Ralph Jarzombek's Microtonal Music

For a long time, Ralph Jarzombek was merely an name under 14-tone
equal temperament in Joe Monzo's big list of N-tone equal temperament
composers and advocates. Since the last time I looked, though, the
name has been converted into an active link to

http://www.freewebs.com/ralphjarzombek/

>For a long time, Ralph Jarzombek was merely an name under 14-tone
>equal temperament in Joe Monzo's big list of N-tone equal temperament
>composers and advocates. Since the last time I looked, though, the
>name has been converted into an active link to
>
>http://www.freewebs.com/ralphjarzombek/

This material isn't new -- I have it here circa '99 or 2000.

-Carl

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>... the name has been converted into an active link to
>
>http://www.freewebs.com/ralphjarzombek/

Well, "new" or not, Ralph will be happy to see you posting about this: he joined the list a while back. Our crack team of interns is busy putting his name on the microtonal.org site, so that more people will know about those tunes.

See, Ralph, you're famous!

Cheers,
Jon

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

> See, Ralph, you're famous!

I wish he'd try another tuning system, though. Despite all the
lectures about how one tuning system is as good as another, I find 5-
et bores me and 14-et puts my teeth on edge. If you added 5 to 14
you'd get 19, and if you added 8, 22.

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>I wish he'd try another tuning system, though.

There's a fine welcome for a new member. Ralph, try not to take it too hard...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I wish he'd try another tuning system, though.
>
> There's a fine welcome for a new member. Ralph, try not to take it
too hard...

Eh? I thought you said he's been around for a while. Anyway, am I
obligated to like 14-equal, and if so, why?

Gene,

{you wrote...}
> > There's a fine welcome for a new member. Ralph, try not to take it
>too hard...
>
>Eh? I thought you said he's been around for a while. Anyway, am I
>obligated to like 14-equal, and if so, why?

What I meant is that Mr. J joined a couple weeks ago, and he hasn't even posted to the list yet (I am assuming he remains in 'lurk' mode). You aren't obligated to like 14, or any other tuning, but maybe you could wait until the person introduces him/herself and their music before suggesting they should try something different. Ralph may have a very valid, personal reason for 14. Maybe not.

That's all. I guess I'm just sensitive to people who lurk, and might just go away before they even get started; not everyone has thick skin like you and me.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> That's all. I guess I'm just sensitive to people who lurk, and
might just
> go away before they even get started; not everyone has thick skin
like you
> and me.

I certainly would not wish to chase anyone actually composing music
off the reservation, and clearly he is under no obligation to please
me in his choice of tunings or of anything else. I'm partly thinking
of McL here, though--despite the claim that anything works as well as
anything else, I find my personal ears don't buy it.

--- Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
> <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > See, Ralph, you're famous!
>
> I wish he'd try another tuning system, though. Despite all the
> lectures about how one tuning system is as good as another, I find 5-
> et bores me and 14-et puts my teeth on edge. If you added 5 to 14
> you'd get 19, and if you added 8, 22.

In defense of Ralph and 14tET, I can honestly say:

a.) I find 14tET interesting. Yes, it's *highly* dissonant, but I don't
hold that against it. It's just different.

b.) Ralph Jarzombek has, in my opinion, done great work in 14tET.

14tET is not a popular tuning, probably because its dissonance is so
disturbing. It puts my teeth on edge as well. I'd be curious to know what
attracted Ralph to it.

-Andrew Heathwaite

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash

A,

{you wrote...}
>It puts my teeth on edge as well. I'd be curious to know what attracted >Ralph to it.

His teeth needed edging? :)

Cheers,
Jon

In defense of 14-tET usability, I'll re-iterate this, which has been
posted on my web site for a long time...

http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Dance/CSPB-16.mp3

Explanation here, near the bottom:
http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Dance/index.html

"There aren't any bad tunings, some are just more different than others."

"Cacophony is in the ear of the beholder."

Cheers,
Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Heathwaite <gtrpkt@y...>
wrote:
>
> In defense of Ralph and 14tET, I can honestly say:
>
> a.) I find 14tET interesting. Yes, it's *highly* dissonant, but I
> don't hold that against it. It's just different.
>
> b.) Ralph Jarzombek has, in my opinion, done great work in 14tET.
>

An amazing thing is that, to me, the music does not even sound as
alien as I would have expected, given a)!
--
Hans Straub
http://home.datacomm.ch/straub

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Heathwaite
<gtrpkt@y...> wrote:
> 14tET is not a popular tuning, probably because its dissonance is so
> disturbing.

Cool! I'll add it to my list of tunings to try!

