New - Prelude for 19ET Piano

My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude. It's
basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does explore the
incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.
Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or other
keyboard) for the score.

Prelude 1 for 19 ET Piano

http://parnasse.com/mp3/Jeff-Harrington_Prelude_1_for_19ET_Piano.mp3
http://parnasse.com/pdf/prelude1piano19ET.pdf

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7433

> My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
> equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude. It's
> basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does explore
the
> incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.
> Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or
other
> keyboard) for the score.
>
> Prelude 1 for 19 ET Piano
>
> http://parnasse.com/mp3/Jeff-Harrington_Prelude_1_for_19ET_Piano.mp3
> http://parnasse.com/pdf/prelude1piano19ET.pdf
>

***Hi Jeff,

Well, this certainly seems to work nicely, provided the live setup
will work effectively. I'm not so keen on the idea at the end of
simply slowing down the same material... it sounds like an obvious
change of a sequencer tempo setting... Personally, I would have
preferred something different at the denouement... but, again, just
personal opinion.

I must confess I'm a bit more partial to the extraordinary Harrington
purely electronic pieces but, again, a personal preference...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
> equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude.

Thanks for this; I hope more 19et music is to come.

It's
> basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does explore the
> incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.

There has been quite a lot of xenharmonic music posted lately in what
I think of as the "meditation music" genre. Very nice when you aren't
looking for drama!

> Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or other
> keyboard) for the score.

I'd be interested to hear how you produced your mp3 file--what
programs, fonts, etc.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...>
wrote:
>
> > My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
> > equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude.
>
> Thanks for this; I hope more 19et music is to come.
>

Thanks! Yup, I've ported my expert system to 19ET and have tons of
sketches. I decided yesterday just to write a piece to get the ball
rolling; otherwise I was letting the 19ET pieces get set back by other
musics.

> It's
> > basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does
explore the
> > incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.
>
> There has been quite a lot of xenharmonic music posted lately in
what
> I think of as the "meditation music" genre. Very nice when you
aren't
> looking for drama!
>
> > Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or
other
> > keyboard) for the score.
>
> I'd be interested to hear how you produced your mp3 file--what
> programs, fonts, etc.

I wrote the piece in Sibelius (which records and transcribes playing
into it with MIDI) and the MIDI output target was my Yamaha TG77 piano
patch with 19ET microtuning params then immediately processed with a
Yamaha A5000 (using it as a processor) chaining an Exciter, a Flanger
(to give it a slight piano-y flange) and then a little reverb. I
sampled that with my computer DA converter and rcorded it using
TotalRecorder. LAME was the MP3 encoder.

The pieces I'm writing for 19ET will be for either 1 or 2 keyboards
and are meant to be human-playable with a computer and soundfonts or
sampler or synth and external 76 key MIDI keyboard.

With ubiquitous softsynths and samplers now, I don't see any reason
that tunings need to be held as a kind of compositional paradigm
barrier to live performance. (Yeah, I know I'm speaking to the choir
here!).

Joe thanks for the comments, I'm writing a big new electronic piece
for 19ET too and will utilize the similar patches (but in a diverse
orchestral setting) as Jardin (electronic piano, bells) and
Lamentation (glass harmonica) and Espace (gongs).

Your encouragement to composers is always brilliant!

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

On Saturday 11 September 2004 04:09 pm, idealordid wrote:
> My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
> equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude. It's
> basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does explore the
> incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.
> Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or other
> keyboard) for the score.
>
> Prelude 1 for 19 ET Piano

This was really great...the only thing that bugged me was the M1-sounding
piano, which makes my hair curl. Perhaps this could be rendered on a nice
piano soundfont ;) ?

BTW, I'm very interested to hear about your expert system that you mentioned
elsewhere. How is it implemented, etc.? What techniques does it 'know'?

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7444

>> I wrote the piece in Sibelius (which records and transcribes
playing
> into it with MIDI) and the MIDI output target was my Yamaha TG77
piano
> patch with 19ET microtuning params

***Hi Jeff!

Just so I'm perfectly clear, the *notation* you are using for the
performer is 12-tET notation, yes, so that all the microtonal
activity is done through the synth?...

I think that setting up "traditional" 19-tET notation with separate
enharmonics might be a challenge for Sibelius as the other
alternative...

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7444
>
> >> I wrote the piece in Sibelius (which records and transcribes
> playing
> > into it with MIDI) and the MIDI output target was my Yamaha TG77
> piano
> > patch with 19ET microtuning params
>
>
> ***Hi Jeff!
>
> Just so I'm perfectly clear, the *notation* you are using for the
> performer is 12-tET notation, yes, so that all the microtonal
> activity is done through the synth?...
>

Right, Middle C should map to Middle C 19ET and then they would
diverge from there. So the first octave is the G an octave and 7 above.

> I think that setting up "traditional" 19-tET notation with separate
> enharmonics might be a challenge for Sibelius as the other
> alternative...
>

Well, regardless of how hard it would be (and I absolutely think
you're right) for performers it would be next to impossible to
remember that note X maps to note Y on a standard keyboard. This is
much easier (IMO) for good performers who aren't microtonal
specialists to get them going playing microtonal music.

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

> JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7447

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...>
wrote:
> >
> > /makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7444
> >
> > >> I wrote the piece in Sibelius (which records and transcribes
> > playing
> > > into it with MIDI) and the MIDI output target was my Yamaha
TG77
> > piano
> > > patch with 19ET microtuning params
> >
> >
> > ***Hi Jeff!
> >
> > Just so I'm perfectly clear, the *notation* you are using for the
> > performer is 12-tET notation, yes, so that all the microtonal
> > activity is done through the synth?...
> >
>
> Right, Middle C should map to Middle C 19ET and then they would
> diverge from there. So the first octave is the G an octave and 7
above.
>
> > I think that setting up "traditional" 19-tET notation with
separate
> > enharmonics might be a challenge for Sibelius as the other
> > alternative...
> >
>
> Well, regardless of how hard it would be (and I absolutely think
> you're right) for performers it would be next to impossible to
> remember that note X maps to note Y on a standard keyboard. This is
> much easier (IMO) for good performers who aren't microtonal
> specialists to get them going playing microtonal music.
>

***Hi Jeff!

Absolutely! Your method becomes a kind of 12-tET "template
notation..." with the notes we all "know and love..." :)

Actually, I frequently *sketch* microtonal compositions using such a
synth "template" just for this very reason: the ease and familiarity,
just to get the ideas and sounds down...

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> On Saturday 11 September 2004 04:09 pm, idealordid wrote:
> > My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
> > equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude. It's
> > basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does
explore the
> > incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.
> > Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or
other
> > keyboard) for the score.
> >
> > Prelude 1 for 19 ET Piano
>
> This was really great...the only thing that bugged me was the
M1-sounding
> piano, which makes my hair curl. Perhaps this could be rendered on a
nice
> piano soundfont ;) ?
>

Yeah, I haven't been keeping up with the current softsynth microtuning
stuff since I love my SY/TG77. One reason I uploaded the score!
Although I need to add some articulations and stuff to it.

> BTW, I'm very interested to hear about your expert system that you
mentioned
> elsewhere. How is it implemented, etc.? What techniques does it
'know'?
>

I wrote in in Amiga C back in 1991 and ported it to Java back 2 years
ago. It takes a MIDI file and for a 3 track file it creates 3
notelists in memory. It then compares track 1 and 2 by delaying and
transposing track 2 and comparing each note according to the
granularity specified in the arguments to the app. It's loosely based
on Tanieev's book Convertible Counterpoint. Once it finds a
combinataion that meets the rulebase it adds it to a list. The next
step is to match those combinations in the list of 2 voice
combinations with delayed and trasposed track 3. It then writes the 2
voice and 3 voice combinations it's found out as MIDI files.

