Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Microtonality, Cover Songs, and Copyrights

if the song was recognizable its what determines it. just like if you change the arrangement of the original you could be sued.
Chuck Berry a few years ago sued the Beach boys for copying his guitar style and even though they thought it was a bit much, they say he deserves so money for his contributions and gave him 12 million.
Personally i am all for copyrights and intellectual property. It makes more sense than private land property. at least the later is directly related to the person whereas land is arbitrary. I say we get rid of all property holdings. People have a right to what they create and yes although it is influenced by others, they make it into something new.
better off extending the surf language in that in translating it to 22 ET one would expect it to grow in a different way.

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I >recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What would >stop me from trying to pass it off as my own work? Technically my >hypothetical version would really have nothing in common with the >original since it would make use of differently-tuned intervals, even >though it could still be recognizable to any casual listener. Imagine, >say, that I did a 22-tone Superpythagorean version of an old surf >song. Would there be any grounds for lawsuits if I didn't pay any >royalties to or get permission from the copyright holder of the >original song?
>
>Any ideas/speculations about this?
>
>-Igs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Igs,

{you wrote...}
>I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I >recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What would stop >me from trying to pass it off as my own work?

If you yourself knew it was a 'popular song', and that it was the creative work of someone else, why would you try to 'pass it off' as your own? Even if you acknowledge the originators, if your alterations to the song are really strong, listeners will see the spin you have put on it. But by admitting to yourself that it is someone else's work to begin with, you are being dishonest with your own heart to claim it as yours.

I guess that isn't legal, and only MHO. Beyond that, your original stuff is good enough - no need for 'arrangements', just whang out your own 22 surf!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I assume igs was asking in the spirit of Plunderphonics etc. It seems to be a 'hot 'issue in circles and in the ethnological field the whole idea of public domain is a big question. There are those attacking these issues in their work for this very reason. I can't say it has any appeal to myself, but recognize that it does for some.

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>Igs,
>
>{you wrote...}
> >
>>I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I >>recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What would stop >>me from trying to pass it off as my own work?
>> >>
>
>If you yourself knew it was a 'popular song', and that it was the creative >work of someone else, why would you try to 'pass it off' as your own? Even >if you acknowledge the originators, if your alterations to the song are >really strong, listeners will see the spin you have put on it. But by >admitting to yourself that it is someone else's work to begin with, you are >being dishonest with your own heart to claim it as yours.
>
>I guess that isn't legal, and only MHO. Beyond that, your original stuff is >good enough - no need for 'arrangements', just whang out your own 22 surf!
>
>Cheers,
>Jon >
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗harold_fortuin <harold@...>

What defines a copy of a song versus say an entirely original song
is of course a necessarily fuzzy concept, sometimes decided in legal
proceedings.

Nonetheless, I have myself made a transcription of "Bali H'ai" from
South Pacific by Rodgers/Hammerstein into 22-ET, with part of
another song's bass line, and new lyrics of my own, and performed
this at the 2001 El Paso Microtonal Hootenanny. Since the event
didn't make anyone rich, no one bothered to sue me for it.

Of course, if I release it as a complete commercial recording, I
would at least owe the Rodgers/Hammerstein estate a few cents per CD
sold, or per broadcast for which I was paid--there is a standard
rate for cover versions. Check with the Harry Fox Agency which has a
decent website.

However, my alterations of "Bali H'ai" might not be appreciated by
the Rodgers/Hammerstein heirs, which could put me into legal
trouble, so the safest way to do a cover of a song is either
1) not to tear it up too much, or
2) change it so much that it hardly has anything to do with the
original, and thus is more arguably your own original work.

If your rendition was found to have sufficient original content, BMI
or ASCAP might give you partial royalities on it, but don't count on
that (and of course, you'd need to be a member of one of these or
SESAC if you're a US composer to get your royalties).

However, if you did a marvelous version that could get you into
legal trouble, perhaps the publicity for your work could be worth
the legal pain--especially if you have little wealth or income to be
seized in legal proceedings. I certainly don't suggest anyone break
the law, but of course some people will still do so at their own
risk.

Legally yours,
Harold

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I assume igs was asking in the spirit of Plunderphonics etc. It
seems to
> be a 'hot 'issue in circles and in the ethnological field the
whole idea
> of public domain is a big question. There are those attacking
these
> issues in their work for this very reason. I can't say it has any
appeal
> to myself, but recognize that it does for some.
>
> Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
>
> >Igs,
> >
> >{you wrote...}
> >
> >
> >>I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose
I
> >>recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What
would stop
> >>me from trying to pass it off as my own work?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If you yourself knew it was a 'popular song', and that it was the
creative
> >work of someone else, why would you try to 'pass it off' as your
own? Even
> >if you acknowledge the originators, if your alterations to the
song are
> >really strong, listeners will see the spin you have put on it.
But by
> >admitting to yourself that it is someone else's work to begin
with, you are
> >being dishonest with your own heart to claim it as yours.
> >
> >I guess that isn't legal, and only MHO. Beyond that, your
original stuff is
> >good enough - no need for 'arrangements', just whang out your own
22 surf!
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗ambassadorbob <petesfriedclams@...>

I forgot about Plunderphomics, which was a brilliant idea, at least to
ask the questions "what is public domain? what is commercial? what
control does the original artist have over versions?

John Osborne had to destroy all his Michael Jackson "plunders", I
believe. But clearly, you'd never know what the source was by
listening to it, and if you knew, it was so absurd/obscured as to make
the point really glaring.

If MJJ hated it, or someone representing him did, apparently they
effectively withheld their permission. Maybe what they hated was that
Osborne announced that he would NOT take a profit from it, and
therefore would not be forwarding any royalties to them.