Paolo

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Heathwaite
<gtrpkt@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
> > <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> >
> > > See, Ralph, you're famous!
> >
> > I wish he'd try another tuning system, though. Despite all the
> > lectures about how one tuning system is as good as another, I
find 5-
> > et bores me and 14-et puts my teeth on edge. If you added 5 to 14
> > you'd get 19, and if you added 8, 22.
>
>
>
> In defense of Ralph and 14tET, I can honestly say:
>
> a.) I find 14tET interesting. Yes, it's *highly* dissonant, but I
don't
> hold that against it. It's just different.
>
> b.) Ralph Jarzombek has, in my opinion, done great work in 14tET.
>
>
> 14tET is not a popular tuning, probably because its dissonance is so
> disturbing. It puts my teeth on edge as well. I'd be curious to
know what
> attracted Ralph to it.
>
> -Andrew Heathwaite

Blackwood's 14-equal etude is one of my favorite of the set. He's
essentially using 7-equal for long stretches of it, and 7-equal works
great for me as a 5-limit temperament where 25:24 vanishes (sorry to
be so technical). 7-equal is essentially the tuning of traditional
Thai music (which modulates) so at least one culture must find it
acceptable . . .

You're reminding me of Herman Miller. Here's his 14-equal piece This
Way to the Egress:

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/egress.mid

And the homepage of one of his alien worlds:

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/gallery.html

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
> In defense of 14-tET usability, I'll re-iterate this, which has
been
> posted on my web site for a long time...
>
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Dance/CSPB-16.mp3
>
> Explanation here, near the bottom:
> http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Dance/index.html
>
>
> "There aren't any bad tunings, some are just more different than
others."
>
> "Cacophony is in the ear of the beholder."
>
> Cheers,
> Rick

> > See, Ralph, you're famous!
>
> I wish he'd try another tuning system, though. Despite all the
> lectures about how one tuning system is as good as another, I
> find 5-et bores me and 14-et puts my teeth on edge. If you
> added 5 to 14 you'd get 19, and if you added 8, 22.

My favorite piece in 14-tET is Herman Miller's
_This Way To Egress_, and I think it demonstrates
just how great 14 can be.

I do find 5 a little boring.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > See, Ralph, you're famous!
> >
> > I wish he'd try another tuning system, though. Despite all the
> > lectures about how one tuning system is as good as another, I
> > find 5-et bores me and 14-et puts my teeth on edge. If you
> > added 5 to 14 you'd get 19, and if you added 8, 22.
>
> My favorite piece in 14-tET is Herman Miller's
> _This Way To Egress_, and I think it demonstrates
> just how great 14 can be.
>
> I do find 5 a little boring.

The funny thing to me is that I've composed in 5 myself, but I never
thought of that as a finished composition, but as a step in the
compositional process. I've also composed in 4, aka a diminished
seventh chord.

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_6191.html#6191

wrote:
> For a long time, Ralph Jarzombek was merely an name under 14-tone
> equal temperament in Joe Monzo's big list of N-tone equal
temperament
> composers and advocates. Since the last time I looked, though, the
> name has been converted into an active link to
>
> http://www.freewebs.com/ralphjarzombek/

***Well, these are pretty interesting. I particularly liked the
humor in the third one...

What's with 14, though... it scores pretty badly on the famed Paul
Erlich accuracy chart... :)

[although perhaps that to some is its charm... :]

JP

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_6191.html#6228

wrote:
> You're reminding me of Herman Miller. Here's his 14-equal piece
This
> Way to the Egress:
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/egress.mid
>
> And the homepage of one of his alien worlds:
>

***Note the "fuzziness" of the basic timbre here, which leads to the
comical aspect of the inaccuracies. A brilliant touch, I feel...

J. Pehrson

>> You're reminding me of Herman Miller. Here's his 14-equal piece
>> This Way to the Egress:
>>
>> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/egress.mid
>
>***Note the "fuzziness" of the basic timbre here, which leads to the
>comical aspect of the inaccuracies. A brilliant touch, I feel...

How is this timbre fuzzy? It's a interesting question. I should
think it would have to be due to the envelope, esp. the soft attack.

-Carl

Carl/Joe,

{you wrote...}
> >>
> >> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/egress.mid
> >
> >***Note the "fuzziness" of the basic timbre here, which leads to the
> >comical aspect of the inaccuracies. A brilliant touch, I feel...
>
>How is this timbre fuzzy? It's a interesting question. I should
>think it would have to be due to the envelope, esp. the soft attack.