I can be running it while I listen to the results in Sibelius. Most
of my pieces since 1991 have used it. The rulebase I usually use is
to accept combinations of 3rd's, 4th's, 5th's and 6th's and if it
finds a second or a seventh to look ahead (given as an argument) to
see if the next note is a 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. It's a little more
sophisticated than that...

For 19ET I'm using:

// DISSONANCE 1 2 4 7 9 10 12 15 17 18
// CONSONANCE 0 3 5 6 8 11 13 14 16

So I can add that great flat 7th and that nice 2nd to the consonance
list. It produces a bit more dissonant counterpoint than my usual
rulebase for 12ET, but I think it'll be useful.

Here's a few canons it produced when I was working on my 2 piano piece
in 19ET.

http://parnasse.com/mp3/piano19-counterpoint-harrington.mp3

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

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

> > Well, regardless of how hard it would be (and I absolutely think
> > you're right) for performers it would be next to impossible to
> > remember that note X maps to note Y on a standard keyboard. This is
> > much easier (IMO) for good performers who aren't microtonal
> > specialists to get them going playing microtonal music.
> >
>
> ***Hi Jeff!
>
> Absolutely! Your method becomes a kind of 12-tET "template
> notation..." with the notes we all "know and love..." :)
>
> Actually, I frequently *sketch* microtonal compositions using such a
> synth "template" just for this very reason: the ease and familiarity,
> just to get the ideas and sounds down...
>

Yup, the only concession unfortunately now is that the hands have to
be able to fit the piece within that performance paradigm... So I'm
struggling to make 7th chords! ;)

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

With a copy of the midi file, it's a snap with Finale to turn this into a standard 19tet notation via the "nonstandard" key signature function. If the composer is interested, and has a midi file handy, I'd be happy to make such a score.

Daniel Wolf

dealordid wrote:

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
> >
> > /makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7444
> >
> > >> I wrote the piece in Sibelius (which records and transcribes
> > playing
> > > into it with MIDI) and the MIDI output target was my Yamaha TG77
> > piano
> > > patch with 19ET microtuning params
> >
> >
> > ***Hi Jeff!
> >
> > Just so I'm perfectly clear, the *notation* you are using for the
> > performer is 12-tET notation, yes, so that all the microtonal
> > activity is done through the synth?...
> >
>
> Right, Middle C should map to Middle C 19ET and then they would
> diverge from there. So the first octave is the G an octave and 7 above. >
> > I think that setting up "traditional" 19-tET notation with separate
> > enharmonics might be a challenge for Sibelius as the other
> > alternative...
> >
>
> Well, regardless of how hard it would be (and I absolutely think
> you're right) for performers it would be next to impossible to
> remember that note X maps to note Y on a standard keyboard. This is
> much easier (IMO) for good performers who aren't microtonal
> specialists to get them going playing microtonal music. >
> jeff harrington
> http://jeffharrington.org - new music
> http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
> http://beepsnort.org - new music blog
>
> > JP
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...> wrote:
> With a copy of the midi file, it's a snap with Finale to turn this into
> a standard 19tet notation via the "nonstandard" key signature
function.
> If the composer is interested, and has a midi file handy, I'd be happy
> to make such a score.
>
> Daniel Wolf
>

Yeah, that would be great of you...

http://parnasse.com/midi/prelude1-19ET.mid

Hope it parses OK, cuz the bass is all triplets and the right hand
fairly syncopated.

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> For 19ET I'm using:
>
> // DISSONANCE 1 2 4 7 9 10 12 15 17 18
> // CONSONANCE 0 3 5 6 8 11 13 14 16
>
> So I can add that great flat 7th and that nice 2nd to the consonance
> list.

I'm puzzled why 3 and 16 are consonant and 4 and 15 are dissonant
according to your scheme. Is this by ear, or because they don't
involve 7s? Aurally, it seems to me that 4 is clearly more consonant
that 3, and sticking strictly to the 5-odd-limit you won't have either.

It produces a bit more dissonant counterpoint than my usual
> rulebase for 12ET, but I think it'll be useful.
>
> Here's a few canons it produced when I was working on my 2 piano piece
> in 19ET.

Nice! How was this process seeded?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> > For 19ET I'm using:
> >
> > // DISSONANCE 1 2 4 7 9 10 12 15 17 18
> > // CONSONANCE 0 3 5 6 8 11 13 14 16
> >
> > So I can add that great flat 7th and that nice 2nd to the consonance
> > list.
>
> I'm puzzled why 3 and 16 are consonant and 4 and 15 are dissonant
> according to your scheme. Is this by ear, or because they don't
> involve 7s? Aurally, it seems to me that 4 is clearly more consonant
> that 3, and sticking strictly to the 5-odd-limit you won't have either.
>

It was by ear. I'm obsessed with that 7th its inversions; they
represent to me the signature benefit of 19ET. I can add it easily in
though, and now that you mention it I should add it back and see what
types of results I get. It was a fairly arbitrary decision and was
focussed around a way to keep my 'sound' kinda bluesy, simultaneous
major/minor. Maybe I'll make it an argument to the CPMidi19 program.

> It produces a bit more dissonant counterpoint than my usual
> > rulebase for 12ET, but I think it'll be useful.
> >
> > Here's a few canons it produced when I was working on my 2 piano piece
> > in 19ET.
>
> Nice! How was this process seeded?

3 Track MIDI file.

Command line program from cygwin:

java -cp ./ CPMidi19 tune1a.mid 1 1 2 2 20 0 18 2 1 1 0 0 0

CPMidi19: usage:
java CPMidi <midifilein>
1 - Start at 1, 2, 3?
2 - Disallow Simultaneous Entry?
3 - Delay Increment (* 64)
4 - Time Begin (Begin search * 64)
5 - Time End (How long to search * 64)
6 - Transposition Begin 0-18
7 - Transposition End 0-18
8 - Check Increment (How often to check for consonances * 64)
9 - Suspension Increment (* 64)
10 - Save 2 Voice Combinations? (0 or 1)
11 - Invert? (0 or 1)
12 - Augment? (0 or 1)
13 - Verbose Output?

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7452

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:
> > With a copy of the midi file, it's a snap with Finale to turn
this into
> > a standard 19tet notation via the "nonstandard" key signature
> function.
> > If the composer is interested, and has a midi file handy, I'd be
happy
> > to make such a score.
> >
> > Daniel Wolf
> >
>
> Yeah, that would be great of you...
>
> http://parnasse.com/midi/prelude1-19ET.mid
>
> Hope it parses OK, cuz the bass is all triplets and the right hand
> fairly syncopated.
>

***This notated score would be nice to see... but, of course, the
*performer* could not perform easily from it, I don't think...

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...> wrote:
> > With a copy of the midi file, it's a snap with Finale to turn this
into
> > a standard 19tet notation via the "nonstandard" key signature
> function.
> > If the composer is interested, and has a midi file handy, I'd be
happy
> > to make such a score.
> >
> > Daniel Wolf
> >
>
> Yeah, that would be great of you...
>
> http://parnasse.com/midi/prelude1-19ET.mid
>
> Hope it parses OK, cuz the bass is all triplets and the right hand
> fairly syncopated.
>

The parsing got off a bit in the left hand because, it seems, of the
assumption about that right hand melody and it being part of the left
hand part, but it is interesting to see. I really expected a lot of
crazy symbols!

http://parnasse.com/pdf/HarringtonPrelude1-19ET.pdf

Thanks to Daniel for this!