Had they given him permission, how would there have been revenue that
needed to be accounted for? &c., &c.

If MJJ had said, "I'm flattered, use it, and DON'T make any money off
of it", what kind of statement would THAT have made?

Interesting, in any case, I think.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "harold_fortuin" <harold@m...>
wrote:
>
> What defines a copy of a song versus say an entirely original song
> is of course a necessarily fuzzy concept, sometimes decided in legal
> proceedings.
>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Hmm...I agree with you entirely about "private property" in the form
of land. Where we got the idea that we could own the Earth is beyond
me. As far as intellectual property goes, I myself draw a line
between the actual recorded work and the idea of the song itself. I
frankly don't believe that musical ideas are something we create any
more than mathamatical formulas are something we create. Music,
IMHO, is really just a very emotional/intuitive type of math--it's
all numbers. There is a large (but not necessarily infinite)
totality of all musical possibility that exists beyond the realm of
human consciousness, and when someone gets a musical idea I think
they're just pulling from that realm. Of course when they put the
work into making an actual physical recording of it, THAT is a
creation, and they are entitled to ownership.

Of course, I also don't believe humans were ever "meant" to develop
societies large enough that individuals have to become "specialists"
in anything, and I think the concept of money is ridiculous...but
hey, the world's here, and we're stuck with it for now, so I have to
put ideals aside and deal with actuals, so even though I don't
believe in intellectual property, I still don't agree with claiming
primacy of an idea already expressed by someone else if it's in the
interest of profit.

But this is all beside the point: we're pretending I'm the devil and
I'm out to screw everyone for my personal gain, and we're trying to
figure out if I'd get away with it! Because of course it works the
other way, too: suppose someone heard a really awesome microtonal
piece and decided to adapt it to 12-tET? Could THEY get away with
doing THAT?

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> if the song was recognizable its what determines it. just like if
you
> change the arrangement of the original you could be sued.
> Chuck Berry a few years ago sued the Beach boys for copying his
guitar
> style and even though they thought it was a bit much, they say he
> deserves so money for his contributions and gave him 12 million.
> Personally i am all for copyrights and intellectual property. It
makes
> more sense than private land property. at least the later is
directly
> related to the person whereas land is arbitrary. I say we get rid
of all
> property holdings. People have a right to what they create and yes
> although it is influenced by others, they make it into something
new.
> better off extending the surf language in that in translating it
to 22
> ET one would expect it to grow in a different way.
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >I just thought up a potetentially thorny legal question: suppose I
> >recorded a microtonal version of a popular 12-tET song. What
would
> >stop me from trying to pass it off as my own work? Technically my
> >hypothetical version would really have nothing in common with the
> >original since it would make use of differently-tuned intervals,
even
> >though it could still be recognizable to any casual listener.
Imagine,
> >say, that I did a 22-tone Superpythagorean version of an old surf
> >song. Would there be any grounds for lawsuits if I didn't pay any
> >royalties to or get permission from the copyright holder of the
> >original song?
> >
> >Any ideas/speculations about this?
> >
> >-Igs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Well, I'm not saying the creative process is necessarily mathematical
(though it can be), but the end result *is*. Every aspect of a
musical performance that could be relevantly discussed in a court of
law can be assigned a number. Harmony, melody, meter, tempo, timbre,
duration, envelope...it's all numeric. We musicians are just
arrangers of numbers when you get down to the very basics. Any
musical idea is nothing more than a particular set of values for a
particular set of parameters. Slowly, musicians are uncovering more
and more permutations of these numeric arrangements. For practical
purposes, machines could do just as well if they were sufficiently
sophisticated (i.e. included fractal or chaotic algorithms to account
for human "nuance"/"feeling"). If you can transcribe it, a machine
could produce it. I find it totally vain to claim "authorship" of a
musical idea. Actual recorded performances are a different thing, of
course: they are physical, tangible, existential. But musical ideas
do not exist; they are essence only. They are conceived as specific
values of the quasi-infinite set of musical parameters.

Or, if you prefer a less cold/detached way of putting it: musical
ideas are not *made* the way a house (or a car, or a bench, or a
piano) is made. They just *appear*, they drift out of the ether in
to human consciousness. A composition is not a creation, it is an
expression of an idea.

How can you claim authorship of an idea? Can you be sure that no one
else has had "your" idea before? Can you be sure that the same idea
might not occur independently to someone else at some point in time?
Do you have the right to deprive anyone else of the right to express
that idea in their own way? These aren't rhetorical questions by the
way.

This may seem different from the original prospect of someone taking
someone else's "tune", putting their spin on it, and calling it their
own. But consider this: what if our would-be plagiarist actually
*didn't* intentionally copy someone else. Suppose he wrote a piece
totally independently that just happend to sound *exactly* like a
microtonal translation of an old 12-tET song? Would all the rules
still apply?

*sigh* maybe I shouldn't be mixing music with philosophy...

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> It would be nice if this were so, but Einstein could barely play
music.
> No art is something that is way beyond science and math and that is
why
> they hate it so much . Artist will always be able to do things they
> can't. There are real people who create. and creating is not really
> something that can be captured under the microscope, much less even
> defined.
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> > I
> >frankly don't believe that musical ideas are something we create
any
> >more than mathamatical formulas are something we create. Music,
> >IMHO, is really just a very emotional/intuitive type of math--it's
> >all numbers.
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>Hmm...I agree with you entirely about "private property" in the
>form of land. Where we got the idea that we could own the Earth
>is beyond me.