It's a .mid file, and it will play back on your soundcard using (what sounds like) a calliope patch. What are the chances it sounds the same on all sound cards? Are the GM patch sets / ROMS the same on all sound cards? (I don't know the answer for sure, but I've always suspected that there are differences between them)...

Cheers,
Jon

>{you wrote...}
>> >>
>> >> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/egress.mid
>> >
>> >***Note the "fuzziness" of the basic timbre here, which leads to the
>> >comical aspect of the inaccuracies. A brilliant touch, I feel...
>>
>>How is this timbre fuzzy? It's a interesting question. I should
>>think it would have to be due to the envelope, esp. the soft attack.
>
>It's a .mid file, and it will play back on your soundcard using (what
>sounds like) a calliope patch. What are the chances it sounds the same
>on all sound cards? Are the GM patch sets / ROMS the same on all sound
>cards? (I don't know the answer for sure, but I've always suspected
>that there are differences between them)...

It won't sound the same but it should sound similar. Sometimes the
actual difference is a lot, though. But let's just talk calliopes
then. In what way are they 'fuzzy'?

-Carl

C,

{you wrote...}
>But let's just talk calliopes then. In what way are they 'fuzzy'?

Well, in a real calliope, the 'chiff' of the pipe?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> What's with 14, though... it scores pretty badly on the famed Paul
> Erlich accuracy chart... :)

I expounded a tuning-math take on this over on tuning-math.

/tuning-math/message/10323

>{you wrote...}
>>But let's just talk calliopes then. In what way are they 'fuzzy'?
>
>Well, in a real calliope, the 'chiff' of the pipe?

For some reason I think the chiff would help. Or would it?

Is it just the 'breathy' sound... or...?

-Carl

7 equal is found (in close approximation of course) in traditional musics of southern Africa
as well.

Stephen (back from a long haitus of several years...)

<< 7-equal is essentially the tuning of traditional
Thai music (which modulates) so at least one culture must find it
acceptable . . .>>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_6191.html#6244

> >> You're reminding me of Herman Miller. Here's his 14-equal piece
> >> This Way to the Egress:
> >>
> >> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/egress.mid
> >
> >***Note the "fuzziness" of the basic timbre here, which leads to
the
> >comical aspect of the inaccuracies. A brilliant touch, I feel...
>
> How is this timbre fuzzy? It's a interesting question. I should
> think it would have to be due to the envelope, esp. the soft attack.
>
> -Carl

***Well, I would guess it's got to have a pretty strong sine
component and few odd, square wave partials, yes?

And the "whoosh"... dunno, but it sounds like a component of white
noise or some such (??)

And, sure, there's a gradual attack.

The best thing would be to stick it in a patch editor and see what's
happenin'...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"

/makemicromusic/topicId_6191.html#6248

<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > What's with 14, though... it scores pretty badly on the famed
Paul
> > Erlich accuracy chart... :)
>
> I expounded a tuning-math take on this over on tuning-math.
>
> /tuning-math/message/10323

***Thanks Gene...

I really do think it's a good idea to link over from this list to the
Tuning Math or Tuning General list, since I find the limit of
analysis on this list, well... "limiting..."

JP

micro1.mp3
micro3.mp3
micro4.mp3
micro5.mp3

Yah, really nice exotic-sounding, whatever the silly theoretical issues
might be with the tuning.

I think that Blackwood's Etudes in tunings that match up with
common-practice tonality the best, are the lamest of the pieces. I.e. the
quasi-Bach things, the tonal fanfares, etc. The more intractable and
"useless" the tuning, the better the music he came up with.

Perhaps Paul Erlich's charts of how "good" tunings are should be read in
reverse.

cb

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
<chris@m...> wrote:
> micro1.mp3
> micro3.mp3
> micro4.mp3
> micro5.mp3
>
> Yah, really nice exotic-sounding, whatever the silly theoretical
issues
> might be with the tuning.

There were no theoretical issues about the tuning, silly or
otherwise. There were observations based on what it sounded like.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
<chris@m...> wrote:
> micro1.mp3
> micro3.mp3
> micro4.mp3
> micro5.mp3
>
> Yah, really nice exotic-sounding, whatever the silly theoretical
issues
> might be with the tuning.
>
> I think that Blackwood's Etudes in tunings that match up with
> common-practice tonality the best, are the lamest of the pieces.
I.e. the
> quasi-Bach things, the tonal fanfares, etc.

I think 22-equal lines up very poorly with common-practice tonality,
and yet Blackwood attempts something very common-practice there,
making for truly the lamest piece.

> The more intractable and
> "useless" the tuning, the better the music he came up with.