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>
> ***This notated score would be nice to see... but, of course, the
> *performer* could not perform easily from it, I don't think...
>
> JP
>
I believe that the piece would be quite readily played from this notation on a 19-tone (or some superset-of-19 generalized) keyboard -- perhaps George Secor could confirm this. For that matter, since the piece does not use the whole set of 19 tones (actually, it only uses the seven natural diatonic tones plus f#), you could just map 12 out of 19 and play it straight through on an everyday 12tet keyboard.

Daniel Wolf

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> It was by ear. I'm obsessed with that 7th its inversions; they
> represent to me the signature benefit of 19ET. I can add it easily in
> though, and now that you mention it I should add it back and see what
> types of results I get. It was a fairly arbitrary decision and was
> focussed around a way to keep my 'sound' kinda bluesy, simultaneous
> major/minor. Maybe I'll make it an argument to the CPMidi19 program.

Interesting. The mediant of 10/9 and 9/8 is 19/17, and that is pretty
close to 3 steps of 19-et, though 81-et, another meantone system,
pretty well nails it if that is what you are really grooving on.
However, that is speculative--have you tried various tunings of this
interval and found where the sweet spot for you lies?

If the meantone of a meantone system is exactly 19/17, then two fifths
are 38/17 and the meantone fifth is sqrt(38/17), which is 696.279
cents. This is right in an optimal meantone (my "poptimal") range for
meantone. It would be interesting to see what you think of 81 in the
place of 19, from your ear's point of hearing.

Another thing you might try is the 7-limit consonance set for
19-equal, which goes 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15. However 31 (or
81, or 50) you might find even nicer than 19 for this sort of thing.

> Command line program from cygwin:

Is CPMidi available to all and sundry?

On Sunday 12 September 2004 01:17 pm, idealordid wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> > BTW, I'm very interested to hear about your expert system that you
>
> mentioned
>
> > elsewhere. How is it implemented, etc.? What techniques does it
>
> 'know'?
>
>
> I wrote in in Amiga C back in 1991 and ported it to Java back 2 years
> ago. It takes a MIDI file and for a 3 track file it creates 3
> notelists in memory. It then compares track 1 and 2 by delaying and
> transposing track 2 and comparing each note according to the
> granularity specified in the arguments to the app. It's loosely based
> on Tanieev's book Convertible Counterpoint. Once it finds a
> combinataion that meets the rulebase it adds it to a list. The next
> step is to match those combinations in the list of 2 voice
> combinations with delayed and trasposed track 3. It then writes the 2
> voice and 3 voice combinations it's found out as MIDI files.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this algorithm bear any resemblance to the
one used for the ILIAC suite by Hiller and Issacson? It sound sort of like a
'rule-based sieve' approach.

This stuff fascinates me!

> I can be running it while I listen to the results in Sibelius. Most
> of my pieces since 1991 have used it. The rulebase I usually use is
> to accept combinations of 3rd's, 4th's, 5th's and 6th's and if it
> finds a second or a seventh to look ahead (given as an argument) to
> see if the next note is a 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. It's a little more
> sophisticated than that...
>
> For 19ET I'm using:
>
> // DISSONANCE 1 2 4 7 9 10 12 15 17 18
> // CONSONANCE 0 3 5 6 8 11 13 14 16
>
> So I can add that great flat 7th and that nice 2nd to the consonance
> list. It produces a bit more dissonant counterpoint than my usual
> rulebase for 12ET, but I think it'll be useful.

If I read you correctly, you prefer the 16th step of 19 to the 15th step of 19
(which I prefer, finding it more 'blue-notey'). I find it rather more
consonant than it's inversion, last time I checked, but even then, I've more
used its effect (in my piece 'The Juggler') more as a passing tone, whereas I
find terraced modulation by both 4 of 19 steps, and it's inversion, 5 of 19
steps, to be absolutely delightful. Again, 'Juggler' was all about that !!

> Here's a few canons it produced when I was working on my 2 piano piece
> in 19ET.
>
> http://parnasse.com/mp3/piano19-counterpoint-harrington.mp3

Wow, this is incredibly exciting !!! I bet this has the potential to make one
a helluva lot more prolific in some ways, but I guss one also has to 'weed
out' the undesirable results. How have you found its effects to be on your
process? (This all reminds me of the whole David Cope experiment in AI music
written in LISP, a very romanticized AI language)

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7449

>
> I wrote in in Amiga C back in 1991 and ported it to Java back 2
years
> ago. It takes a MIDI file and for a 3 track file it creates 3
> notelists in memory. It then compares track 1 and 2 by delaying and
> transposing track 2 and comparing each note according to the
> granularity specified in the arguments to the app. It's loosely
based
> on Tanieev's book Convertible Counterpoint. Once it finds a
> combinataion that meets the rulebase it adds it to a list. The next
> step is to match those combinations in the list of 2 voice
> combinations with delayed and trasposed track 3. It then writes
the 2
> voice and 3 voice combinations it's found out as MIDI files.
>

***Hi Jeff,

I had no idea that this piece was "algo comp." Actually, that fact
is a great compliment, I think...

Joe Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7449
>
> >
> > I wrote in in Amiga C back in 1991 and ported it to Java back 2
> years
> > ago. It takes a MIDI file and for a 3 track file it creates 3
> > notelists in memory. It then compares track 1 and 2 by delaying and
> > transposing track 2 and comparing each note according to the
> > granularity specified in the arguments to the app. It's loosely
> based
> > on Tanieev's book Convertible Counterpoint. Once it finds a
> > combinataion that meets the rulebase it adds it to a list. The next
> > step is to match those combinations in the list of 2 voice
> > combinations with delayed and trasposed track 3. It then writes
> the 2
> > voice and 3 voice combinations it's found out as MIDI files.
> >
>
>
> ***Hi Jeff,
>
> I had no idea that this piece was "algo comp." Actually, that fact
> is a great compliment, I think...
>
> Joe Pehrson

No, Joe, it has no algo in it nor does it use my expert system. I was
just talking about how I'd ported the expert system to support 19ET.
I've rarely used any algo stuff in my music; part of my 1st symphony
has some Markov chain variants of the major tune, and I've used some
little programs I've written to find salient characteristics of a tune
and warp them a bit, but by the time I've picked all the sections I'm
going to use and tweak them, there's really not much that is
'generated.'

About Gene's request for the program itself, its not PD and I have no
plans to make it PD. There's enough bad counterpoint out there
already without me contributing to it! ;)

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> On Sunday 12 September 2004 01:17 pm, idealordid wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
> >
> > <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
>
> > > BTW, I'm very interested to hear about your expert system that you
> >
> > mentioned
> >
> > > elsewhere. How is it implemented, etc.? What techniques does it
> >
> > 'know'?
> >
> >
> > I wrote in in Amiga C back in 1991 and ported it to Java back 2 years
> > ago. It takes a MIDI file and for a 3 track file it creates 3
> > notelists in memory. It then compares track 1 and 2 by delaying and
> > transposing track 2 and comparing each note according to the
> > granularity specified in the arguments to the app. It's loosely based
> > on Tanieev's book Convertible Counterpoint. Once it finds a
> > combinataion that meets the rulebase it adds it to a list. The next
> > step is to match those combinations in the list of 2 voice
> > combinations with delayed and trasposed track 3. It then writes the 2
> > voice and 3 voice combinations it's found out as MIDI files.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this algorithm bear any
resemblance to the
> one used for the ILIAC suite by Hiller and Issacson? It sound sort
of like a
> 'rule-based sieve' approach.
>

Exactly, with the search space being all of the possible delays and
transpositions of the 3 tracks. FWIW, I've had it up to 6 tracks - on
my Amiga, but I haven't ported that to Java yet.

