Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic voice loss

>>> 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?

Was just listening to an old American Brass Quintet record,
Fyre & Lightning. This isn't necessarily the best brass quintet
recording ever made, but it's a digital ABQ recording -- how can
you go wrong?

I'm willing to bet that a moving-window frequency-domain analysis
would show (windows maybe 200-400ms with 25% overlap) over 90% of
the energy in each window in 5-limit JI to within 5 cents RMS error,
with exactly one such interpretation having clearly the best
combination of high energy and low RMS error in each window.

Yet I have no more trouble picking out parts here than I would
listening to the same music on an equal-tempered piano, or any
other way in general.

If too technical, please respond on tuning. At least there's a
record recommendation in this. :)

-Carl

🔗idealordid <jeff@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>> 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?
>
> Was just listening to an old American Brass Quintet record,
> Fyre & Lightning. This isn't necessarily the best brass quintet
> recording ever made, but it's a digital ABQ recording -- how can
> you go wrong?
>
> I'm willing to bet that a moving-window frequency-domain analysis
> would show (windows maybe 200-400ms with 25% overlap) over 90% of
> the energy in each window in 5-limit JI to within 5 cents RMS error,
> with exactly one such interpretation having clearly the best
> combination of high energy and low RMS error in each window.
>
> Yet I have no more trouble picking out parts here than I would
> listening to the same music on an equal-tempered piano, or any
> other way in general.
>
> If too technical, please respond on tuning. At least there's a
> record recommendation in this. :)
>

Finding a counter-example to the problem doesn't mean the problem
doesn't exist. That's a superb ensemble and they work hard as great
musicians to make the parts all extraordinarily audible. It's part of
their art.

Synthesizer recreations, which comprise the bulk of our microtonal
communities output, are usually not endowed with these performance
enhancements. Most composers, myself included, somewhat shamefully,
do not take enough time to make their realizations beautiful.
Instead, speaking for myself, I make them intelligible and then move
onto the next piece.

Other contributing factors in voice loss, are the contemporary
propensity to play stringed instruments without vibrato or much
emotion, almost in a bland, pseudo-folksy way. The JI community, IMO,
is plagued by this stylistic convention. Simplistic synth patches
also contribute to this.

Cheers, don't mean to come off ranting, just trying to assert that it
remains something of a problem in many of our realizations.

jeff harrington
http://jeffharrington.org - new music
http://netnewmusic.net - new music portal
http://beepsnort.org - new music blog
http://webjay.org/by/idealord/mikrotonal-experimentaltuningmusic -
microtonal webjay playlist

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >>> 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?
>>
>> Was just listening to an old American Brass Quintet record,
>> Fyre & Lightning. This isn't necessarily the best brass quintet
>> recording ever made, but it's a digital ABQ recording -- how can
>> you go wrong?
>>
>> I'm willing to bet that a moving-window frequency-domain analysis
>> would show (windows maybe 200-400ms with 25% overlap) over 90% of
>> the energy in each window in 5-limit JI to within 5 cents RMS error,
>> with exactly one such interpretation having clearly the best
>> combination of high energy and low RMS error in each window.
>>
>> Yet I have no more trouble picking out parts here than I would
>> listening to the same music on an equal-tempered piano, or any
>> other way in general.
>>
>> If too technical, please respond on tuning. At least there's a
>> record recommendation in this. :)
>
>Finding a counter-example to the problem doesn't mean the problem
>doesn't exist. That's a superb ensemble and they work hard as great
>musicians to make the parts all extraordinarily audible. It's part
>of their art.
>
>Synthesizer recreations, which comprise the bulk of our microtonal
>communities output, are usually not endowed with these performance
>enhancements. Most composers, myself included, somewhat shamefully,
>do not take enough time to make their realizations beautiful.

And of course this should count against JI. What was I thinking?

Actually, if you're focused on composing, giving short shrift to
performance is understandable. But one day you might get a good
performance.

And I still don't agree with you about the problem. The reason
this recording works is because of voice leading, not anything
magic on behalf of ABQ (aside from their ability to play in JI).
And in the dept. of synthesizer realizations, it should be even
easier, since the timbers of brass choir instruments are especially
similar (and especially in this case, without the tuba).