I don't know . . . I like the "useful" tunings very much --
where "useful" can be in either a "common-practice" or very "non-
common-practice" sense.

> Perhaps Paul Erlich's charts of how "good" tunings are should be
read in
> reverse.

I never said "good".

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

> I think 22-equal lines up very poorly with common-practice
tonality,
> and yet Blackwood attempts something very common-practice there,
> making for truly the lamest piece.

It's been suggested that a good way to get started in microtonal
composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true. But possibly 22 is
even better, or a good next step, because it is not a meantone system.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > I think 22-equal lines up very poorly with common-practice
> tonality,
> > and yet Blackwood attempts something very common-practice there,
> > making for truly the lamest piece.
>
> It's been suggested that a good way to get started in microtonal
> composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true. But possibly 22
is
> even better, or a good next step, because it is not a meantone
system.

I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to give up
meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major and
minor triads and the like.

It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of deeply
entrenched musical habits.

Even Blackwood couldn't manage it.

So 22 may be a very poor choice for beginners.

31, despite having more notes, is much easier -- even on a guitar.

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

> I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to give
up
> meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major
and
> minor triads and the like.

> It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of deeply
> entrenched musical habits.

Really? I thought 34-equal had achieved a certain degree of
popularity. Anyway, I don't think rewiring your brain is really
called for, but I couldn't play a guitar to save my life, so maybe I
shouldn't talk.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to
give
> up
> > meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major
> and
> > minor triads and the like.
>
> > It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of
deeply
> > entrenched musical habits.
>
> Really? I thought 34-equal had achieved a certain degree of
> popularity.

It doesn't look that way here:

http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/eqtemp.htm

I don't know of anyone besides Neil Haverstick who's made music in
it, though Larry Hanson probably did.

Neil is a fine musician, and certainly no beginner.

> Anyway, I don't think rewiring your brain is really
> called for, but I couldn't play a guitar to save my life, so maybe
I
> shouldn't talk.

Guitar or keyboard, a lot of habits lead to trouble, even a simple
playing diatonically in thirds or sixths.

>I think 22-equal lines up very poorly with common-practice tonality,
>and yet Blackwood attempts something very common-practice there,
>making for truly the lamest piece.

I quite like it! I like the "tonal fanfare" in 19 too. My least
favorite is the French-sounding stuff in 16, 18, and 21 (IIRC).
But this is probably due to the fact that it's French-sounding
rather than anything about the tunings.

-Carl

>It's been suggested that a good way to get started in microtonal
>composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true.

It is unequivocally the system I recommend to others, and the
one I plan to start working in, whenever that fateful day happens.

-Carl

>Really? I thought 34-equal had achieved a certain degree of
>popularity. Anyway, I don't think rewiring your brain is really
>called for, but I couldn't play a guitar to save my life, so
>maybe I shouldn't talk.

It's getting to the point that saying "rewiring the brain" with
respect to learning how to *listen* to truly-22 music (let alone
play it on a guitar) is warranted, in that the techniques for
observing such "rewiring" are within reach.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma
<ekin@l...> wrote:
> >It's been suggested that a good way to get started in
microtonal
> >composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true.
>
> It is unequivocally the system I recommend to others, and the
> one I plan to start working in, whenever that fateful day
happens.
>
> -Carl

19-tet is gentle and forgiving compared to other tunings, and to
someone who has worked in 12-tet much, it just feels like some
extra notes. you can make all the same type of stuff you can in
12-tet, and do similiar modulations. All I did when I started was
to write charts of the D7 chords, the major scales, and the
interval series-and that made it very very easy to work.

also, something which worked real well for me was to not use
letters, but numbers to designate pitch class. my brain would
get fuzzy with all the half sharp half flat stuff, and I don't write on
staff paper anyway.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >It's been suggested that a good way to get started in microtonal
> >composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true.
>
> It is unequivocally the system I recommend to others, and the
> one I plan to start working in, whenever that fateful day happens.

I'm also focusing on it, having gotten through the "try 30 different
Scala files and muck about with them" stage, which concluded with an
improvised sequencer performance at an open mic night. I used the
Harrison 16-tone JI tuning from the Scala archive that is offered
with Max Magic Microtuner, but nobody noticed or cared about the
tuning because of the funny video that was running on the screen
behind me.

I ordered Neil Haverstick's book on 19-tone too.

Paolo

In addition to the message to which I am replying, this should be
considered a belated reply to a recent message (I believe from Aaron
Johnson) asking about our favorite tunings. In my quest for
the "perfect" tuning, I found that neither an EDO nor JI satisfied my
requirements, so I ended up creating my own tunings.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >
> > It's been suggested that a good way to get started in microtonal
> > composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true. ...