> This stuff fascinates me!
>
> > I can be running it while I listen to the results in Sibelius. Most
> > of my pieces since 1991 have used it. The rulebase I usually use is
> > to accept combinations of 3rd's, 4th's, 5th's and 6th's and if it
> > finds a second or a seventh to look ahead (given as an argument) to
> > see if the next note is a 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. It's a little more
> > sophisticated than that...
> >
> > For 19ET I'm using:
> >
> > // DISSONANCE 1 2 4 7 9 10 12 15 17 18
> > // CONSONANCE 0 3 5 6 8 11 13 14 16
> >
> > So I can add that great flat 7th and that nice 2nd to the consonance
> > list. It produces a bit more dissonant counterpoint than my usual
> > rulebase for 12ET, but I think it'll be useful.
>
> If I read you correctly, you prefer the 16th step of 19 to the 15th
step of 19
> (which I prefer, finding it more 'blue-notey'). I find it rather more
> consonant than it's inversion, last time I checked, but even then,
I've more
> used its effect (in my piece 'The Juggler') more as a passing tone,
whereas I
> find terraced modulation by both 4 of 19 steps, and it's inversion,
5 of 19
> steps, to be absolutely delightful. Again, 'Juggler' was all about
that !!

I'll have to check it out. Was looking at your band site - is it there?

>
> > Here's a few canons it produced when I was working on my 2 piano piece
> > in 19ET.
> >
> > http://parnasse.com/mp3/piano19-counterpoint-harrington.mp3
>
> Wow, this is incredibly exciting !!! I bet this has the potential to
make one
> a helluva lot more prolific in some ways, but I guss one also has to
'weed
> out' the undesirable results. How have you found its effects to be
on your
> process? (This all reminds me of the whole David Cope experiment in
AI music
> written in LISP, a very romanticized AI language)
>

I've been using it since 1991 when I basically reverse engineered my
composition of the retrograde canons in my first piano prelude and
realized that that work could be done by a computer. Several problems
though, including the one you mention. I sometimes get literally
thousands of examples and have little or no way to filter out the
best. And sometimes I get no examples. I've written a Genetic front
end that looks for optimal spacings between holes in the tunes
themselves and that was cool, but it favored really long boring holes
and I dropped that. Should get back to it, but only so much time for
music.

The Acid Bach pieces of mine and most of my chamber music are full of
canons produced with the system. I started out writing the system in
Scheme (Lisp child) but I ended up needing the direct system calls for
MIDI file writes and stuff.

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

On Monday 13 September 2004 10:57 am, idealordid wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"

> > If I read you correctly, you prefer the 16th step of 19 to the 15th
> > step of 19 (which I prefer, finding it more 'blue-notey'). I find it
> > rather more
> > consonant than it's inversion, last time I checked, but even then,
> > I've more used its effect (in my piece 'The Juggler') more as a passing
> > tone, whereas I find terraced modulation by both 4 of 19 steps, and it's
> > inversion, 5 of 19 steps, to be absolutely delightful. Again, 'Juggler'
> > was all about that !!

> I'll have to check it out. Was looking at your band site - is it there?

It's at http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/juggler.mp3

> > > Here's a few canons it produced when I was working on my 2 piano piece
> > > in 19ET.
> > >
> > > http://parnasse.com/mp3/piano19-counterpoint-harrington.mp3
> >
> > Wow, this is incredibly exciting !!! I bet this has the potential to
> > make one
> > a helluva lot more prolific in some ways, but I guess one also has to
> > 'weed out' the undesirable results. How have you found its effects to be
> > on you process? (This all reminds me of the whole David Cope experiment in
> >AI music written in LISP, a very romanticized AI language)
>
> I've been using it since 1991 when I basically reverse engineered my
> composition of the retrograde canons in my first piano prelude and
> realized that that work could be done by a computer. Several problems
> though, including the one you mention. I sometimes get literally
> thousands of examples and have little or no way to filter out the
> best. And sometimes I get no examples. I've written a Genetic front
> end that looks for optimal spacings between holes in the tunes
> themselves and that was cool, but it favored really long boring holes
> and I dropped that. Should get back to it, but only so much time for
> music.

There is no substitute for a pair of ears wired to tasteful human wetware.

> The Acid Bach pieces of mine and most of my chamber music are full of
> canons produced with the system. I started out writing the system in
> Scheme (Lisp child) but I ended up needing the direct system calls for
> MIDI file writes and stuff.

I thought you could make system calls from Scheme (maybe they have to be
foreign interface calls via C---one could use 'SWIG')? But why use Scheme if
you could use Python (or Java as you have done) and do away with poor
outdated libraries and old-school 'parentheses are elegant' religion?
(although part of me still has an attachment to a certain purity that comes
with LISP and it's dialects---but I find them more theoretically attractive
than day-to-day usable)

So you made the right choice of language, I think, although Java has as almost
as many of C's downsides (syntactically speaking) as it does it's virtues
(being a universal systems language). Plus, it suffers from being a
hyped-out-the-wazoo language.

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

Aaron (and Jeff by default!),

{you wrote...}
>There is no substitute for a pair of ears wired to tasteful human wetware.

Wouldn't it be great to have a monument somewhere, displaying this very phrase? :) Absolute truth, in just 14 words...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2004 10:57 am, idealordid wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>
> > > If I read you correctly, you prefer the 16th step of 19 to the 15th
> > > step of 19 (which I prefer, finding it more 'blue-notey'). I
find it
> > > rather more
> > > consonant than it's inversion, last time I checked, but even then,
> > > I've more used its effect (in my piece 'The Juggler') more as a
passing
> > > tone, whereas I find terraced modulation by both 4 of 19 steps,
and it's
> > > inversion, 5 of 19 steps, to be absolutely delightful. Again,
'Juggler'
> > > was all about that !!
>

Yeah that's nice. Just got a chance to check it out. That type of
modulation is the main reason I want to stay with ET tunings. One
comment, though (and I first heard it levelled at Partch) its a bit
difficult to hear the beautiful chords on harpshichords (or other
non-sustaining instruments). Nice piece, though, for sure.

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> About Gene's request for the program itself, its not PD and I have no
> plans to make it PD. There's enough bad counterpoint out there
> already without me contributing to it! ;)

That's OK--I use Maple to cook up my bad counterpoint already.

Jeff, good to hear from you and good to hear you're working in 19!
can't wait to hear more of what you come up with

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
> My first piece resulting from my recent explorations of the 19
> equal-tempered tuning has been finished, a short prelude. It's
> basically a floating piece with minimal drama, but it does explore
the
> incredibly in tune chords and resonances that this tuning allows.
> Written in standard notation, assuming a MIDI sampled piano (or
other
> keyboard) for the score.
>
> Prelude 1 for 19 ET Piano
>
> http://parnasse.com/mp3/Jeff-Harrington_Prelude_1_for_19ET_Piano.mp3
> http://parnasse.com/pdf/prelude1piano19ET.pdf
>
> jeff harrington
> http://jeffharrington.org - new music
> http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
> http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7465

> > ***Hi Jeff,
> >
> > I had no idea that this piece was "algo comp." Actually, that
fact
> > is a great compliment, I think...
> >
> > Joe Pehrson
>
> No, Joe, it has no algo in it nor does it use my expert system. I
was
> just talking about how I'd ported the expert system to support
19ET.
> I've rarely used any algo stuff in my music; part of my 1st symphony
> has some Markov chain variants of the major tune, and I've used some
> little programs I've written to find salient characteristics of a
tune
> and warp them a bit, but by the time I've picked all the sections
I'm
> going to use and tweak them, there's really not much that is
> 'generated.'