Land ownership does not entitle you to a piece of the Earth. It
gives you a certain amount of control over what activities take
place on a piece of Earth. America has the strongest property
rights in the World that I know of, but there's still zoning,
squatting rights, and you can be forced to make way for public
works projects.

As for analog vs. digital intellectual property, there's at least
one reason to favor the former over the latter -- digital goods
can be duplicated without cost. I think it was Lars Ullrich who,
during the Napster debate, complained that file sharing wasn't
"sharing" because if you share a sandwich, you're left with only
half a sandwich. This is precisely the reason why laws developed
for sandwiches ought to be reconsidered in the case of digital
content!

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

i could just as easily describe things as chemical processes of which numbers are a result. at least Chemicals are real outside of humans, where as numbers are not. I claim what is mine as mine. I have had enough people come up to me say they have never heard any music like that from anyone ( in regard to my solo vibraphone music ) . this comment usually from musicians.
music produces an idea in the mind but can come about by without any thought at all in this sense music has more to do with psychology than philosophy

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>Well, I'm not saying the creative process is necessarily mathematical >(though it can be), but the end result *is*. Every aspect of a >musical performance that could be relevantly discussed in a court of >law can be assigned a number. Harmony, melody, meter, tempo, timbre, >duration, envelope...it's all numeric. We musicians are just >arrangers of numbers when you get down to the very basics. Any >musical idea is nothing more than a particular set of values for a >particular set of parameters. Slowly, musicians are uncovering more >and more permutations of these numeric arrangements. For practical >purposes, machines could do just as well if they were sufficiently >sophisticated (i.e. included fractal or chaotic algorithms to account >for human "nuance"/"feeling"). If you can transcribe it, a machine >could produce it. I find it totally vain to claim "authorship" of a >musical idea. Actual recorded performances are a different thing, of >course: they are physical, tangible, existential. But musical ideas >do not exist; they are essence only. They are conceived as specific >values of the quasi-infinite set of musical parameters.
>
>Or, if you prefer a less cold/detached way of putting it: musical >ideas are not *made* the way a house (or a car, or a bench, or a >piano) is made. They just *appear*, they drift out of the ether in >to human consciousness. A composition is not a creation, it is an >expression of an idea. >
>How can you claim authorship of an idea? Can you be sure that no one >else has had "your" idea before? Can you be sure that the same idea >might not occur independently to someone else at some point in time? >Do you have the right to deprive anyone else of the right to express >that idea in their own way? These aren't rhetorical questions by the >way.
>
>This may seem different from the original prospect of someone taking >someone else's "tune", putting their spin on it, and calling it their >own. But consider this: what if our would-be plagiarist actually >*didn't* intentionally copy someone else. Suppose he wrote a piece >totally independently that just happend to sound *exactly* like a >microtonal translation of an old 12-tET song? Would all the rules >still apply? >
>*sigh* maybe I shouldn't be mixing music with philosophy...
>
>-Igs
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>It would be nice if this were so, but Einstein could barely play >> >>
>music. > >
>>No art is something that is way beyond science and math and that is >> >>
>why > >
>>they hate it so much . Artist will always be able to do things they >>can't. There are real people who create. and creating is not really >>something that can be captured under the microscope, much less even >>defined.
>>
>>Igliashon Jones wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>> I >>>frankly don't believe that musical ideas are something we create >>> >>>
>any > >
>>>more than mathamatical formulas are something we create. Music, >>>IMHO, is really just a very emotional/intuitive type of math--it's >>>all numbers. >>>
>>> >>>
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

yes land ownership , in the end is a fraud, cause it is really the state that owns it

Carl Lumma wrote:

>>Hmm...I agree with you entirely about "private property" in the
>>form of land. Where we got the idea that we could own the Earth
>>is beyond me.
>> >>
>
>Land ownership does not entitle you to a piece of the Earth. It
>gives you a certain amount of control over what activities take
>place on a piece of Earth. America has the strongest property
>rights in the World that I know of, but there's still zoning,
>squatting rights, and you can be forced to make way for public
>works projects.
>
>As for analog vs. digital intellectual property, there's at least
>one reason to favor the former over the latter -- digital goods
>can be duplicated without cost. I think it was Lars Ullrich who,
>during the Napster debate, complained that file sharing wasn't
>"sharing" because if you share a sandwich, you're left with only
>half a sandwich. This is precisely the reason why laws developed
>for sandwiches ought to be reconsidered in the case of digital
>content!
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

Igs wrote,

> Slowly, musicians are uncovering more
> and more permutations of these numeric arrangements.

You are of the "abstract mathematics is discovered, not invented" school
of thought?

I don't buy the way you're differentiating between a performance and a
composition. Neither is more or less amenable to numerical quantification
than the other. We can, in fact, program machines to grind out an endless
supply of "musical blather" and then have the machine perform it in nuanced
and expressive ways. Whether a human finds that *satisfying music* or not
is another question -- neither the performance nor the composition is less
numerical than the other.

> Or, if you prefer a less cold/detached way of putting it: musical
> ideas are not *made* the way a house (or a car, or a bench, or a
> piano) is made. They just *appear*, they drift out of the ether in
> to human consciousness.

No they don't just "appear" -- at least not always. I make up musical
ideas all the time. So does everyone else. Composers have been making up
stuff to fit certain requirements for centuries. A film director says, "I
need 18.5 seconds of "scary music" while this stalker creeps up." And the
composer works with his bag of tools and crafts 18.5 seconds of stuff. Same
thing as building a model airplane.

> *sigh* maybe I shouldn't be mixing music with philosophy...