I'll start by telling what is *not* one of my favorite tunings (and
why).

19 has often been criticized for its "flat" (narrow) major thirds,
but I have found that it doesn't take long to get used to them (at
which point one will be apt to criticize 12-ET for its "sharp" major
thirds).

I feel that the most serious shortcoming of 19-ET is with the 7th of
a dominant seventh chord -- C-E-G-Bb is too high, C-E-G-A# too low.
Lacking decent approximations of ratios of 7, 19-ET is essentially a
tuning with only 5-limit consonances, which led me to investigate
other possibilities.

[Paul, re 22:]
> I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to give
up
> meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major
and
> minor triads and the like.
>
> It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of deeply
> entrenched musical habits.
>
> Even Blackwood couldn't manage it.

How true! This, plus the fact that 22-ET has no ratios of 13
discouraged me from working with it. (But as I wrote you recently
off-list, I am very impressed with your decatonic approach to 22 and
have been experimenting with it.)

On the other hand, a major difficulty I found with both 19 and 31 is
that too often I was tempted to fall back on conventional musical
habits. My remedy for this was to immerse myself in 17, once I
learned (after about 15 years in microtonality) to treat it as a 13-
limit non-5 tuning. Without ratios of 5, I was forced to abandon
conventional habits and found a whole new world of harmonic
possibilities, eventually devising a 17-tone well-temperament that's,
in my opinion, a huge improvement over the EDO. (I have an article
in the soon-to-appear Xenharmonikon #18 that gives all the details of
my 17-WT, one of my top 4 favorite tunings.)

> 31, despite having more notes [than 22], is much easier -- even on
a guitar.

31 was my mainstay tuning when I first worked with a Scalatron, but
my desire for more manageability (i.e., fewer tones) and especially
13-limit harmony eventually led to my designing and using a 19-tone
well temperament, which allowed me to go beyond the 5-limit-
consonance barrier in 19 (to the 15-limit), once I added 3 auxiliary
tones to arrive at my all-time favorite (triple-purpose) 19+3
tuning. Details (including discussion re implementation on acoustic
instruments) may be found here:

/tuning/topicId_38076.html#38287
/tuning/topicId_38076.html#38356
/makemicromusic/topicId_5829.html#5903

My remaining two favorite tunings are a result of my desire to
combine a near-JI sound with a reasonable amount of modulation. My
17-tone and 29-tone microtemperaments have 15-limit otonal ogdoads (3
in 17, 6 in 29). Scl-file data for these are at:

/tuning-math/message/7574

As for where a newcomer to alternate tunings might consider starting,
I would advise using at least one tuning from each of these two
categories:

An equal division or well-temperament in the meantone class (i.e., 19
or 31)
Just intonation or a microtemperament above the 5 limit

Suggestions for the latter category include the Miracle tuning and,
for JI, the following two otonal sets (from which I suggest one try
out various heptatonic scale subsets), which may be explored on a
conventional keyboard:

1/1 13/12 9/8 7/6 5/4 4/3 11/8 3/2 13/8 5/3 7/4 15/8 2/1
1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 21/16 11/8 3/2 25/16 13/8 7/4
15/8 2/1

Or if you want to explore both 15-limit otonality (on 1/1) and
utonality (on 15/8):

1/1 15/14 9/8 15/13 5/4 15/11 11/8 3/2 13/8 5/3 7/4 15/8
2/1

After working for so many years designing tunings, keyboards, and
notation, I have only recently reached the point where I'm finally
doing some actual composing, and I hope to have some original music
to share with all of you before long.

--George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor"
<gdsecor@y...> wrote:

Correction! This:

> 1/1 13/12 9/8 7/6 5/4 4/3 11/8 3/2 13/8 5/3 7/4 15/8 2/1

should have been this:

1/1 13/12 9/8 7/6 5/4 4/3 11/8 3/2 13/8 5/3 7/4 11/6 2/1

--George

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor"
<gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> As for where a newcomer to alternate tunings might consider
starting,
> I would advise using at least one tuning from each of these two
> categories:

Excellent, George! While there may be disagreement on the
_best_ "starter" tunings for newbies, suggestions for _some_ starting
points are always helpful. I'm going to save your post, since Yahoo
Groups has such a terrible search implementation.

Paolo

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor"
<gdsecor@y...> wrote:

My remedy for this was to immerse myself in 17, once I
> learned (after about 15 years in microtonality) to treat it as a 13-
> limit non-5 tuning.

In this connection, I've posted the following on tuning-math:

/tuning-math/message/10352