***Got it! Thanks, Jeff! Well, it certainly didn't *sound* like
algocomp...

best,

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7466

>
> I've been using it since 1991 when I basically reverse engineered my
> composition of the retrograde canons in my first piano prelude and
> realized that that work could be done by a computer. Several
problems
> though, including the one you mention. I sometimes get literally
> thousands of examples and have little or no way to filter out the
> best. And sometimes I get no examples. I've written a Genetic
front
> end that looks for optimal spacings between holes in the tunes
> themselves and that was cool, but it favored really long boring
holes
> and I dropped that. Should get back to it, but only so much time
for
> music.
>

***Hi Jeff,

Well, now I'm totally confused, which is nothing new... :)

Just what part of your composing is done by machine, and what part
is "through composed..."

Do you use the computer to find various sonorities and counterpoint
and then take it from there...??

Now I'm curious, but a bit mystified... I guess I'm not following it
as easily as I should...

Thanks!

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7466
>
> >
> > I've been using it since 1991 when I basically reverse engineered my
> > composition of the retrograde canons in my first piano prelude and
> > realized that that work could be done by a computer. Several
> problems
> > though, including the one you mention. I sometimes get literally
> > thousands of examples and have little or no way to filter out the
> > best. And sometimes I get no examples. I've written a Genetic
> front
> > end that looks for optimal spacings between holes in the tunes
> > themselves and that was cool, but it favored really long boring
> holes
> > and I dropped that. Should get back to it, but only so much time
> for
> > music.
> >
>
>
> ***Hi Jeff,
>
> Well, now I'm totally confused, which is nothing new... :)
>

Sorry... evidently not explaining myself well or perhaps exposing my
self-definitions.

> Just what part of your composing is done by machine, and what part
> is "through composed..."
>

I use chunks of counterpoint which are 'found' by my expert system. I
always have to write bridge materials and even add layers to make them
usable. The tunes are always written by me. For example, the fugue
in Bluestrider was written by finding 4-7 measure contrapuntal
sections and then adding a layer here and there the old-fashioned way.

As I explained before, my expert system takes pre-composed melodies
and just looks for ways they can be arrangaed nicely according to my
personal counterpoint rules. That MP3 I put up of 19ET sections is an
example of the types of output sections I get.

http://parnasse.com/mp3/piano19-counterpoint-harrington.mp3

You obviously can't write a piece with just those types of sections,
you need to write introductions, bridges, climaxing sections, etc...
Although I have one piece, CDIGE, or Piano Prelude #4 which is one
massive search. I wrote an extremely long melody with builtin
augmentation and performed a search with my expert system that took 3
days on my old Amiga 1000. But it resulted in this one giant section
of counterpoint. I've always wanted to use that process again, but it
takes a lot of prepartory work.

http://parnasse.com/PRELUDE4.MID

I'm probably resisting calling the use of my expert system algorithmic
composition and that is the main source of our semantic difficulties.

> Do you use the computer to find various sonorities and counterpoint
> and then take it from there...??
>

I use computer processes to develop material sometimes. I will take a
tune and run a program that converts it to a series of intervals and
timings and then I'll remap the intervals and timings. I've only used
that type of process in a few tiny sections of a few pieces. A lot of
the music that I know you like from me, doesn't use any computer
processes at all. Jardin des Meirvelles, Kin-hin. The Acid Bach
suite was composed almost entirely except for bridge passages with the
help of a quartertone version of my expert system.

Hope that makes more sense! ;)

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

On Monday 13 September 2004 02:42 pm, idealordid wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
>> [reference to 'Juggler', etc. ]

> Yeah that's nice. Just got a chance to check it out. That type of
> modulation is the main reason I want to stay with ET tunings. One
> comment, though (and I first heard it levelled at Partch) its a bit
> difficult to hear the beautiful chords on harpshichords (or other
> non-sustaining instruments). Nice piece, though, for sure.

Thank you kindly, Jeff !!!

I have a different perspective about harpsichords. While they certainly decay
faster than say a piano, I think they have enough sustain, and a rich enough
and quite regular overtone structure to hear *any* tuning well enough that
for that very reason, I use a harpsichord patch by default to explore any
tuning or temperament (at least tunings/temperaments that are based on
7-limit-or-below intervals---e.g. 7-eq I think sounds horrible with a bright
timbre like a harpsichord).

I do think the criticism of Partch is valid in the realm of quick decay
percussion (marimbas, etc.) I miss the 'raison d'etre' of JI in much of
Partch's textures. Perhaps what you meant about the "beautiful chords" may be
directly related to works in rapid tempo? (I think Lou Harrison said a lot of
Western music is fast because it is out of tune !)

It's funny how different everyone's taste is about 19. At on extreme, Kraig
Grady said once he hated the sound of 19, and I'm sure he would say the 5ths
and 2nds are much too flat. I like, however, all shades of beating, so I'm
not in the least put off--in fact, I rather prefer the life and complexity
that temperaments like 19-eq impart to the various intervals.

In any case, there's enough P5th beating in 19-eq (I feel) to justify a sort
of frenetic tempo like we have in 'Juggler', as well as serving more placid
textures because of its rather good min3rd and good Maj3rd. So, IMHO 19-eq
can go either way, as shown by both it's tasteful use in your more reflective
'prelude', and the amphetimine drive of 'Juggler' and other frenetic 19-eq
works, as well as lots o' tempi in between.

BTW, I think Daniel Wolf noted that your prelude stays within 12-notes, in
which case you might consider tuning it to 1/3 comma meantone on a standard
keyboard (or alternately, the subtly different 12 of 19) and seeing how you
like it...

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

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

> It's funny how different everyone's taste is about 19. At on
extreme, Kraig
> Grady said once he hated the sound of 19, and I'm sure he would say
the 5ths
> and 2nds are much too flat. I like, however, all shades of beating,
so I'm
> not in the least put off--in fact, I rather prefer the life and
complexity
> that temperaments like 19-eq impart to the various intervals.
>

One thing I've noticed from my work with JI tunings, and in particular
the Wendy Carlos harmonic series tuning is that the chords are very
problematic in that they fuse to become sounds - not chords. One
minute you have 3 voices and the next only one! That can turn your
counterpoint into completely inept music, something I've noticed in a
lot of JI, that it just dissipates, the tension, sometimes from the
in-tunedness. FWIW, I'm interested in new sounds, not being in tune.
Being in tune is for weenies and geeks!

;-)

Being amazingly weird and new and bizarre is what I'm interested in.
Heheh...

> In any case, there's enough P5th beating in 19-eq (I feel) to
justify a sort
> of frenetic tempo like we have in 'Juggler', as well as serving more
placid
> textures because of its rather good min3rd and good Maj3rd. So, IMHO
19-eq
> can go either way, as shown by both it's tasteful use in your more
reflective
> 'prelude', and the amphetimine drive of 'Juggler' and other frenetic
19-eq
> works, as well as lots o' tempi in between.
>
> BTW, I think Daniel Wolf noted that your prelude stays within
12-notes, in
> which case you might consider tuning it to 1/3 comma meantone on a
standard
> keyboard (or alternately, the subtly different 12 of 19) and seeing
how you
> like it...
>

Yeah, I noticed that from looking at his score, but I knew it already
from the composing, as I'm writing from my fingers own experience of
playing a 19ET C major scale. It's for a suite of preludes for
performance, and I don't need anymore barriers to performance than
just being a living composer today using microtonal tunings! Haha...

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

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

> It's funny how different everyone's taste is about 19. At on
extreme, Kraig
> Grady said once he hated the sound of 19, and I'm sure he would say
the 5ths
> and 2nds are much too flat.

Kraig thinks the tuning of 768-equal, with a step size of 1.5625 cents
and which nails the 7-limit within 0.4 cents, totally stinks.

