeggio, but in
any case it would be the same "major" or "otonal" chord.

> The same technique in the minor scale takes
> the 12:10:8 as the resolution of the 11:9:7.

See above. 1/(12:10:8) and 1/(11:9:7) would be one way of writing
these "minor" or "utonal" chords.

> The title is taken from a tongue twister used in some bilingual
> classrooms to help teach English to immigrant children. Try saying
> "stick shift chevy" five times fast. Or even twice!

Hmm . . . I was reminded of the bumpy ride in a stick-shift to
rehearsal last night . . . Just shows you, a title can mean many
things to many people!

Keep up the great work, Prent!

Paul,

Let's see. What I meant was from 3:2 down to the 7:4, not 8:7. So
sorry for the mistake. 6:8 up to 7:8 is 7:6. 6:8 down to 7:8 is ??.
How do you calculate these?

I agree that 1/(12:10:8) is a better notation. I'm not up on the
theory of ratios. I have to reread Genesis every time I convert from
the note names I use.

Prent

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

> > The shape of the function table takes a note from the 3/2 of the
> scale
> > down to the 8/7, a drop of 7/4, almost an octave. There are
another
> > 10-12 up and down glissandi used at different points.
>
> *scratches head* 3/2 down to 8/7 would be a drop of 21:16. You mean
> down to the 6/7? Something doesn't add up.
>
> See above. 1/(12:10:8) and 1/(11:9:7) would be one way of writing
> these "minor" or "utonal" chords.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Prent Rodgers"
<prentrodgers@c...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Let's see. What I meant was from 3:2 down to the 7:4, not 8:7. So
> sorry for the mistake. 6:8 up to 7:8 is 7:6. 6:8 down to 7:8 is ??.
> How do you calculate these?

Replied off-list. Since you are a skilled programmer, I have no doubt
the confusion/mystery of ratios can be cleared up for you, in short
order. But this is probably not the place.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Prent Rodgers"

/makemicromusic/topicId_6068.html#6083

<prentrodgers@c...> wrote:
> Joe,
> I agree with the reference to Zappa. I've always enjoyed Peaches En
> Regalia. For a comparison of one section of mine with his, see my
> weblog at http://www.xanga.com/music1024.
>
> Aaron,
> Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the suggestion about better
> organization of the material. I may have been seduced by process a
bit
> too much on this piece.
>
> Prent Rodgers

***That's funny, Prent, that you have your version and the Zappa
up... Ironically, *your* snippet sounds more like "typical" Frank
Zappa than the Zappa segment... to *me* anyway... :)

JP

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_6068.html#6092

wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Prent Rodgers"
> <prentrodgers@c...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > Let's see. What I meant was from 3:2 down to the 7:4, not 8:7. So
> > sorry for the mistake. 6:8 up to 7:8 is 7:6. 6:8 down to 7:8
is ??.
> > How do you calculate these?
>
> Replied off-list. Since you are a skilled programmer, I have no
doubt
> the confusion/mystery of ratios can be cleared up for you, in short
> order. But this is probably not the place.

***Now this is really a "piss off..." On the other list we can't
discuss music, and on *this* list we can't discuss anything
technical, so it becomes all private email... :)

I agree with Kyle that a mixture of music with the wackiness of
theory is a better blend...

(And, no, I really don't want to go over it all privately; I just
wanted to browse in on this...)

:)

JP