-Carl

🔗idealordid <jeff@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> Was just listening to an old American Brass Quintet record,
> >> Fyre & Lightning. This isn't necessarily the best brass quintet
> >> recording ever made, but it's a digital ABQ recording -- how can
> >> you go wrong?
> >>
> >> I'm willing to bet that a moving-window frequency-domain analysis
> >> would show (windows maybe 200-400ms with 25% overlap) over 90% of
> >> the energy in each window in 5-limit JI to within 5 cents RMS error,
> >> with exactly one such interpretation having clearly the best
> >> combination of high energy and low RMS error in each window.
> >>
> >> Yet I have no more trouble picking out parts here than I would
> >> listening to the same music on an equal-tempered piano, or any
> >> other way in general.
> >>
> >> If too technical, please respond on tuning. At least there's a
> >> record recommendation in this. :)
> >
> >Finding a counter-example to the problem doesn't mean the problem
> >doesn't exist. That's a superb ensemble and they work hard as great
> >musicians to make the parts all extraordinarily audible. It's part
> >of their art.
> >
> >Synthesizer recreations, which comprise the bulk of our microtonal
> >communities output, are usually not endowed with these performance
> >enhancements. Most composers, myself included, somewhat shamefully,
> >do not take enough time to make their realizations beautiful.
>
> And of course this should count against JI. What was I thinking?
>
> :)
>
> Actually, if you're focused on composing, giving short shrift to
> performance is understandable. But one day you might get a good
> performance.

Heh? I've gotten tons of great performances. Problem is I can't
distribute them on the web; I don't have the rights, or I don't get a
recording or it wasn't recorded. My 24ET piece Croche et Tient was
just premiered in Cologne last April by an outstanding performer
Michael Manion. My problem is that my musical persona is very
web-derived making synthetic realizations of new pieces or un-recorded
pieces problematic. I also refuse to pay for recordings and
performances like a good many contemporary composers do these days.

jeff

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >> Was just listening to an old American Brass Quintet record,
>> >> Fyre & Lightning. This isn't necessarily the best brass quintet
>> >> recording ever made, but it's a digital ABQ recording -- how can
>> >> you go wrong?
>> >>
>> >> I'm willing to bet that a moving-window frequency-domain analysis
>> >> would show (windows maybe 200-400ms with 25% overlap) over 90% of
>> >> the energy in each window in 5-limit JI to within 5 cents RMS
>> >> error, with exactly one such interpretation having clearly the
>> >> best combination of high energy and low RMS error in each window.
>> >>
>> >> Yet I have no more trouble picking out parts here than I would
>> >> listening to the same music on an equal-tempered piano, or any
>> >> other way in general.
//
>> >Finding a counter-example to the problem doesn't mean the problem
>> >doesn't exist. That's a superb ensemble and they work hard as great
>> >musicians to make the parts all extraordinarily audible. It's part
>> >of their art.
>> >
>> >Synthesizer recreations, which comprise the bulk of our microtonal
>> >communities output, are usually not endowed with these performance
>> >enhancements. Most composers, myself included, somewhat shamefully,
>> >do not take enough time to make their realizations beautiful.
>>
>> And of course this should count against JI. What was I thinking?
>> :)
>>
>> Actually, if you're focused on composing, giving short shrift to
>> performance is understandable. But one day you might get a good
>> performance.
>
>Heh? I've gotten tons of great performances.

Then why'd you bring it up? Actually, the "you" there was just a
general "you".

-Carl

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Jeff,

Two points worth commenting on:

> Synthesizer recreations, which comprise the bulk of our microtonal
> communities output, are usually not endowed with these performance
> enhancements. Most composers, myself included, somewhat shamefully,
> do not take enough time to make their realizations beautiful.

A long time ago, when you didn't happen to be here, there was a long (and maybe long-winded) discussion on just what a "composer" is (maybe it was on the tuning list). It certainly seems you fit the traditional role of composer, especially in light of your production of scores along with recordings/realizations of the pieces.

But many of the people that are making their own music these days - whether one wants to give them the label of "composer" or not - are taking quite a bit of care in the presentation of their pieces in recorded form. We haven't ever had access to the kind of electronic musical tools we do now, and while it adds to the list of stuff to do (as you say, "take enough time"), there may very well be benefits to a few less pieces when the pieces done are done as carefully as possible.

It certainly doesn't really make sense to labor in an anguished form over the electronic realization of a piece that should have it's ultimate final product a live performance. But if you are working in 19tet on keyboard pieces (only as an example), you probably aren't ever going to find a 19tet piano laying around, and the more time put into finding the best realization - possibly leading to a live performance solution - might be time well spent.