> BTW, I think Daniel Wolf noted that your prelude stays within
12-notes, in
> which case you might consider tuning it to 1/3 comma meantone on a
standard
> keyboard (or alternately, the subtly different 12 of 19) and seeing
how you
> like it...

1/3 comma is hardly enough different to bother with. On the other
hand, the meantone where the mean tone is exactly 19/17 might (or
might not) be just the thing. I'm curious what, exactly, would be
optimal for someone who is a fan of the 19-et tone.

It would be easy enough to get Scala to retune and see what's what.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> One thing I've noticed from my work with JI tunings, and in particular
> the Wendy Carlos harmonic series tuning is that the chords are very
> problematic in that they fuse to become sounds - not chords. One
> minute you have 3 voices and the next only one! That can turn your
> counterpoint into completely inept music, something I've noticed in a
> lot of JI, that it just dissipates, the tension, sometimes from the
> in-tunedness. FWIW, I'm interested in new sounds, not being in tune.
> Being in tune is for weenies and geeks!

What you think of as a bug other people see as a feature. Personally,
I think somewhere between one and two cents of error has a lot to be
said for it, which means I prefer 99, 130 or 140 in the 7-limit over
19, and think marvel (225/224 tempered out) is very nifty.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> > One thing I've noticed from my work with JI tunings, and in particular
> > the Wendy Carlos harmonic series tuning is that the chords are very
> > problematic in that they fuse to become sounds - not chords. One
> > minute you have 3 voices and the next only one! That can turn your
> > counterpoint into completely inept music, something I've noticed in a
> > lot of JI, that it just dissipates, the tension, sometimes from the
> > in-tunedness. FWIW, I'm interested in new sounds, not being in tune.
> > Being in tune is for weenies and geeks!
>
> What you think of as a bug other people see as a feature. Personally,
> I think somewhere between one and two cents of error has a lot to be
> said for it, which means I prefer 99, 130 or 140 in the 7-limit over
> 19, and think marvel (225/224 tempered out) is very nifty.

I can't imagine any musically intelligent musicians finding voice loss
acceptable! But that's the marvel of compositional diversity ain't it.
There's also the fanaticism of 'purity' of tuning that infects this
movement. Classical musicians play great music with personal tunings
constantly and beautifully, but you don't find any discussion about
the relevant personal interperative micro-cent variations in Mozart
tunings now, do we? "Musician X played that transition with a
fantastic variant of blah blah blah..." We see discussions about
these tunings only in the macro/global sense which become purely
academic as it is practically re-performable.

;-)

Maybe I should just shut up now... Hehe...

For me, finding new sounds and then being able to create new
modulations is a marvel! Entirely new classes of modulation and
transition. New transitive dramas... that's where the action is.

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

Hello Jeff!

idealordid wrote:

>>One thing I've noticed from my work with JI tunings, and in particular
>>the Wendy Carlos harmonic series tuning is that the chords are very
>>problematic in that they fuse to become sounds - not chords. One
>>minute you have 3 voices and the next only one! That can turn your
>>counterpoint into completely inept music, something I've noticed in a
>>lot of JI, that it just dissipates, the tension, sometimes from the
>>in-tunedness. FWIW, I'm interested in new sounds, not being in tune.
>> Being in tune is for weenies and geeks! >>
If one looks at the inversions Bach used in his counterpoint, one will notice that he used the one Helmholtz pointed out as being the most dissonant as being more common than the others. This makes sense if you want your lines to be independent. I agree that straight harmonic series music can fuse together. One has only to use the subharmonic.

i do assume that you want your 19 ET in tune other wise it might 'degenerate' into some harmonic chord.

>
>;-) > >

--

-Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

>>> One thing I've noticed from my work with JI tunings, and in particular
>>> the Wendy Carlos harmonic series tuning is that the chords are very
>>> problematic in that they fuse to become sounds - not chords. One
>>> minute you have 3 voices and the next only one! That can turn your
>>> counterpoint into completely inept music, something I've noticed in a
>>> lot of JI, that it just dissipates, the tension, sometimes from the
>>> in-tunedness. FWIW, I'm interested in new sounds, not being in tune.
>>> Being in tune is for weenies and geeks!
>>
>> What you think of as a bug other people see as a feature. Personally,
>> I think somewhere between one and two cents of error has a lot to be
>> said for it, which means I prefer 99, 130 or 140 in the 7-limit over
>> 19, and think marvel (225/224 tempered out) is very nifty.
>
>I can't imagine any musically intelligent musicians finding voice loss
>acceptable! But that's the marvel of compositional diversity ain't it.

There are a lot of ways to control voice loss. Timbre, spatial
location, staggering the attacks slightly (which happens in a
human performance naturally), and rhythmic separation (which is
what counterpoint gives you). In the case of counterpoint, even
a hint of competent voice leading should prevent voice loss.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7479
>
> I use computer processes to develop material sometimes. I will
take a
> tune and run a program that converts it to a series of intervals and
> timings and then I'll remap the intervals and timings. I've only
used
> that type of process in a few tiny sections of a few pieces. A lot
of
> the music that I know you like from me, doesn't use any computer
> processes at all. Jardin des Meirvelles, Kin-hin. The Acid Bach
> suite was composed almost entirely except for bridge passages with
the
> help of a quartertone version of my expert system.
>
> Hope that makes more sense! ;)
>

***Hi Jeff!

Absolutely. It's entirely clear now. (Wonder why I didn't get it
the first time... :)

best,

Joe

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7484
>
> Maybe I should just shut up now... Hehe...
>
> For me, finding new sounds and then being able to create new
> modulations is a marvel! Entirely new classes of modulation and
> transition. New transitive dramas... that's where the action is.
>

***Well, I think that in the near JI Blackjack scale that I'm using,
the small intervals provide a certain kind of "drama" which can
offset the pure beatlessness of some of the "major" sonorities...
There's lots of possible dissonance in the scale as well, especially
going into the 11 limit and the various "ass classes..." (Blackjack
enthusiasts will remember these terms...)

I haven't really noticed that Blackjack stops linear counterpoint...
not much more than any consonance in 12-tET... but there is an odd
sensation on some of the sustained chords that make them sound like
single tones... It's a head-turner or "ear bender..."

J. Pehrson

>/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7484
>>
>> Maybe I should just shut up now... Hehe...
>>
>> For me, finding new sounds and then being able to create new
>> modulations is a marvel! Entirely new classes of modulation and
>> transition. New transitive dramas... that's where the action is.
>>
>
>***Well, I think that in the near JI Blackjack scale that I'm using,
>the small intervals provide a certain kind of "drama" which can
>offset the pure beatlessness of some of the "major" sonorities...
>There's lots of possible dissonance in the scale as well, especially
>going into the 11 limit and the various "ass classes..." (Blackjack
>enthusiasts will remember these terms...)
>
>I haven't really noticed that Blackjack stops linear counterpoint...
>not much more than any consonance in 12-tET... but there is an odd
>sensation on some of the sustained chords that make them sound like
>single tones... It's a head-turner or "ear bender..."