Yeah, this is getting a bit far afield. As long as we're talking about how
*TUNING* fits into the picture, I'm game to keep hitting the delete button
on bits that don't interest me, but let's not get too vague and
philosophical and away from tuning and applications of tuning... You could
try the meta-tuning list... ;-)

And please do read Easley Blackwood's book "The Structure of Recognizable
Diatonic Tunings". It's absolutely a must-read for someone like yourself
asking these philosophical questions about "What if I re-tune X; is it
still X?" Even the book's title gives a hint about the boundaries of
recognizability for tunes made in our diatonic Western tradition.

Rick

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

Anything can be assigned a number. The question is: does it get
you anything. In the case of music, there really isn't much in the
way of numbering that's all that much help.

>How can you claim authorship of an idea?

Filing for a method patent is one way.

>Can you be sure that no one else has had "your" idea before?

Nope.

>Can you be sure that the same idea might not occur independently to
>someone else at some point in time? Do you have the right to deprive
>anyone else of the right to express that idea in their own way?
>These aren't rhetorical questions by the way.

If I understood your previous message correctly, you're in favor
of IP for particular recordings, but not for song abstractions.
Is that right? If so, where do you come down on the remix issue?

>This may seem different from the original prospect of someone taking
>someone else's "tune", putting their spin on it, and calling it their
>own. But consider this: what if our would-be plagiarist actually
>*didn't* intentionally copy someone else. Suppose he wrote a piece
>totally independently that just happend to sound *exactly* like a
>microtonal translation of an old 12-tET song?

The chances of it sounding exactly alike are typically vanishingly
small. Though the estate of John Cage did sue somebody over a
silent track (that wasn't, if I remember correctly, even 4:33 long).
I forget what happened to that case.

-Carl

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Yeah, okay, I was getting a bit off-topic there. Let me try to bring
it back to relevancy for this list by back-tracking to where I made
the "OT-turn-off".

It probably makes more sense to look at this from the reverse of
original question (or at least is more likely to occur this way, I'd
think): what if someone took one of your (I'm addressing the whole
group here) microtonal pieces, adapted it to 12-tET, and called it
their own? For argument's sake, let's say your hypothetical
composition is *really* xenharmonic, maybe using all 7- or 11-limit
(but not 5-limit) harmonies, and is maybe even structurally
incompatible with 12-tET. But someone does it anyway! Rounds every
note to the nearest 100 cents, corrects for any commatic drifts, etc.
etc. How would you prove that it was really your piece? Step by
step, please tell me how you would explain to the judge that the 12-
tET piece is actually the same tune as your microtonal one and that
you deserve all the royalties/rights/rewards/etc.

-igs

P.S. I'm officially dropping the I.P. debate as of this posting, but
for the record, I do not consider myself the owner of my songs as
ideas. As far as I'm concerned, they're public domain. Anyone can
play them or record their own versions, so long as they don't claim
ownership for themselves. If anyone wants to debate I.P. off-list,
feel free to e-mail me. This stuff is my bread and butter!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
> Igs wrote,
>
> > Slowly, musicians are uncovering more
> > and more permutations of these numeric arrangements.
>
> You are of the "abstract mathematics is discovered, not invented"
school
> of thought?
>
> I don't buy the way you're differentiating between a performance
and a
> composition. Neither is more or less amenable to numerical
quantification
> than the other. We can, in fact, program machines to grind out an
endless
> supply of "musical blather" and then have the machine perform it in
nuanced
> and expressive ways. Whether a human finds that *satisfying music*
or not
> is another question -- neither the performance nor the composition
is less
> numerical than the other.
>
> > Or, if you prefer a less cold/detached way of putting it: musical
> > ideas are not *made* the way a house (or a car, or a bench, or a
> > piano) is made. They just *appear*, they drift out of the ether
in
> > to human consciousness.
>
> No they don't just "appear" -- at least not always. I make up
musical
> ideas all the time. So does everyone else. Composers have been
making up
> stuff to fit certain requirements for centuries. A film director
says, "I
> need 18.5 seconds of "scary music" while this stalker creeps up."
And the
> composer works with his bag of tools and crafts 18.5 seconds of
stuff. Same
> thing as building a model airplane.
>
> > *sigh* maybe I shouldn't be mixing music with philosophy...
>
> Yeah, this is getting a bit far afield. As long as we're talking
about how
> *TUNING* fits into the picture, I'm game to keep hitting the delete
button
> on bits that don't interest me, but let's not get too vague and
> philosophical and away from tuning and applications of tuning...
You could
> try the meta-tuning list... ;-)
>
> And please do read Easley Blackwood's book "The Structure of
Recognizable
> Diatonic Tunings". It's absolutely a must-read for someone like
yourself
> asking these philosophical questions about "What if I re-tune X; is
it
> still X?" Even the book's title gives a hint about the boundaries
of
> recognizability for tunes made in our diatonic Western tradition.
>
> Rick

🔗Pete McRae <petesfriedclams@...>

One of the reasons I was compelled to post the last piece I did was precisely because it seemed open to that debate as to whether it was actually "microtonal" music (or something that wouldn't suffer a loss of content by being played in 12-equal?).

For my money, it was conceived as a JI piece, and should remain so. Not that I'd complain if someone wanted to play it in 12tET, I'd be thrilled that they liked it well enough to bother. But, to me, it'd be an awfully lazy way to do it.

I think it's kind of the same as the difference between composers who can make a living doing "derivative" or copycat works that they can copyright without any sincerity about their creations, and others who are truly striving for an honest expression, at whatever level of "originality". I think it's usually pretty obvious which is which.

In the case of my piece, I knew it probably wasn't strikingly original in any way, but it IS a sincere expression of my musical interests.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/petemcraymusic.htm

(Windhoek, WV)

Cheers y'all,

Pete

Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...> wrote:Step by
step, please tell me how you would explain to the judge that the 12-
tET piece is actually the same tune as your microtonal one and that
you deserve all the royalties/rights/rewards/etc.