Ultimately, it *does* boil down to a composer's priorities. I think some, like you, really do feel a need to push forward with writing, maybe at the expense of better realization; there are certainly others who just aren't *aware* of the lame impression that a weak, ill-conceived, or 'good-enough' rendition can give.

>My problem is that my musical persona is very web-derived making synthetic >realizations of new pieces or un-recorded pieces problematic.

For someone who is web-derived, and acknowledging that a great deal of the progress made in electronic music has happened through web-derivation/dissemination, this seems like an odd stance. It seems you should be *flourishing*. Maybe it is just that classical people, in general, refuse to look at some of the models of music production/distribution that come from people in popular music fields.

Not to mention that your programming and communication skills, as evidenced in your various web sites, would be a natural springboard for furthering your music in every way possible.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Carl Lumma wrote:

> And I still don't agree with you about the problem. The reason
> this recording works is because of voice leading, not anything
> magic on behalf of ABQ (aside from their ability to play in JI).
> And in the dept. of synthesizer realizations, it should be even
> easier, since the timbers of brass choir instruments are especially
> similar (and especially in this case, without the tuba).

You know, it's occurred to me that the relative voice loss is one of the things I like about my counterpoint experiments. I think the idea of counterpoint anyway is that you have a tension between the voices blending and being independent. Electronics push it a bit further towards blending. The timbres can be the same, all timing perfect, and the tuning consistent. The result is magical -- everything as one, but with the independent melodies building it up.

This isn't the only way to do it with electronics, and certainly isn't the way it was intended to be done. But the traditional rules still work remarkably well in this alien environment.

At least, I like it...

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>> >> Was just listening to an old American Brass Quintet record,
>>> >> Fyre & Lightning. This isn't necessarily the best brass quintet
>>> >> recording ever made, but it's a digital ABQ recording -- how
>>> >> can you go wrong?
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm willing to bet that a moving-window frequency-domain analysis
>>> >> would show (windows maybe 200-400ms with 25% overlap) over 90% of
>>> >> the energy in each window in 5-limit JI to within 5 cents RMS
>>> >> error, with exactly one such interpretation having clearly the
>>> >> best combination of high energy and low RMS error in each window.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet I have no more trouble picking out parts here than I would
>>> >> listening to the same music on an equal-tempered piano, or any
>>> >> other way in general.
>//
>>> >Finding a counter-example to the problem doesn't mean the problem
>>> >doesn't exist.

I listened again today on the way to work, and I just can't imagine
how adding more beating would help. It is perhaps true that in
computer music, absolutely prefect JI leads to phase cancellations
and therefore voice loss -- this claim has been thrown around on
these lists in the past, at least. But it's never a problem in
real-world performance, and usually not even with computer music,
outside of something like CSound (wavetables and even physical models
are seldom accurate enough).

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗idealordid <jeff@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > And I still don't agree with you about the problem. The reason
> > this recording works is because of voice leading, not anything
> > magic on behalf of ABQ (aside from their ability to play in JI).
> > And in the dept. of synthesizer realizations, it should be even
> > easier, since the timbers of brass choir instruments are especially
> > similar (and especially in this case, without the tuba).
>
> You know, it's occurred to me that the relative voice loss is one of
the
> things I like about my counterpoint experiments. I think the idea of
> counterpoint anyway is that you have a tension between the voices
> blending and being independent. Electronics push it a bit further
> towards blending. The timbres can be the same, all timing perfect, and
> the tuning consistent. The result is magical -- everything as one, but
> with the independent melodies building it up.
>

This is indeed a potentially amazing area of exploration, but it
requires a musical vision to create the truly appropriate moments that
could capitalize on this effect. In general, the loss of a voice
implies a loss of momentum, or requires, to maintain momentum, a
compensatory factor, such as a tightening of rhythm, or increase in
volume, or textural complexity. The examples I'm thinking of where
voice loss creates a musically inappropriate gesture are usually
simplistic contrapuntal passages or areas where the accompaniment
disappears without this effect being played up or compensated for.

> This isn't the only way to do it with electronics, and certainly isn't
> the way it was intended to be done. But the traditional rules still
> work remarkably well in this alien environment.
>

Traditions need to grow to encompass the spectral textural
possibilities inherent in these tunings and to promote these effects
towards dramatic ends.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@...>

I happen to like a near-random loss of individual voices and obscured or ambiguous registration, and like it best when it is the result of performance practice rather than composerly intention. I heard this first in viol playing (especially the Purcell _Fantazias_) and later imitated this to a degree, via sul ponticello playing, in several pieces of my own. (I recently played several of _Fantazias_ with a meantone renaissance recorder trio -- G alto, tenor, bass -- and they had charm, but lack the depth of viol playing, perhaps because of the unambiguous registration.)