Of course JP, Blackjack is a tempered scale, at least the form
you use. No?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>> One thing I've noticed from my work with JI tunings, and in
particular
> >>> the Wendy Carlos harmonic series tuning is that the chords are very
> >>> problematic in that they fuse to become sounds - not chords. One
> >>> minute you have 3 voices and the next only one! That can turn your
> >>> counterpoint into completely inept music, something I've noticed
in a
> >>> lot of JI, that it just dissipates, the tension, sometimes from the
> >>> in-tunedness. FWIW, I'm interested in new sounds, not being in
tune.
> >>> Being in tune is for weenies and geeks!
> >>
> >> What you think of as a bug other people see as a feature. Personally,
> >> I think somewhere between one and two cents of error has a lot to be
> >> said for it, which means I prefer 99, 130 or 140 in the 7-limit over
> >> 19, and think marvel (225/224 tempered out) is very nifty.
> >
> >I can't imagine any musically intelligent musicians finding voice loss
> >acceptable! But that's the marvel of compositional diversity ain't it.
>
> There are a lot of ways to control voice loss. Timbre, spatial
> location, staggering the attacks slightly (which happens in a
> human performance naturally), and rhythmic separation (which is
> what counterpoint gives you). In the case of counterpoint, even
> a hint of competent voice leading should prevent voice loss.
>

Those are excellent points. But they're work arounds, competent voice
leading will likely encourage voice loss, as the voice moves by
downward scale on the consonance notes the voice will disappear.
Spatial separation and timbre will help, but the smallest effect
itself is destructive to contrapuntal musics, surprisingly the music
many just tonalists are writing.

IMO, in tune tuning is a quasi-fanatical pursuit, and it is bogus,
because it is about a System, not a Music. As I posted before
classical musicians play in all kinds of fantastically in-tune tunings
naturally, its part of the performance practice. The obsession with
System is what leads to musically weak processes such as what happens
with voice loss. A classical musician will tune themselves with their
partners in ways to encourage necessary voice layering enhancements.

Not trying to be provocative per se, just expressing my skepticism
about this pursuit of tuning perfection. I feel, we need new sounds,
new chords, new colors to make this movement interesting. People have
been playing in tune since like, uh... forever!

;)

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> Those are excellent points. But they're work arounds, competent voice
> leading will likely encourage voice loss, as the voice moves by
> downward scale on the consonance notes the voice will disappear.

Musicians staggered along for years tuning major thirds pure. You
noodle along in two-part harmony, hit a major tenth, and boom! Pure
5/2. Were they simply incompetent?

> IMO, in tune tuning is a quasi-fanatical pursuit, and it is bogus,
> because it is about a System, not a Music. As I posted before
> classical musicians play in all kinds of fantastically in-tune tunings
> naturally, its part of the performance practice. The obsession with
> System is what leads to musically weak processes such as what happens
> with voice loss.

Oh, please! It's pretty hard to get more of a System than 19-equal, or
12 for that matter.

>> There are a lot of ways to control voice loss. Timbre, spatial
>> location, staggering the attacks slightly (which happens in a
>> human performance naturally), and rhythmic separation (which is
>> what counterpoint gives you). In the case of counterpoint, even
>> a hint of competent voice leading should prevent voice loss.
>
>Those are excellent points. But they're work arounds,

Things like timbre and rhythm are work arounds?

>competent voice leading will likely encourage voice loss, as
>the voice moves by downward scale on the consonance notes the
>voice will disappear.

I lost you here. Voice leading helps, because if a chord does
get fused, the listener's auditory scene analyser is looking to
continue the lines of motion out the other side.

>Spatial separation and timbre will help, but the smallest effect
>itself is destructive to contrapuntal musics, surprisingly the
>music many just tonalists are writing.

Jules Siegel wrote a very nice fugue in JI, with no problems.
David Doty has done some nice counterpoint, no problems.
Brass choirs and a capella vocal choirs don't seem to have a
problem.

>IMO, in tune tuning is a quasi-fanatical pursuit, and it is
>bogus, because it is about a System, not a Music.

Blanket statements like these are seldom meaningful. Can you
name any theorists or composers who suffer from this problem?

>As I posted before classical musicians play in all kinds of
>fantastically in-tune tunings naturally, its part of the
>performance practice. The obsession with System is what leads
>to musically weak processes such as what happens with voice
>loss. A classical musician will tune themselves with their
>partners in ways to encourage necessary voice layering
>enhancements.

Well naturally, there's no substitute for musicianship.

>Not trying to be provocative per se, just expressing my
>skepticism about this pursuit of tuning perfection.

You may be preaching to the choir. I can't think of anyone
on these lists who suffers from a pursuit of tuning perfection.

-Carl

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

> You may be preaching to the choir. I can't think of anyone
> on these lists who suffers from a pursuit of tuning perfection.

We have a Just Intonation do coming to the Bay Area. Tempering is not
allowed, and that *specifically* includes microtempering.

>> You may be preaching to the choir. I can't think of anyone
>> on these lists who suffers from a pursuit of tuning perfection.
>
>We have a Just Intonation do coming to the Bay Area. Tempering is not
>allowed, and that *specifically* includes microtempering.

What's a "do"?

-Carl

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

> >> You may be preaching to the choir. I can't think of anyone
> >> on these lists who suffers from a pursuit of tuning perfection.
> >
> >We have a Just Intonation do coming to the Bay Area. Tempering is not
> >allowed, and that *specifically* includes microtempering.
>
> What's a "do"?

/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833

>> >> You may be preaching to the choir. I can't think of anyone
>> >> on these lists who suffers from a pursuit of tuning perfection.
>> >
>> >We have a Just Intonation do coming to the Bay Area. Tempering
>> >is not allowed, and that *specifically* includes microtempering.
>>
>> What's a "do"?
>
>/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833

This looks more like a concert series than a "do" to me.

Sure, they don't allow microtempering, but we won't know if
they suffer from it until we hear the music.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> > Those are excellent points. But they're work arounds, competent voice
> > leading will likely encourage voice loss, as the voice moves by
> > downward scale on the consonance notes the voice will disappear.
>
> Musicians staggered along for years tuning major thirds pure. You
> noodle along in two-part harmony, hit a major tenth, and boom! Pure
> 5/2. Were they simply incompetent?
>
> > IMO, in tune tuning is a quasi-fanatical pursuit, and it is bogus,
> > because it is about a System, not a Music. As I posted before
> > classical musicians play in all kinds of fantastically in-tune tunings
> > naturally, its part of the performance practice. The obsession with
> > System is what leads to musically weak processes such as what happens
> > with voice loss.
>
> Oh, please! It's pretty hard to get more of a System than 19-equal, or
> 12 for that matter.

But I'm not using it because it is 'just' or 'perfectly in tune'. I'm
using it for its newness. Obsessions with purity lead to madness...
Does the music require this purity? People that typically write with
in tune tunings are often more obsessed with the tunings than they are
with the music. Obsession with tuning is the obsession with System I
was talking about. Music needs to have systems, duh... but I don't
write music because of my interest in a philosophical or abstract
quality, tuning, purity, health... blah blah...

;)

Heh...

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

In a message dated 9/15/04 3:59:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jeff@... writes:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "idealordid" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> > Those are excellent points. But they're work arounds, competent voice
> > leading will likely encourage voice loss, as the voice moves by
> > downward scale on the consonance notes the voice will disappear.
>
> Musicians staggered along for years tuning major thirds pure. You
> noodle along in two-part harmony, hit a major tenth, and boom! Pure
> 5/2. Were they simply incompetent?
>
> > IMO, in tune tuning is a quasi-fanatical pursuit, and it is bogus,
> > because it is about a System, not a Music. As I posted before
> > classical musicians play in all kinds of fantastically in-tune tunings
> > naturally, its part of the performance practice. The obsession with
> > System is what leads to musically weak processes such as what happens
> > with voice loss.
>
> Oh, please! It's pretty hard to get more of a System than 19-equal, or
> 12 for that matter.

But I'm not using it because it is 'just' or 'perfectly in tune'. I'm
using it for its newness. Obsessions with purity lead to madness...
Does the music require this purity? People that typically write with
in tune tunings are often more obsessed with the tunings than they are
with the music. Obsession with tuning is the obsession with System I
was talking about. Music needs to have systems, duh... but I don't
write music because of my interest in a philosophical or abstract
quality, tuning, purity, health... blah blah...