-igs

I guess I would just do the usual (?) showing of documentation as to dates and times that I recorded and published the piece, and let the judge or jury decide. As far as I'm concerned it's MY piece, my message to the world, just like any other. It only becomes an issue when there's revenue at stake, though, dudn' it?

ps Igs! I really like the metal idea, it's something I've wanted to do for a long time, and never quite hit. I hope there'll be lots more, 'cause I think then those Tool and Crimson (for example) guys might have to get serious about it, microtonally speaking. ;-)

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

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I know that Lou Harrison used to write all his 12 ET pieces really in the kirnberger tuning he so liked and felt they could play it in 12 ET if they had too.

Pete McRae wrote:

>One of the reasons I was compelled to post the last piece I did was precisely because it seemed open to that debate as to whether it was actually "microtonal" music (or something that wouldn't suffer a loss of content by being played in 12-equal?).
> >For my money, it was conceived as a JI piece, and should remain so. Not that I'd complain if someone wanted to play it in 12tET, I'd be thrilled that they liked it well enough to bother. But, to me, it'd be an awfully lazy way to do it.
> >I think it's kind of the same as the difference between composers who can make a living doing "derivative" or copycat works that they can copyright without any sincerity about their creations, and others who are truly striving for an honest expression, at whatever level of "originality". I think it's usually pretty obvious which is which.
> >In the case of my piece, I knew it probably wasn't strikingly original in any way, but it IS a sincere expression of my musical interests.
> >http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/petemcraymusic.htm
> >(Windhoek, WV)
> >Cheers y'all,
> >Pete
>
>Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...> wrote:Step by >step, please tell me how you would explain to the judge that the 12-
>tET piece is actually the same tune as your microtonal one and that >you deserve all the royalties/rights/rewards/etc.
>
>-igs
> >I guess I would just do the usual (?) showing of documentation as to dates and times that I recorded and published the piece, and let the judge or jury decide. As far as I'm concerned it's MY piece, my message to the world, just like any other. It only becomes an issue when there's revenue at stake, though, dudn' it?
>
>
>ps Igs! I really like the metal idea, it's something I've wanted to do for a long time, and never quite hit. I hope there'll be lots more, 'cause I think then those Tool and Crimson (for example) guys might have to get serious about it, microtonally speaking. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Reverend R Clark <clark@...>

Greetings Folks!

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> Pete,
>
> {you wrote...}
>
>> In the case of my piece, I knew it probably wasn't strikingly >> original in
>> any way, but it IS a sincere expression of my musical interests.
>
>
> "The merit of originality is not novelty; it is sincerity."
> - Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian and essayist, leading figure in the
> Victorian era. 1795-1881
>
> Gene posted a Vaughn-Williams quote about originality on ATL, and I've > been
> collecting other quotes on the very subject. I thought the above was > apt in
> your case...

I collect quotations also. Here are some that seem too fit pretty well.

God creates, I do not create. I assemble and I steal everywhere to do it- from what I see, from what the dancers can do, from what others do.
- George Balanchine, NY Times 16 Dec 63

To have and not to give is often worse than to steal.
- Marie Von Ebner-Eschenbach

ï¿½Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.ï¿½
- Pablo Picasso, Spanish painter, sculptor

ï¿½There is a continuing, mandatory need for heresy in its most profound sense;
For freedom to choose and follow truth wherever it leads.ï¿½
- William Edelen, Contemporary American author/clergyman

ï¿½It is better to be true to what you believe,
though that be wrong, than to be false to what you believe,
even if that belief is correct.ï¿½
- Anna Howard Shaw (American preacher, physician and suffragist)

ï¿½If everything is connected to everything else, then everyone is ultimately responsible for everything. We can blame nothing on anyone else. The more we comprehend our mutual interdependence, the more we fathom the implications of our most trivial acts. We find ourselves within a luminous organism of sacred responsibility.ï¿½
- Laurence Kushner, "Invisible Lines of Connection"

ï¿½Appreciation is a wonderful thing; It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well.ï¿½
- Voltaire

ï¿½His music used to be original. Now it's aboriginal.ï¿½
- Sir Ernest Newman on Igor Stravinsky

I could have gone on for pages and this is not about tuning per se so to conserve the bandwidth of those uninterested I put the rest up on my webpage.
<http://home.acceleration.net/clark/PaperVu/quoter/Collected.Works_Giants.html>

Does this Help?
Thanks for Everything!
One Love, R
++++++

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Well quoted! Too bad you've got that cloaking thingy...

-igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Reverend R Clark <clark@a...>
wrote:
> <cloaking device deactivated>
>
> Greetings Folks!
>
> Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
>
> > Pete,
> >
> > {you wrote...}
> >
> >> In the case of my piece, I knew it probably wasn't strikingly
> >> original in
> >> any way, but it IS a sincere expression of my musical interests.
> >
> >
> > "The merit of originality is not novelty; it is sincerity."
> > - Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian and essayist, leading figure
in the
> > Victorian era. 1795-1881
> >
> > Gene posted a Vaughn-Williams quote about originality on ATL, and
I've
> > been
> > collecting other quotes on the very subject. I thought the above
was
> > apt in
> > your case...
>
> I collect quotations also. Here are some that seem too fit pretty
well.
>
> God creates, I do not create. I assemble and I steal everywhere to
do
> it- from what I see, from what the dancers can do, from what others
do.
> - George Balanchine, NY Times 16 Dec 63
>
> To have and not to give is often worse than to steal.
> - Marie Von Ebner-Eschenbach
>
> "Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth."
> - Pablo Picasso, Spanish painter, sculptor
>
> "There is a continuing, mandatory need for heresy in its most
profound
> sense;
> For freedom to choose and follow truth wherever it leads."
> - William Edelen, Contemporary American author/clergyman
>
> "It is better to be true to what you believe,
> though that be wrong, than to be false to what you believe,
> even if that belief is correct."
> - Anna Howard Shaw (American preacher, physician and suffragist)
>
> "If everything is connected to everything else, then everyone is
> ultimately responsible for everything. We can blame nothing on
anyone
> else. The more we comprehend our mutual interdependence, the more
we
> fathom the implications of our most trivial acts. We find ourselves
> within a luminous organism of sacred responsibility."
> - Laurence Kushner, "Invisible Lines of Connection"
>
> "Appreciation is a wonderful thing; It makes what is excellent in
others
> belong to us as well."
> - Voltaire
>
> "His music used to be original. Now it's aboriginal."
> - Sir Ernest Newman on Igor Stravinsky
>
> I could have gone on for pages and this is not about tuning per se
so to
> conserve the bandwidth of those uninterested I put the rest up on
my
> webpage.
>
<http://home.acceleration.net/clark/PaperVu/quoter/Collected.Works_Gia
nts.html>
>
> <cloaking device reactivated>
>
> Does this Help?
> Thanks for Everything!
> One Love, R
> ++++++

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Pete,
[you wrote:]
>As far as I'm concerned it's MY piece, my message to the world, just
>like any other. It only becomes an issue when there's revenue at
>stake, though, dudn' it?

Ain't it da truth? If music was not a "livelihood" for anyone, it'd
be totally separate from the whole I.P. debacle. No one would care
about "ownership" of songs. Too bad that ain't the case....

Anyway, I think microtonality has the capability to really challenge
the notions of what's original and what's not. It could really blur
the line between "plagiarized" and "inspired by".

Glad you liked the micro-metal...I think I'm gonna cool it for a
while, I don't want to come to be known as "That 22-EDO Metal Kid".
Stevie and I really need to finish our Porcu-pop song...

-Igs

>
>
> ps Igs! I really like the metal idea, it's something I've wanted
to do for a long time, and never quite hit. I hope there'll be lots
more, 'cause I think then those Tool and Crimson (for example) guys
might have to get serious about it, microtonally speaking. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
"Igliashon Jones" <igliashon@s...> wrote:

> Hmm...I agree with you entirely
> about "private property" in the
> form of land. Where we got
> the idea that we could own the
> Earth is beyond me.

that's easy ... long ago, someone
realized that the amount of land on
the surface of the Earth is only a
finite amount, and so therefore
owning bits of it could be an
immensely profitable venture!

>
> <snip>
>
> But this is all beside the point: we're pretending I'm the devil and
> I'm out to screw everyone for my personal gain, and we're trying to
> figure out if I'd get away with it! Because of course it works the
> other way, too: suppose someone heard a really awesome microtonal
> piece and decided to adapt it to 12-tET? Could THEY get away with
> doing THAT?

well ... i made a MIDI of the beginning of Partch's _Barstow_,
and tried listening to the 12-edo version of it ... but it
didn't sound anything like what Partch wrote.

OTOH, my own _19-tone Samba_ sounds almost exactly the same
whether played on a 19-edo guitar or a 12-edo guitar.

http://sonic-arts.org:80/monzo/19tet/19samba.htm

-monz

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 11:51 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> I know that Lou Harrison used to write all his 12 ET pieces really in
> the kirnberger tuning he so liked and felt they could play it in 12 ET
> if they had too.

Yeah, and I think the reverse is true, a lot of 12-tet music works well in
certain well-temperaments, and benefits from the different step sizes. But I
no longer scoff or feel victimized when I have to play and compose in 12. My
latest 12-compositions have taught me to see 12-tet anew, and it's good to
learn from my experiences elsewhere; It's like I can write for it with fresh
ears.

Which reminds me, I think the arguments about which Bach temperament was used
by Bach for his music is moot. So many of them work, and bring out different
colors, that for me, there is no one "correct" tuning. I like many of them
equally well. It's more of a subtle color-mood thing for me.

But some music is really really written for the tuning. From my own works, for
instance, "The Juggler" is 19 only, through and through. "Troll Cave" is for
Gene's tuning only. But "Buzz Buzz" works in 12 or *any* reasonably
close-to-12 historical well temperement.

I've come to a place in my thinking about tuning recently where I've come to
appreciate the unique qualities of 12-tet, and think it is no longer
acceptable to hold the view that it's the only non-usable tuning. I think
it's a great tuning, and one of many possible tuning choices. There are some
things that can only be said in 12-tet, that are still worth saying
(Milhaud's music comes to mind). How could someone like Pythagorean, and not
like 12-tet?

Best,
Aaron.

🔗Reverend R Clark <clark@...>

Greetings Igliashon and ALL!

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>
> Well quoted! Too bad you've got that cloaking thingy...
>
> -igs

Yeah it is a cross-eyed bear... and the cloaking device really protects ya'll more than it does me, 'cause I don't know $#!+ about tuning. So I lurks about hiding and watching while you tuning eggucated folks have at.

Thing is I've been lurking for quite some time, since Apr 26, 2K3, actually and confess that most of the posts here are difficult for me to make heads or tails of so I've gone for longer and longer periods of time without reading posts that make me feel iggynant. Just now I am taking another stab at this area of knowledge.

This is a subject I've wanted to want to learn about (we all do what we Really want, ay?), and that is shifting to more, I want to learn about "micro" tuning which sounds kule and Just Intonation is simply a wae kule sounding phrase calling up images of fair words in a reassuring voice.