It is precisely such accidents of surface combined with the failure of samples to interact with one another in the way that simultaneous acoustical sounds interact that my ears miss most in electronic "realisations" (as if the electronics are any less "real"). I have a hunch that one could make a much more efficient use of time in getting the reverb right than in tinkering with the sample set.

DJW

🔗idealordid <jeff@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >The examples I'm thinking of where voice loss creates a musically
> >inappropriate gesture are usually simplistic contrapuntal passages
> >or areas where the accompaniment disappears without this effect
> >being played up or compensated for.
>
> Can you think of any particular instances of this? I'd like to
> hear what you're talking about.
>

Wait... you're asking me to turn my ad hominem generalization into an
outright attack on somebody's music?

8-P

I do not comment badly on other people's music online. It's just
something I've never done. It serves no purpose. I'm attempting to
foster ideas and discussion not bash someone's piece.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗idealordid <jeff@...>

Cool, I'm more interested in discussing how voice loss could be used
in a musically interesting and provocative way. It's something new,
and that's something I'm always interested in.

I like the spectralists use of chords morphing to sounds works only so
much. They typically use it in a simplistically static Debusseyan
effect. I think that using voice-loss as a kind of weird
barriolage-like effect or some new type of psycho-acoustic auditory
illusion might be interesting.

jeff

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I am glad to hear this was not your intent, but i must admit some of
> your generalization about the imaginary "just "school did not sit well.
> i can only assume you did not mean it in the way it came across.
>
> At this point none of us are in a great position, and picking on each
> other is probably the last thing that should be done, whether
> individual, or groups. I confess my own weaknesses along these lines in
> the past. the terms used includes such a wide varied approach to things
> that such things are natural and unreconconcilable POV are unified
under
> our very headings. interesting.
> this is no
> Mono- Ha movement
>
> idealordid wrote:
>
> > I do not comment badly on other people's music online. It's just
> >
> >something I've never done. It serves no purpose. I'm attempting to
> >foster ideas and discussion not bash someone's piece.
> >
> >
> >
> >

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >The examples I'm thinking of where voice loss creates a musically
>> >inappropriate gesture are usually simplistic contrapuntal passages
>> >or areas where the accompaniment disappears without this effect
>> >being played up or compensated for.
>>
>> Can you think of any particular instances of this? I'd like to
>> hear what you're talking about.
>
>Wait... you're asking me to turn my ad hominem generalization into an
>outright attack on somebody's music?
>
>8-P
>
>I do not comment badly on other people's music online. It's just
>something I've never done. It serves no purpose. I'm attempting to
>foster ideas and discussion not bash someone's piece.

Can't you pick something that's in the public domain? Or this is
something you only hear in modern "JI" music?

Further, I did not pick up on the flavor of your comment. I thought
we were discussing music here. I see no need to turn it into an
attack. But maybe one of the two folks who recently posted that they
like the effect (Daniel Wolf and Graham Breed) will give us an example.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@...>

Hi Carl and Jeff,

I did some experiments on voice loss a while back.
Can't find it now but I did an audio clip of
four singing bowls and three Shakuhachis.
It was all done in midi then rendered to
audio. For the Shakuhachi I used the Shakuhachi
voice on my sound card and for the singing bowls
I used the recorder voices playing all the singing bowl
partials for each one.

Anyway I'm sure you could do a much more sophisticted
one with actual Shakuhachi recordings and singing
bowls. Or indeed the actual instruments themselves
though the singing bowls would have to be very precisely
tuned and the Shakuhachi's played with great precision of
pitch.

The idea is simple anyway. You find the partials
of the Shakuhachi, and get a singing bowl to play
at each of those pitches. You also find the partials
of a singing bowl and get your Shakuhachis to play
those pitches too. The Shakuhachi had only three
partials to play because that's all the analysis found
in the singing bowls - slightly inharmonic partials
with a distinctive beat.

Then, the four singing bowls playing the Shakuhachi
partials at their correct volumes will have
exactly the same set of partials in that big
composite timbre as the Shakuhachis playing the
singing bowl partials.

So now - well you could just play them all at once
or introduce them one at a time, until all the
partials are present for the singing bowls.
Then let them die away and as they fade, gradually,
gently bring in Shakuhachi instruments playing the exact
same partials - there one coudl imagine that good
performers with a keen ear for the pitch of the
partials of the singing bowls could blend in seamlessly.

Then the Shakuhachi's can either fade away in unison
or one at a time until only one is left.

That's enough to be a musically interesting piece
by itself I think. Or could be a point of interest
in a larger piece. Main technical difficulty in
implementing it I suppose would be to be able
to tune the singing bowls to such precision -
and to find three Shakuhachi players able
to play continuous sutained precise pitches
with a keen ear to hear the partials of the
singing bowls. Seems technically to be
within the realm of possibility
that it could be performed some day, who knows,
if there were someone interested and with
the contacts and facilities to do it.
:-).

Robert

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

Hi Robert,

>The idea is simple anyway. You find the partials
>of the Shakuhachi, and get a singing bowl to play
>at each of those pitches. You also find the partials
>of a singing bowl and get your Shakuhachis to play
>those pitches too. The Shakuhachi had only three
>partials to play because that's all the analysis found
>in the singing bowls - slightly inharmonic partials
>with a distinctive beat.
>
>Then, the four singing bowls playing the Shakuhachi
>partials at their correct volumes will have
>exactly the same set of partials in that big
>composite timbre as the Shakuhachis playing the
>singing bowl partials.
>
>So now - well you could just play them all at once
>or introduce them one at a time, until all the
>partials are present for the singing bowls.
>Then let them die away and as they fade, gradually,
>gently bring in Shakuhachi instruments playing the exact
>same partials - there one coudl imagine that good
>performers with a keen ear for the pitch of the
>partials of the singing bowls could blend in seamlessly.

This sounds interesting, if pretty far removed from
something that would happen in western-canon music.
What do you remember of the result? How did it sound?

-Carl

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Further, I did not pick up on the flavor of your comment. I thought
> we were discussing music here. I see no need to turn it into an
> attack. But maybe one of the two folks who recently posted that they
> like the effect (Daniel Wolf and Graham Breed) will give us an example.

I've got counterpoint exercises at:

http://x31eq.com/music/counterpoint.html

They all use homogeneous timbres, no vibrato, mechanical rhythm and a tuning within your 5 cents of just. Presumably, whatever could go wrong must do somewhere in there. I like the results (given they're only exercises) and I think that's partly because I break all the rules about distinguishing voices in the rendering.

Of the real music,

http://x31eq.com/music/

When I Set Out for Lyonnesse is the most contrapuntal. I don't remember any voice loss though. The main problem with the result is that I'm trying to sing on it. I think I did leave an instrument in there to support the vocals, but it's supposed to get lost. You can't like it, anyway, because you joined in the chorus of no critical feedback when I announced it. Ho hum.

Sorry, am I sounding bitter? Well, I wish people would tear these things apart if they don't like them. Why post things here if you don't want negative feedback? If I'm going wrong somewhere, I'd like people to say so I can ignore them. Or something.

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>I've got counterpoint exercises at:
>
>http://x31eq.com/music/counterpoint.html
>
>They all use homogeneous timbres, no vibrato, mechanical rhythm and
>a tuning within your 5 cents of just. Presumably, whatever could go
>wrong must do somewhere in there. I like the results (given they're
>only exercises) and I think that's partly because I break all the
>rules about distinguishing voices in the rendering.

I believe I listened to all these years ago (or have they been
freshened?). And I don't remember any voice loss.

Actually, I see for whatever reason that I did not have the modal
variants.

And what's this at the bottom? What's the difference between the
mohs4ao and mohs4o files?

>Of the real music,
>
>http://x31eq.com/music/
>
>When I Set Out for Lyonnesse is the most contrapuntal. I don't
>remember any voice loss though. The main problem with the result
>is that I'm trying to sing on it.

>You can't like it, anyway, because you joined in the chorus of no
>critical feedback when I announced it. Ho hum.
>
>Sorry, am I sounding bitter? Well, I wish people would tear these
>things apart if they don't like them. Why post things here if you
>don't want negative feedback? If I'm going wrong somewhere, I'd
>like people to say so I can ignore them. Or something.

I don't think avoidance of negative feedback is the right thing.
Jon even said so in the founding blurb of this group. But for me,
I don't even have time to comment on all the stuff I like... or
even listen to all the stuff I want to. So usually my rule has
been to ignore the stuff I don't like.

I felt something needed to be said about Gene's recent piece,
and it was the first negative comment I can recall making about
someone's contributions on one of these lists. Except for my
review of the tuning list album, which seemed obligatory since
I was reviewing the album. Here's that bit again for the record...

""2. Resuscitation (John Loffink): Synthesis is good. Music is
disconnected.

3. Snake Dance (Neil Haverstick): Interesting but unconvincing.

4. Vilano (Ernie Crews): Nice idea but too long and self-absorbed.
Well-played, but riffs do not compensate for sparseness of material.

5. Pient Molles (Rick Sanford): You can hear some of the melodic
potential of 10tET. You can also hear yourself slapping three of
these out between lunch and dinner.

6. Evening in Landcox Park (Waren Burt): I wouldn't spend an
evening in Landcox Park without it.""

-Carl

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@...>

It appears that midi files with full-keyboard tunings are not (yet?) the right media for online sharing. So, I have uploaded two, possibly amusing, short pieces, as scores, and as ogg and mp3 files:

home.snafu.de/djwolf/PreludeIn17tet.pdf (137841 bytes)
home.snafu.de/djwolf/PreludeIn17tet.ogg (635963 bytes)
home.snafu.de/djwolf/PreludeIn17tet.mp3 (928287 bytes)

and, in 14tet:

home.snafu.de/djwolf/IvorDarregInEagleRock.pdf (107573 bytes)
home.snafu.de/djwolf/IvorDarregInEagleRock.ogg (1246917 bytes)
home.snafu.de/djwolf/IvorDarregInEagleRock.mp3 (1855320 bytes)

Neither of these is especially profound, both are decidedly retro, not representative of my work in general, and expression is limited to a single dynamic level and tempo, but I'd enjoy learning of any concrete suggestions as to how one might dress up the midi production.

Thanks in advance,

Daniel Wolf

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Perhaps this is stretching the idea of voice loss to voice ambiguity, but there are some many fascinating passes in Stravinsky's work where line cross in order to produce the heard melody. sometimes it is quite hard to see what it is you are hearing. I BTW have had a copy Convertible Counterpoint since i was 20 and worked with it quite a bit at different times. once i starting working with a tuning called the eikosany, i realized that one can set up a structure that has such properties already on the surface. I did an article on this (18 years ago-unbelievable) in Xenharmonikon which can be seen here
http://anaphoria.com/cps.PDF

Debussy is amazing on how much actually musical movement and counterpoint he can have going on and give the impression that one is standing still. He is far more 'aggressive' in presenting musical ideas, changes of textures, florid passages in his orchestral works than he is recognized for.

idealordid wrote:

>Cool, I'm more interested in discussing how voice loss could be used
>in a musically interesting and provocative way. It's something new,
>and that's something I'm always interested in. >
>I like the spectralists use of chords morphing to sounds works only so
>much. They typically use it in a simplistically static Debusseyan
>effect. I think that using voice-loss as a kind of weird
>barriolage-like effect or some new type of psycho-acoustic auditory
>illusion might be interesting. >
>jeff
>
>
> >
>under > >
>>our very headings. interesting.
>>this is no
>> Mono- Ha movement
>>
>>idealordid wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>I do not comment badly on other people's music online. It's just
>>>
>>>something I've never done. It serves no purpose. I'm attempting to
>>>foster ideas and discussion not bash someone's piece.
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@...>

Hi Carl,

> This sounds interesting, if pretty far removed from
> something that would happen in western-canon music.
> What do you remember of the result? How did it sound?

Worked okay I think. Joseph liked it. There is a difference
of quality because of the breathy sound of the Shackuhachi
which you don't have in the singing bowls, and
since the clip I used used recorders for the partials
of the singing bowls, doesn't quite explore what would
happen in the transition from singing bowls
to Shakuhachi. Could be nice to do it again with
actual singing bowl sound clips and see what
happens.

Actually just now looked up my original post on it
in my out box. I was using crystal bowls rather
than singing bowls. Sorry for the confusion.
Could be interesting to try both and see
which works best.

Robert

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@...>

Hi Graham,

Enjoyed your pieces that I listened to. Particularly liked the Pelog flute
improvisation.

If you want some constructive criticism, how about a suggestion to point out
the phrasing just a bit more? Occasional micro pauses to point out moments
of surprise and to mark where a phrase starts and ends, and occasional longer
phrases. You do it already but could do it more.

For instance in the Pelog piece, the player hardly ever pauses for a breath
- the one or two places where it does break off very momentarily are handled
effectively, but you could do with a few more of those perhaps.
Even in a solo piece you can have occasional complete rests or at least
points where notes get cut off a bit short to point out the phrasing
and give more structure for the ear to listen to.

When accompanying other instruments or voice you can have complete
rests for a bar or two or even have an instrument that only comes
in for a few bars now and again. Again you do that a bit but could
do it more so, more pauses of a bar or two, and more short micropauses
to point out moments of transition or surprise.

Same with the accompaniment to When I set out to Lyonaisse,
a few micropauses in the accompaniment after moments of surprise
or to point out changes, in a subtle way. You have one complete
pause in the melody line at 1 minute 9 seconds and a pause
befoer the registration shift at 57 seconds which are quite
effective, but a few more could help. I'd maybe do a shorter
note to start the third bar for instance at the mild moment of
surprise at 4 seconds, and maybe another one at 9 seconds
for the transition to longer notes, and so on, I suppose
every few seconds. Sometimes short phrases of a bar or less
and more often longer ones. A player of an instrument
would have many tiny sub-phrases too of just a few notes
- however those are a lot of work to do in midi or whatever
and require subtle changes in the lengths of notes and
dynamics. But larger phrases are pretty easy to do.

Can also pause completely for a bar or two or even have
an instrument that only comes in for a few bars now and again.

I find that work on the phrasing helps the composer to think
more about the piece in terms of phrases and answer phrases and so on.
So as well as helping the listener, it also improves the composition
indirectly.

Even if the instrument line is meant to be lost - still micropauses
and rests in the accompaniment won't draw much attention to it
- will just make it so that it has a bit more of a pattern to it,
like a carpet or wallpaper if you want that type of an effect,
still those are often patterned rather than uniform in colour and
it doesn't draw attention to them that much.

> Sorry, am I sounding bitter? Well, I wish people would tear these
> things apart if they don't like them. Why post things here if you don't
> want negative feedback? If I'm going wrong somewhere, I'd like people
> to say so I can ignore them. Or something.

I think that one needs to say that one wants negative feedback
first, because some people are very sensitive to anything that
may be considered as crticism. But constructive criticism
I agree is very useful, best done if one already likes
the piece, or at least some aspects of it, or can see
how it could be made into a good piece with a bit of work
on something or other. If one sees nothing in a piece
at all then there is little point in saying anything about
it as it is clearly lost on one. So then one has to leave
it to someone else who is better attuned to the composer's
aspirations and intentions.

The sort of criticism that says
- well actually I wouldn't write a piece like that at all
and I don't like that style anyway and (by implication)
- why do you bother, or why don't you write in the same way
that I do isn't particularly helpful.

Robert

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

I've been prodded to reply to this. It's about the files at

http://x31eq.com/music/counterpoint.html

Carl Lumma wrote:
> I believe I listened to all these years ago (or have they been
> freshened?). And I don't remember any voice loss.

No, the page on the website is actually fresher than my local copy. So I can't have worked on it for a long time.

> Actually, I see for whatever reason that I did not have the modal
> variants.
> > And what's this at the bottom? What's the difference between the
> mohs4ao and mohs4o files?

I think I relaxed the rules for the 4ao files. It looks like I wrote that paragraph about the original files, and then wrote the two new versions. So I tagged them on at the end with a quick note. I can't remember what the difference is from this distance :(

Graham

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Robert Walker wrote:
> If you want some constructive criticism, how about a suggestion to point out > the phrasing just a bit more? Occasional micro pauses to point out moments
> of surprise and to mark where a phrase starts and ends, and occasional longer
> phrases. You do it already but could do it more.

Oh, yes. That's something I do think about because I have a tendency to have all the instruments playing all the time without taking any kind of break. But I also like music that doesn't do this. But I can see I need to think a bit harder.

> For instance in the Pelog piece, the player hardly ever pauses for a breath
> - the one or two places where it does break off very momentarily are handled
> effectively, but you could do with a few more of those perhaps.
> Even in a solo piece you can have occasional complete rests or at least
> points where notes get cut off a bit short to point out the phrasing
> and give more structure for the ear to listen to.

Well, the player there is me. On an instrument that doesn't have to pause for breath. There are things I don't like about it, but I don't want to do the work required to analyze it, re-write bits, re-record them to sound like the surrounding material and then splice them in. So it stays as it is, imperfect but spontaneous.

> When accompanying other instruments or voice you can have complete
> rests for a bar or two or even have an instrument that only comes
> in for a few bars now and again. Again you do that a bit but could
> do it more so, more pauses of a bar or two, and more short micropauses
> to point out moments of transition or surprise.

Hmm, yes. I've got as far as changing the rhythm so that a part doesn't just meander around with the same note length. I'm a bit wary of having a part drop out, though. Especially with such thin orchestration. Perhaps I should take the plunge and allow a few gaps to see if anything really suffers. The other thing is that the accompaniment is there to support my voice, and I don't want it to get too exposed...

> Same with the accompaniment to When I set out to Lyonaisse,
> a few micropauses in the accompaniment after moments of surprise
> or to point out changes, in a subtle way. You have one complete
> pause in the melody line at 1 minute 9 seconds and a pause
> befoer the registration shift at 57 seconds which are quite
> effective, but a few more could help. I'd maybe do a shorter
> note to start the third bar for instance at the mild moment of > surprise at 4 seconds, and maybe another one at 9 seconds
> for the transition to longer notes, and so on, I suppose
> every few seconds. Sometimes short phrases of a bar or less
> and more often longer ones. A player of an instrument
> would have many tiny sub-phrases too of just a few notes
> - however those are a lot of work to do in midi or whatever
> and require subtle changes in the lengths of notes and
> dynamics. But larger phrases are pretty easy to do.

I dug out the score, and can only see one rest in the whole instrumental part. So it does look, let alone sound, like it could do with some more space. Definitely something to think about if I revise this, or write something else.

What kind of subtle changes do you mean? It's quite easy to move notes around and change their length in the piano roll view, which is how I always edit it. But I'm not sure what I'd be doing other than shortening the occasional note.

> Can also pause completely for a bar or two or even have
> an instrument that only comes in for a few bars now and again.

Yes, that's how proper counterpoint works...

> I find that work on the phrasing helps the composer to think
> more about the piece in terms of phrases and answer phrases and so on.
> So as well as helping the listener, it also improves the composition
> indirectly.

Indeed, "question and answer" is something I often thing of playing with, but never do.

> Even if the instrument line is meant to be lost - still micropauses
> and rests in the accompaniment won't draw much attention to it > - will just make it so that it has a bit more of a pattern to it,
> like a carpet or wallpaper if you want that type of an effect,
> still those are often patterned rather than uniform in colour and
> it doesn't draw attention to them that much. It does if you do it right. I suppose I do it wrong and then get scared, and so go the safe route of having everything playing all the time. Thank you for these comments, it gives me an idea of how other people are hearing things, and what I need to work on.

Graham

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"

/makemicromusic/topicId_7704.html#7711

>
> Ultimately, it *does* boil down to a composer's priorities. I think
some,
> like you, really do feel a need to push forward with writing, maybe
at the
> expense of better realization; there are certainly others who just
aren't
> *aware* of the lame impression that a weak, ill-conceived, or 'good-
enough'
> rendition can give.
>

***Personally, I believe that Jeff Harrington's piano soundfont
renditions are *absolutely* good enough to give to a performer as a
demo. I can even remember back in the days when composers would hand
performers a score *without* a sound rendition... (many, many years
ago when dinosaurs roamed the wilds...)

But, then again I might fit into the "older" definition of a
composer...

(white male, too... alas... :)

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>

/makemicromusic/topicId_unknown.html#7893

wrote:
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ***Wouldn't it be more interesting to share something that *is*
> > representative of your current work, and worry less about
> > the "dressings..."?
> >
>
> Not (a) when my latest commissioned work isn't microtonal, (b) the
genre
> of the work may be off-putting to most of the list, and (c) I have
to
> pay GEMA to put any registered pieces online. But I have made a
set of
> keyboard etudes in the temperaments from 8- to 23tet (12 excluded),
well
> within the MMM portfolio. These pieces intentionally reference
more
> familar musics and are meant to be played by real players for whom
I
> would like to provide a decent mock-up. I have no expertise with
> current synthesis techniques (my expertise stopped approximately
with
> the Buchla 200, dexidecimal keypad entry and cassette tape storage)
and
> made an appeal to this group for advice, which has been valuable
and
> much welcome.

***Hello Daniel!

Well, the good news, I guess, is that GEMA pays relatively well, at
least compared to ASCAP/BMI... at least that's what I hear from a
German friend who *almost* lives on GEMA royalties, incredibly
enough...