;)

Heh...

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

...you guys wanna keep it down please. I'm tryin' to write some music.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

> ...you guys wanna keep it down please. I'm tryin' to write some music.

I'm taking a short break from something I am in the process of
composing at the moment. Possibly Jeff is also. And if you were doing
anything different, you wouldn't be here.

In a message dated 9/15/04 8:42:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@... writes:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

> ...you guys wanna keep it down please. I'm tryin' to write some music.

I'm taking a short break from something I am in the process of
composing at the moment. Possibly Jeff is also. And if you were doing
anything different, you wouldn't be here.

Ok... but you do realize that you're arguing about something that's
completely subjective, right?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 02:46 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >> >> You may be preaching to the choir. I can't think of anyone
> >> >> on these lists who suffers from a pursuit of tuning perfection.
> >> >
> >> >We have a Just Intonation do coming to the Bay Area. Tempering
> >> >is not allowed, and that *specifically* includes microtempering.
> >>
> >> What's a "do"?
> >
> >/tuning/topicId_54833.html#54833
>
> This looks more like a concert series than a "do" to me.
>
> Sure, they don't allow microtempering, but we won't know if
> they suffer from it until we hear the music.

One could always be subversive, and do a microtempering anyway, and see if
anyone notices -- haha ;)

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

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

> One could always be subversive, and do a microtempering anyway, and
see if
> anyone notices -- haha ;)

Microtempering is inherently subversive. If you take a Fokker block
for the commas 81/80 and the ennealimma, you get a long, thin, but
perfectly legitimate 45 note, 5-limit block with sixteen major and
sixteen minor triads. But wait--you have two more triads of each type
which are only off by an ennealimma, which is less than a cent in
size. Oops! It gets worse; each of these eighteeen triads extends to a
tetrad which is less than a cent out of true. Is this JI, tempering,
or what, exactly?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/15/04 8:42:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
>
> > ...you guys wanna keep it down please. I'm tryin' to write some
music.
>
> I'm taking a short break from something I am in the process of
> composing at the moment. Possibly Jeff is also. And if you were doing
> anything different, you wouldn't be here.
>
>
>
> Ok... but you do realize that you're arguing about something that's
> completely subjective, right?
>

Why argue about objective things? What possible benefit might arise
from settling a discussion about things that can be proven or
disproven? That's what dictionaries and encyclopediae are fo!

;)

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

In a message dated 9/16/04 9:01:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jeff@... writes:

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/15/04 8:42:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
>
> > ...you guys wanna keep it down please. I'm tryin' to write some
music.
>
> I'm taking a short break from something I am in the process of
> composing at the moment. Possibly Jeff is also. And if you were doing
> anything different, you wouldn't be here.
>
>
>
> Ok... but you do realize that you're arguing about something that's
> completely subjective, right?
>

Why argue about objective things? What possible benefit might arise
from settling a discussion about things that can be proven or
disproven? That's what dictionaries and encyclopediae are fo!

;)

----------------------------

Right. When it comes to personal preference, I have a problem with name
calling and I'd like to respectfully request that future arguments be carried on
without insult. I would also like to request that an apology be offered to
the so-called "weenies and geeks" that have had their feelings hurt. It
would be much appreciated.

Regards,
Andy F.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

> Right. When it comes to personal preference, I have a problem with
name
> calling and I'd like to respectfully request that future arguments
be carried on
> without insult. I would also like to request that an apology be
offered to
> the so-called "weenies and geeks" that have had their feelings
hurt. It
> would be much appreciated.

Jeff has not told anyone that they are not a real musician and hence
are merely dabbling, not composing. He has not told anyone that merely
because they compose a lot of music means nothing, since quantity does
not equate to quality. While he might have hinted that some people are
more interested in tunings than in the music they make with them, he
hasn't told anyone that real musicians would never interest themselves
in such questions. He is not a harem guard--he is not attacking
microtonal composers without doing any composing himself.

If you do those things it appears you get praised on all sides for
your "support" of microtonal composers, even though your expressions
of hatred for and contempt of some of them puts the lie to that
notion. Jeff has not done anything of that sort, and if the sort of
thing I am talking about is acceptable--and apparently it is--then it
hardly makes sense to hold someone who is actually composing music to
another standard.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/16/04 9:01:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jeff@p... writes:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 9/15/04 8:42:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > gwsmith@s... writes:
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
> >
> > > ...you guys wanna keep it down please. I'm tryin' to write some
> music.
> >
> > I'm taking a short break from something I am in the process of
> > composing at the moment. Possibly Jeff is also. And if you were
doing
> > anything different, you wouldn't be here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok... but you do realize that you're arguing about something
that's
> > completely subjective, right?
> >
>
> Why argue about objective things? What possible benefit might arise
> from settling a discussion about things that can be proven or
> disproven? That's what dictionaries and encyclopediae are fo!
>
> ;)
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
>
> Right. When it comes to personal preference, I have a problem with
name
> calling and I'd like to respectfully request that future arguments
be carried on
> without insult. I would also like to request that an apology be
offered to
> the so-called "weenies and geeks" that have had their feelings
hurt. It
> would be much appreciated.

Sorry, I don't apologize for my ad hominem comments. I find a little
provocation thusly without personal insult and attack can lead to a
bit more passion in our discussion. I wouldn't even call it an
argument so far. So there...

You got some music?

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog

Hmmm... Speaking only for myself... I haven't really seen anyone on this
list who seems to be purposely and *trying* to start a fight... But some
people do seem to get touchy whenever the subject of theory versus
practice, or "purity" comes up.

So if you think someone's being insulting, they probably didn't mean it.
I'd be happier if people just let some stuff slide instead of getting huffy
and subjecting all the other list subscribers to long to-and-fro of "was
that an insult?" and "whadya mean weenies?" and such.

I don't want to listen to other people *argue* anyway, so maybe that can
be taken elsewhere, too. Let's stick to the music, and "discussion" of
microtonality, and leave "arguments" to other lists?

Rick

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7489

> >/makemicromusic/topicId_7433.html#7484
> >>
> >> Maybe I should just shut up now... Hehe...
> >>
> >> For me, finding new sounds and then being able to create new
> >> modulations is a marvel! Entirely new classes of modulation and
> >> transition. New transitive dramas... that's where the action
is.
> >>
> >
> >***Well, I think that in the near JI Blackjack scale that I'm
using,
> >the small intervals provide a certain kind of "drama" which can
> >offset the pure beatlessness of some of the "major" sonorities...
> >There's lots of possible dissonance in the scale as well,
especially
> >going into the 11 limit and the various "ass classes..."
(Blackjack
> >enthusiasts will remember these terms...)
> >
> >I haven't really noticed that Blackjack stops linear
counterpoint...
> >not much more than any consonance in 12-tET... but there is an odd
> >sensation on some of the sustained chords that make them sound
like
> >single tones... It's a head-turner or "ear bender..."
>
> Of course JP, Blackjack is a tempered scale, at least the form
> you use. No?
>
> -Carl

***Well, yes, but even *this* is subject to some dispute since if the
performer is told to actually *perform* just or unbeating in the
vertical direction, then it becomes a kind of "adaptive just" a la
Vicintino... i.e. tempered in the *horizontal* dimension only...

JP

>
> But I'm not using it because it is 'just' or 'perfectly in tune'. I'm
> using it for its newness. Obsessions with purity lead to
> madness...

Compared to 95% of contemporary music, even a simple
4:5:6:7 chord is quite new-sounding.

But anyway, obssessions with newness can lead down some
dark paths as well. . . .

Besides, once you've listened to something a bunch of times, it
ain't new anymore.