I mostly Love Percussion and building instruments to support that fix. The past several years I've been getting into what I call "tuned percussion" hence my subscription here on [MMM] and the [tuning] channel also at yahoo.

I am contemplating and planning a marimba soon, the fellow that is going to mentor me through it I met on the drumming lists and he recently moved here. He asked me what range and tuning I wanted. I chose a Bass and because I already have a 12tET soprano marimba and a Senegalese balafon that is I believe pentatonic. He is telling me that diatonic is the way to go to have a Bass marimba that will "play well" with the keyboards I already have. I really don't grasp this at all, yet.

I'm thinking if you want me to post more, I need a shoe-horn to get my foot in the door, 'cause this is all still Greek or unGrok or something along those don't have a clue lines for me.

I accept that I am a dilettante trying to overcome my shallowness in a rather superficial way. Can any of you remarkably astute folks steer me to some (free/online) entry level tutorial so's maybe I can contribute something other than other folks words, sometime before Armageddon sets in?

Can you Help?
Thanks for Everything!
One Love, R
++++++
ï¿½To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.ï¿½
- Chinese Proverb

Why do bands have bass players?
To translate for the drummer.

ï¿½Music is essentially useless, as life is.ï¿½
- George Santayana (1863-1952)

ï¿½Life is like music; it must be composed by ear, feeling, and instinct, not by rule.ï¿½
- Samuel Butler

ï¿½These go to eleven.ï¿½
- Christopher Guest as Nigel Tufnel in "This Is Spinal Tap" Embassy Pictures, 1984

ï¿½The new humanity will be universal, And it will have the artist's attitude, that of the musician; That is, it will recognize that the immense value and beauty of the human being lies precisely in the fact that each individual belongs to two realms, simultaneously, that of nature and that of the spirit.ï¿½
- Thomas Mann

ï¿½While making music together, people surpass invisible frontiers- as music is the only language which reaches from heart to heart without words or aggression.ï¿½
- Yacoub 'Bruno' Camara of Fatala

ï¿½Percussion music is revolution. Sound and rhythm have too long been submissive to the restrictions of nineteenth century music. Today we are fighting for their emancipation. Tomorrow, with electronic music in our ears, we will hear freedom. At the present stage of revolution, a healthy lawlessness is warranted. Experiment must necessarily be carried on by hitting anything-tin pans, rice bowls, iron pipes-anything we can lay our hands on. Not only hitting, but rubbing, scraping, making sound in every possible way...What we can't do ourselves will be done by machines which we will invent.ï¿½
- John Cage, 1939, from Rebirth Of the Cool Phive CD booklet
++++++

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Reverend R Clark <clark@a...>
> wrote:

>> <cloaking device deactivated>
>>
>> Greetings Folks!
>
> <http://home.acceleration.net/clark/PaperVu/quoter/Collected.Works_Giants.html>
>
>> <cloaking device reactivated>
>
>> Does this Help?
>> Thanks for Everything!
>> One Love, R
>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Hey Reverend,

Don't feel ashamed at all for lacking knowledge. There's a tremendous amount
of printed and, more conveniently, web-based material you can use to play
catch-up.

For starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music

Cheers,
Aaron.

On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:11 am, Reverend R Clark wrote:
> Greetings Igliashon and ALL!
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
> > Well quoted! Too bad you've got that cloaking thingy...
> >
> > -igs
>
> Yeah it is a cross-eyed bear... and the cloaking device really protects
> ya'll more than it does me, 'cause I don't know $#!+ about tuning. So I
> lurks about hiding and watching while you tuning eggucated folks have at.
>
> Thing is I've been lurking for quite some time, since Apr 26, 2K3,
> actually and confess that most of the posts here are difficult for me to
> make heads or tails of so I've gone for longer and longer periods of
> time without reading posts that make me feel iggynant. Just now I am
> taking another stab at this area of knowledge.
>
> This is a subject I've wanted to want to learn about (we all do what we
> Really want, ay?), and that is shifting to more, I want to learn about
> "micro" tuning which sounds kule and Just Intonation is simply a wae
> kule sounding phrase calling up images of fair words in a reassuring voice.
>
> I mostly Love Percussion and building instruments to support that fix.
> The past several years I've been getting into what I call "tuned
> percussion" hence my subscription here on [MMM] and the [tuning] channel
> also at yahoo.
>
> I am contemplating and planning a marimba soon, the fellow that is going
> to mentor me through it I met on the drumming lists and he recently
> moved here. He asked me what range and tuning I wanted. I chose a Bass
> and because I already have a 12tET soprano marimba and a Senegalese
> balafon that is I believe pentatonic. He is telling me that diatonic is
> the way to go to have a Bass marimba that will "play well" with the
> keyboards I already have. I really don't grasp this at all, yet.
>
> I'm thinking if you want me to post more, I need a shoe-horn to get my
> foot in the door, 'cause this is all still Greek or unGrok or something
> along those don't have a clue lines for me.
>
> I accept that I am a dilettante trying to overcome my shallowness in a
> rather superficial way. Can any of you remarkably astute folks steer me
> to some (free/online) entry level tutorial so's maybe I can contribute
> something other than other folks words, sometime before Armageddon sets in?
>
> Can you Help?
> Thanks for Everything!
> One Love, R
> ++++++
> “To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.”
> - Chinese Proverb
>
> Why do bands have bass players?
> To translate for the drummer.
>
> “Music is essentially useless, as life is.”
> - George Santayana (1863-1952)
>
> “Life is like music; it must be composed by ear, feeling, and instinct,
> not by rule.”
> - Samuel Butler
>
> “These go to eleven.”
> - Christopher Guest as Nigel Tufnel in "This Is Spinal Tap" Embassy
> Pictures, 1984
>
> “The new humanity will be universal, And it will have the artist's
> attitude, that of the musician; That is, it will recognize that the
> immense value and beauty of the human being lies precisely in the fact
> that each individual belongs to two realms, simultaneously, that of
> nature and that of the spirit.”
> - Thomas Mann
>
> “While making music together, people surpass invisible frontiers- as
> music is the only language which reaches from heart to heart without
> words or aggression.”
> - Yacoub 'Bruno' Camara of Fatala
>
> “Percussion music is revolution. Sound and rhythm have too long been
> submissive to the restrictions of nineteenth century music. Today we are
> fighting for their emancipation. Tomorrow, with electronic music in our
> ears, we will hear freedom. At the present stage of revolution, a
> healthy lawlessness is warranted. Experiment must necessarily be carried
> on by hitting anything-tin pans, rice bowls, iron pipes-anything we can
> lay our hands on. Not only hitting, but rubbing, scraping, making sound
> in every possible way...What we can't do ourselves will be done by
> machines which we will invent.”
> - John Cage, 1939, from Rebirth Of the Cool Phive CD booklet
> ++++++
>
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Reverend R Clark <clark@a...>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> <cloaking device deactivated>
> >>
> >> Greetings Folks!
> >
> > <http://home.acceleration.net/clark/PaperVu/quoter/Collected.Works_Giants
> >.html>
> >
> >> <cloaking device reactivated>
> >>
> >> Does this Help?
> >> Thanks for Everything!
> >> One Love, R
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Reverend R Clark <clark@...>

Greetings Aaron and ALL!

Thank you for the starters, dear. I read the page and am working on the extensive ancilliary links.

A question that arises for me straightaway (that I have the vocabulary to express):

It is my understanding that normal human hEARing is non-linEAR in nature so that amplitudes and notes don't sound even across the perceived spectrum. Surely with the plethora of tunings there are some that take this phenomena into account. What might be their names and promoters?

Thanks for Everything!
Cheers, R
++++++
ï¿½Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.ï¿½
- Will Durant, historian (1885-1981)
++++++
Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>
> Hey Reverend,
>
> Don't feel ashamed at all for lacking knowledge. There's a tremendous > amount
> of printed and, more conveniently, web-based material you can use to play
> catch-up.
>
> For starters:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtonal_music
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron.

🔗monz <monz@...>

hi Rev,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com,
Reverend R Clark <clark@a...> wrote:

> Greetings Aaron and ALL!
>
> Thank you for the starters, dear.
> I read the page and am working on the
> extensive ancilliary links.
>
> A question that arises for me
> straightaway (that I have the
> vocabulary to express):
>
> It is my understanding that normal
> human hEARing is non-linEAR in nature
> so that amplitudes and notes don't
> sound even across the perceived
> spectrum. Surely with the plethora
> of tunings there are some that take
> this phenomena into account. What
> might be their names and promoters?

human perception of pitch is exponential.
thus, a doubling of frequency results in
the perception of the same pitch an octave higher.

according to my theory, among the lowest few
numbers in the prime series, each prime-factor
in a frequency ratio exhibits a particular affect
in our perception of the pitches of that ratio (interval),
and the equivalence perceived by the 2:1 ratio is simply
the affect of prime-factor 2. prime-factor 3 has its
own affect, and 5, 7, and 11 each have their own.

based on my own listening experiments, i'd say that the
ability to distinguish a distinct affect dissipates as the
prime-factors go higher, and pretty much disappears
somewhere between 13 and 23.

so anyway, any tuning which uses 2:1 as an equivalence
interval -- or multiplication of frequencies by any ratio,
for that matter, as opposed to adding frequencies -- is
taking account of our exponential perception of pitch.
only tunings which are based on adding and subtracting
frequencies would not be -- and i'm not aware of the
existence of any of those.

-monz

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

hi Kraig,

yes, actually i must not have had my thinking cap
on when i wrote that ... i myself have written on
the tuning list about the work of Franz Richter Herf,
whose theory uses arithmetic sequences of JI harmonics.
(in practice he used 72-edo).

-monz

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> All the scales of Mt Meru are based on addition.
> although one can multiply them into other octaves ,
> one can also not do so which in the case of
> Meta Slendro caused stretched octaves
>
> monz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >so anyway, any tuning which uses 2:1 as an equivalence
> >interval -- or multiplication of frequencies by any ratio,
> >for that matter, as opposed to adding frequencies -- is
> >taking account of our exponential perception of pitch.
> >only tunings which are based on adding and subtracting
> >frequencies would not be -- and i'm not aware of the
> >existence of any of those.
> >
> >
> >
> >-monz

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

what was Herf up to?

monz wrote:

>hi Kraig,
>
>
>yes, actually i must not have had my thinking cap
>on when i wrote that ... i myself have written on
>the tuning list about the work of Franz Richter Herf,
>whose theory uses arithmetic sequences of JI harmonics.
>(in practice he used 72-edo).
>
>
>-monz
>
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>All the scales of Mt Meru are based on addition.
>>although one can multiply them into other octaves ,
>>one can also not do so which in the case of
>>Meta Slendro caused stretched octaves
>>
>>monz wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>>so anyway, any tuning which uses 2:1 as an equivalence
>>>interval -- or multiplication of frequencies by any ratio,
>>>for that matter, as opposed to adding frequencies -- is
>>>taking account of our exponential perception of pitch. >>>only tunings which are based on adding and subtracting
>>>frequencies would not be -- and i'm not aware of the
>>>existence of any of those.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-monz
>>> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles