Re: [metatuning] Talkin' 'bout Marc Jones

On 2/21/02 9:38 AM, "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@...> wrote:

> I'd like to talk a bit about Marc Jones.
>

Oh great. Just when I was going to crawl into a cave for 10 years again.

Interview eh?

>
> I'm very excited to hear about your upcoming CD!
>

CDsssssssssss. Well I suppose that would make it more exciting to you
wouldn't it. Hope so. Before too long I'll have a website with ordering
information and project information and newsletter subscriptions and updates
and announcements and all that good stuff.

> Can you tell us all about it?
>

It, them, sure, what do you want to know. All about it hm... In between
trying to revive some pop and progressive projects from the 80s and 90s,
well, I'm staying with this pseudo classical stuff for now. I might have
one of the rock albums done by May I don¹t know.

What then: guitar and midi stuff... microtonal piano sonatas, the mostly
electric string quartet no. 2 will be on CD for the premiere in May, I'M
ALSO REMIXING NO. 1 HINT HINT, I'm also doing microtonal acoustic string
quartets (you know, violins, viola, cello), possibly a few other types of
pieces. I figure I should keep prefacing with "microtonal" so I don't get
asked, of course microtonal, everything I do has meticulous consideration
for the pitch time and volume of every note.

I also have some microtonal symphonies brewing too but even though I have my
DSP specs down for mixing I'm not sure I have good enough patches. Invite
to anyone... Send me some decent orchestral instrument samples and I'll get
the symphonies done.

Oh yeah and interspersed, I'm doing a lot of Beethoven stuff in different
temperaments. Still not sure why. Maybe to show how ductile the structures
are. Mozart maybe soon. Don't know.

> Will these all be solo guitar?
>

I can't see myself doing solo guitar. Even quartets and such, I always have
at least two layers per instrument. If I did solo guitar it would still
probably be double tracked.

> Or will they be ensemble pieces with a group of players?
>

That's a tricky question. Maybe you can figure out why. You were on ST for
awhile hmm.

Mostly me otherwise.

Well then again, find me some people who actually want to play my music with
me and then maybe I'll have a different answer. I'm open to it but outside
of being cancelled on last minute for the microthon, I don't know of a lot
of people who can do it, at least not in the neighborhood.

> Do you over-dubb you guitar in recordings?
>

I don't know what you're asking. If anything I over and over and over dub
my guitar... I do most of my stuff on an iMac. I only started really
getting to use my TX81z a couple months ago, after having it shuffled
between storage spaces for years. So I still have an old serial Mac
outboard midi setup I'm trying to get some use out of. There are always
microtones there, I could never think of it as obsolete. Umm especially
when I've never recorded with half of it.

> What is your style like?
>

Yes.

...

BAAAAAAAAA ...seriously. People have said my piano stuff sounds like Rick
Wakeman and my guitar stuff sounds like Steve Howe.

A lot of it is sort of classically inflected jazz rock fusion. It's a
sortof middle of the road thing, it's not really pop or classically geared
so it winds up being a little bit pleasant to just about anyone.

> Is you music acoustic or electric guitar oriented?
>

Not all my music is guitar oriented. I suppose mostly electric. Those two
words just keep popping up side by side don't they.

> I've read some of your fascinating posts about your fret-boards and
> such, but never was clear about if they are acoustic or electric
> guitars.
>

I'm in the process of chopping up an acoustic to accept my interchangeable
boards (see below). Other than that, I'm currently only using electric.

> When you fret guitars with large ET frettings, say above 31, do you
> use a subset from the ET, or do you somehow use *all* of the
> increments of the ET?
>

All. As I said, up to 217 with playability of each note. Including 323 and
559 which were harder to handle but seemed to work with no buzz.

I haven't actually "fretted" a guitar in some time. I have a guitar ready
to accept interchangeable fretboards. I use plywood. I start with the
smooth surface and rout an ellipticylindrical cavity in between. I leave a
small space on the surface about the same size of a fret, or that is, the
same proportion of fret-space to space-in-between. In a Polish way, I
seemed to have discovered a way to yield the desired result: a smooth
fretting surface with each note distinguishable with no change in timbre.
It suffices to contrast: the 22 bass I made Fred had buzzes in a few places
whereas I've never had a problem with a board.

The boards attach to the neck by a bolt around the octave and a little
makeshift support around the nut. Compared to what anyone would have to pay
to get a microtonal guitar done "professionally", if you're the kind of
enthusiast who wants to try any and every temperament you can on guitar...?

A friend of Steven DiMarzio quoted me $2000 to calibrate his machine to make
me a 19 back in the day, and then I should try to make as many guitars as
possible because it wouldn't happen again. So they'd be like $5000 apiece.
I've heard up to $1000 for luthiers.

Um piece of plywood cut up and oh by the way I HAVE TO rout boards double
sided or they warp. So... Just by the board space, minus my labor time
obviously, it's hard work but it comes down to about umm 6 temperaments for
a dollar. (I forget not everyone does it this way so I wonder why people
have never tried more than a temperament or two.)

But of late I've thought of making certain scale boards.

> I've found your statements about how certain frettings affect the
> timbre of the instrument. Can you speak about this a bit?
>

Arf.

Sit UBU sit...

Wait you've FOUND THEM? Oh thank god I thought I'd lost them for good. You
found them...? Interesting?

EVERY fretting affects the timbre of the instrument. No two temperaments
sound quite the same on the same guitar. If you know how to pinch a
harmonic, it's related to that. The different fret positions excite certain
frequencies while dampening others. It sort of teases and encodes each note
you have a fret for into the sound of every note, so that no matter where
you go melodically, it sounds contiguous. Filling in the rest of the
waveform from this is a unique recursive structure of something along the
line of formants, almost the same thing as a vocal pattern, which gives each
temperament its own recognizeable "voice".

> Any advice you could give to a novice about how to learn how to
> navigate a large ET on a guitar, when they may be coming from the
> familiar language of a 12 tET fretting?
>

Plenty of advice. Plenty of markings. Enough so you can find your way
around quickly.

> Do you ever play fretless? Seems to be becoming very popular these
> days.
>

Well, not smooth, no. I did at times in the early 1990s. But my
interchangeable boards are all carved in, there's nothing built up. So in a
sense, I always play fretless, only sort of scalloped. It makes a lot more
sense to start with a flat surface so your fretting areas are flush. I've
thought of routing metal. Might be heavy but it might have some interesting
effects on the timbre.

> Do you like disortion, chorus or reverb effects on guitar, or do you
> feel that effects can obscure the sound of the tuning? Haverstick
> does some amazing stuff with distort-o micro-guitars on occasion.
>

For the most part, I like keeping the guitar sounds clean because I wind up
layering them and the combinations are interesting enough. Anything I'm
used to, 17, 19 whatever yeah crank it up. The only real "effect" I tend to
use is a normal recording overdrive, that is, playing loud enough so the
input device peaks. Otherwise, all the usual guitar effects I like applying
to 41, moreso 43.

> Do you like nylon strings or metal?
>

I used to like playing nylon strings. I haven't yet gotten around to having
a microtonal interchangeable acoustic. On the list of things to do now that
I have some domestic stability for the first time in about 10 years. That
an an interchangeable 12 string. I used to have a 12-string 19-tone, metal
frets. SHINGGGGG...

> Do you ever use MOS (Myhills Property) - 2 step size tunings as a way
> of subsetting from large number ETs?
>

If you're talking about two-size-interval scales, sure, all the time. My
markings are mostly extended diatonic scales, with a hint of where harmonics
are so I don't have to carry a manual around just to play an infrequently
accessed temperament.

> What are some of your favorite prime number ETs - especially the
> lower number ones?
>

Favorite PRIMES? Is this a trick question? If it is, the answer is 31.

Well I like everything I have... Primes, let's see. I go back a long way
with 19. Of course 31. I really thought a lot more people would be into
29. Seems not so. I don't suppose too many people have made the guitar. I
think the discovery is all in the timbre. I can usually hack the midi with
no affection in the timbre, but for something like 23 I think I'd really
have to build the board one day.

I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit esoteric
at this point. 41 and 43 I could play for hours. Actually when I first
heard your music I thought you might like 41. I like listening to things in
59. 61 has really good 5th limit separation for sketching...

I could go on. You called over 31 "high" though. Hmm.

Should I anticipate you might want to know non-primes as well...? It's a
sort of puzzle to make 15 work but rewarding when you do. Of course I like
22 but it gets me lazy. 26 I don't use as much as I should. I have a basic
logic grid for 27 that you'll hear in a lot of my work, especially my first
piano sonata. I used to use 34 a lot for pop sketches. I think 39 is a
good trade off between sketching 5th limit stuff and really stiff 17 3rd
limit.

You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies, but you know what, the
guitar is a magical thing. Either the tuning is good, or if the tuning is
bad it makes for a very interesting timbre. 45 is kind of like 19 with its
own distortion built in.

That should be enough to stir your paint for now. I also use a few
geometric and algebraic temperaments as writing filters.

> Do you like 17 ET?
>

Yes, very much. As anything else, a fully fretted metal fret 17 has a
fitting timbre which makes it a lot easier to work with than theorize about.

Anything else, feel free to onslaught again.

Marc

--- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

> I really thought a lot more people would be into
> 29.

29 has come up quite a bit.

> I can usually hack the midi with
> no affection in the timbre, but for something like 23 I think I'd
really
> have to build the board one day.

btw i just set up the .tun files for my keyboard player ara
sarkissian, and we're going to be using four for the forseeable
future. they are: 21 out of 72-equal (blackjack), 22-equal, 12 out of
23-equal, and 24 out of 31-equal.

> I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit
esoteric
> at this point.

37 has come up lately as well. i don't see why you would consider it
so esoteric. carl lumma was talking about it. it shows up as the
nexus of four different 5-limit linear temperaments in the first
graph here:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

and in the 7-limit it would show up even more.

> Of course I like
> 22 but it gets me lazy.

funny, i get sooooo lazy on my 31 because it's diatonic-plus-
augmented-sixths and/or arabic for days. on my 22, i'm immediately
jostled awake because anything diatonic/triadic leads to a major
crash very quickly.

> 26 I don't use as much as I should.

i really think my 14-tone scales in 26 have potential, but i have yet
to realize this effectively. 14 tones is a lot to mentally manage.
splitting it between two instruments, 7 tones a piece, may be the
answer. in which case you might as well use two 19-equal instruments
tuned a half-octave apart. this is something i'd really like to
explore someday . . . i call this system 'injera' (an ethiopian
bread).

> You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies,

not really . . . 45 is 19+26, so it's about halfway between them
(closer to 26).

On 2/21/02 6:23 PM, "paulerlich" <paul@...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
>> I really thought a lot more people would be into 29.
>>
> 29 has come up quite a bit.
>

That's true, I think I'm still thinking of 10 years ago. I forgot Margo
Schulter wrote that whole big thing on stretched Pythagorean or whatever. I
was actually surprised doing web searches a couple years ago to see so much
interest in 22. From what, I think, 1991 to 1998 I hadn't heard of anyone
else playing 22 guitar.

>> I can usually hack the midi with no affection in the timbre, but for
>> something like 23 I think I'd really have to build the board one day.
>>
> btw i just set up the .tun files for my keyboard player ara sarkissian, and
> we're going to be using four for the forseeable future. they are: 21 out of
> 72-equal (blackjack), 22-equal, 12 out of 23-equal, and 24 out of 31-equal.
>

.tun ? Whazzat.

Sounds good anyway.

>> I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit esoteric at
>> this point.
>>
> 37 has come up lately as well. i don't see why you would consider it so
> esoteric. carl lumma was talking about it. it shows up as the nexus of four
> different 5-limit linear temperaments in the first graph here:
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm
>
> and in the 7-limit it would show up even more.
>

If you're thinking in multidimensional terms in the first place sure, 37 has
a great 5th 7th and 11th harmonic and such, I just meant in the general
terms of an initial interview poking around the first couple diatonic
improvements on 12, 37 doesn't show up until a bit later.

Fair enough then. As far as "low primes" go, I REEEALLY like 37. I haven't
had the board for that in years, I've had one marked off for the new guitar
for awhile but I haven't made it yet. Another one with a great tone for
something so low.

>> Of course I like 22 but it gets me lazy.
>>
> funny, i get sooooo lazy on my 31 because it's diatonic-plus- augmented-sixths
> and/or arabic for days. on my 22, i'm immediately jostled awake because
> anything diatonic/triadic leads to a major crash very quickly.
>

LOL yeah I could imagine. That's so strange. When I pick up the 22, I
immediately remember the same harmonic structure I got out of the Brun
algorithm circa 1990 and I've gotten too able to visualize it, so then, umm
what do I do. I walk through the same couple chords and melodies and oh
well what now. With the 31, I annoy myself with diatonic melodies until I'm
at the point where I can't HELP but throw notes off all over the place.

>> 26 I don't use as much as I should.
>>
> i really think my 14-tone scales in 26 have potential, but i have yet to
> realize this effectively. 14 tones is a lot to mentally manage. splitting it
> between two instruments, 7 tones a piece, may be the answer. in which case you
> might as well use two 19-equal instruments tuned a half-octave apart. this is
> something i'd really like to explore someday . . . i call this system 'injera'
> (an ethiopian bread).
>

I mostly use the diatonic scale in 26 for chord chorusing against 31 over
19. I try working with the sharpened major thirds, half octaves, 7th
harmonic but it gets a little alienating thinking of 26 as ductile.

>> You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies,
>>
> not really . . . 45 is 19+26, so it's about halfway between them (closer to
> 26).
>

Well... Yeah that's actually how *I* think of it LOL - I don't know, I
mentioned it to someone at some point and they said eeiww. I said come on
it's between 19 and 26... Anyway it has a great guitar tone. Sort of sounds
like it comes with its own Rockman. I forget there's slightly more informed
people hanging around this decade.

Marc

----- Original Message -----
From: "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@...>

>> What are some of your favorite prime number ETs - especially the
>> lower number ones?

>Favorite PRIMES? Is this a trick question? If it is, the answer is 31.
>
>Well I like everything I have... Primes, let's see. I go back a long way
>with 19. Of course 31. I really thought a lot more people would be into
>29. Seems not so. I don't suppose too many people have made the guitar.
I
>think the discovery is all in the timbre. I can usually hack the midi with
>no affection in the timbre, but for something like 23 I think I'd really
>have to build the board one day.

La Monte Young has used 29 & 31 quite a bit over the years.

>I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit esoteric
>at this point. 41 and 43 I could play for hours. Actually when I first
>heard your music I thought you might like 41. I like listening to things
in
>59. 61 has really good 5th limit separation for sketching...

The 37th harmonic is very nice and usefull.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

> I
> was actually surprised doing web searches a couple years ago to see
so much
> interest in 22.

mostly from me, i assume ?

> From what, I think, 1991 to 1998 I hadn't heard of anyone
> else playing 22 guitar.

what about buzz kimball?

> .tun ? Whazzat.

for graham's midi relay. unfortunately it's working really weird
right now . . . hold down some notes, play some other notes, and the
notes you're holding down change pitch! i signed ara up onto
makemicromusic so hopefully this will get resolved . . .

> >> Of course I like 22 but it gets me lazy.
> >>
> > funny, i get sooooo lazy on my 31 because it's diatonic-plus-
augmented-sixths
> > and/or arabic for days. on my 22, i'm immediately jostled awake
because
> > anything diatonic/triadic leads to a major crash very quickly.
> >
>
> LOL yeah I could imagine. That's so strange. When I pick up the
22, I
> immediately remember the same harmonic structure I got out of the
Brun
> algorithm circa 1990 and I've gotten too able to visualize it,

? could you write a post on this to the tuning list?

>
> >> 26 I don't use as much as I should.
> >>
> > i really think my 14-tone scales in 26 have potential, but i have
yet to
> > realize this effectively. 14 tones is a lot to mentally manage.
splitting it
> > between two instruments, 7 tones a piece, may be the answer. in
which case you
> > might as well use two 19-equal instruments tuned a half-octave
apart. this is
> > something i'd really like to explore someday . . . i call this
system 'injera'
> > (an ethiopian bread).
> >
>
> I mostly use the diatonic scale in 26 for chord chorusing against
31 over
> 19. I try working with the sharpened major thirds, half octaves,
7th
> harmonic but it gets a little alienating thinking of 26 as ductile.

i think crystalline double-diatonic is the answer.

> >> You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies,
> >>
> > not really . . . 45 is 19+26, so it's about halfway between them
(closer to
> > 26).
> >
>
> Well... Yeah that's actually how *I* think of it LOL - I don't
know, I
> mentioned it to someone at some point and they said eeiww.

probably they were thinking, 'with that many notes, why not 43 or
something really close to higher-limit ji like 41 or 46 . . .' i
might even say things like that sometimes, since i'm an advocate
of 'get to know a temperament really well' . . . since i believe that
each temperament has its own musical implications, and you can't hear
those unless you've 'retuned' your categorical perception to center
around the intervals you're actually using, rather than the ones from
myriad other temperaments you've been playing with . . .

On 2/21/02 6:35 PM, "David Beardsley" <db@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@...>
>
>
>>> What are some of your favorite prime number ETs - especially the lower
>>> number ones?
>>>

>> I shouldn't really talk now about how much I like 37. It's a bit esoteric at
>> this point. 41 and 43 I could play for hours. Actually when I first heard
>> your music I thought you might like 41. I like listening to things in 59.
>> 61 has really good 5th limit separation for sketching...
>>
> The 37th harmonic is very nice and usefull.
>

I was talking about equal temperaments.

>> Favorite PRIMES? Is this a trick question? If it is, the answer is 31.
>>
>> Well I like everything I have... Primes, let's see. I go back a long way
>> with 19. Of course 31. I really thought a lot more people would be into 29.
>> Seems not so. I don't suppose too many people have made the guitar. I think
>> the discovery is all in the timbre. I can usually hack the midi with no
>> affection in the timbre, but for something like 23 I think I'd really have to
>> build the board one day.
>>
> La Monte Young has used 29 & 31 quite a bit over the years.
>

If you didn't know I was talking about equal temperaments then, I don't
suppose you did here?

On 2/21/02 7:03 PM, "paulerlich" <paul@...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
>> I was actually surprised doing web searches a couple years ago to see so much
>> interest in 22.
>>
> mostly from me, i assume ?
>

I think your name came up yeah. There were a bunch of unconnected 22 pages
floating around the internet at the time.

>> From what, I think, 1991 to 1998 I hadn't heard of anyone else playing 22
>> guitar.
>>
> what about buzz kimball?
>

What *about* Buzz Kimball? I've still never heard of him! Well like I
said, I hadn't *heard* of anyone else doing anything. Until an internet
search about 3 or 4 years ago.

>> .tun ? Whazzat.
>>
> for graham's midi relay. unfortunately it's working really weird right now . .
> . hold down some notes, play some other notes, and the notes you're holding
> down change pitch! i signed ara up onto makemicromusic so hopefully this will
> get resolved . . .
>

Err ok. A program template, overlay or something?

>>>> Of course I like 22 but it gets me lazy.
>>>>
>>> funny, i get sooooo lazy on my 31 because it's diatonic-plus-
>>> augmented-sixths and/or arabic for days. on my 22, i'm immediately jostled
>>> awake because anything diatonic/triadic leads to a major crash very quickly.
>>>
>>
>> LOL yeah I could imagine. That's so strange. When I pick up the 22, I
>> immediately remember the same harmonic structure I got out of the Brun
>> algorithm circa 1990 and I've gotten too able to visualize it,
>>
> ? could you write a post on this to the tuning list?
>

I suppose so, you want to see the actual distribution you mean?

>>>> 26 I don't use as much as I should.
>>>>
>>> i really think my 14-tone scales in 26 have potential, but i have yet to
>>> realize this effectively. 14 tones is a lot to mentally manage. splitting it
>>> between two instruments, 7 tones a piece, may be the answer. in which case
>>> you might as well use two 19-equal instruments tuned a half-octave apart.
>>> this is something i'd really like to explore someday . . . i call this
>>> system 'injera' (an ethiopian bread).
>>>
>>
>> I mostly use the diatonic scale in 26 for chord chorusing against 31 over 19.
>> I try working with the sharpened major thirds, half octaves, 7th harmonic but
>> it gets a little alienating thinking of 26 as ductile.
>>
> i think crystalline double-diatonic is the answer.
>

Not in the Monzopedia, where is this term from, or were you just making that
up now. Not bad. Actually that's the arrangement I called Cradling.

>>>> You'd think 45 would suck with all the inaccuracies,
>>>>
>>> not really . . . 45 is 19+26, so it's about halfway between them (closer to
>>> 26).
>>>
>>
>> Well... Yeah that's actually how *I* think of it LOL - I don't know, I
>> mentioned it to someone at some point and they said eeiww.
>>
> probably they were thinking, 'with that many notes, why not 43 or something
> really close to higher-limit ji like 41 or 46 . . .' i might even say things
> like that sometimes, since i'm an advocate of 'get to know a temperament
> really well' . . . since i believe that each temperament has its own musical
> implications, and you can't hear those unless you've 'retuned' your
> categorical perception to center around the intervals you're actually using,
> rather than the ones from myriad other temperaments you've been playing with .
> . .
>

Yes I do remember you saying something last year about compartmentalizing
yourself into whatever you're focusing on. I can relate to a lot of that.
Getting to know the temperament really well, retuning your perception, also
a layer of getting to know my own attitude about it after it's been sitting
around awhile.

Talk about subtext... Besides remembering, each temperament seems to have
it's own unique way of being forgotten. "43 I underestimate or just plain
forget about, 41 I feel I've exhausted, 50 I think is going to sound funny
if I do something off, 33 is going to sound too 7-ish, 39 I ignore too much
and become too confident I know what it can do..." etc.

It's an exercise a bit more mentally strenuous than doing an extra pushup
when your body says NOOOO, learning each temperament, then cross referencing
them, then learning more of each temperament, then cross referencing them
more... Hurts man.

Marc

--- In metatuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

> There were a bunch of unconnected 22 pages
> floating around the internet at the time.

oh yeah, there was one for sure. unfortunately it's now long
gone . . .

>
>
> >> .tun ? Whazzat.
> >>
> > for graham's midi relay. unfortunately it's working really weird
right now . .
> > . hold down some notes, play some other notes, and the notes
you're holding
> > down change pitch! i signed ara up onto makemicromusic so
hopefully this will
> > get resolved . . .
> >
>
> Err ok. A program template, overlay or something?

it's just a scale file which graham's midi relay maps to your
keyboard in real-time using pitch-bends and such.

> >> LOL yeah I could imagine. That's so strange. When I pick up
the 22, I
> >> immediately remember the same harmonic structure I got out of
the Brun
> >> algorithm circa 1990 and I've gotten too able to visualize it,
> >>
> > ? could you write a post on this to the tuning list?
> >
>
> I suppose so, you want to see the actual distribution you mean?

well whatever it is you mean here. if there's lots and lots of
mathematical detail, put it on tuning-math. it time for us to do some
serious chattin', buddy!

> > i think crystalline double-diatonic is the answer.

> Not in the Monzopedia, where is this term from, or were you just
making that
> up now.

it's in my 22 paper. in 26, two interlaced diatonic scales, either a
half-octave or 2/26-octave apart. injera.

> Not bad. Actually that's the arrangement I called Cradling.

cool. so what i do in 22 (the decatonic swing, or the main stuff in
my paper) is to take two pentatonic scales, each of which is based on
primes 3 and 7, and to 'cradle' (?) them together so that prime 5 and
more prime 7 comes in. yes?

> It's an exercise a bit more mentally strenuous than doing an extra
pushup
> when your body says NOOOO, learning each temperament, then cross
referencing
> them, then learning more of each temperament, then cross
referencing them
> more... Hurts man.

we're grateful you're taking the pain so well!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@...>

> If you didn't know I was talking about equal temperaments then, I don't
> suppose you did here?

Sorry. I'm not used to folks discussing prime numbers and equal
temperaments.

And I forgot yer a ET sort of guy.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

David!
I like 32-37-42

David Beardsley wrote:

>
> The 37th harmonic is very nice and usefull.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> David!
> I like 32-37-42

Well, KG, you certainly have an eye for those zaftig figures...

:)

Cheers,
Jon

J!
no zaftig in my dictionary? waah!

jonszanto wrote:

> Well, KG, you certainly have an eye for those zaftig figures...
>
> :)

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

On 2/21/02 8:03 PM, "David Beardsley" <db@...> wrote:

>> If you didn't know I was talking about equal temperaments then, I don't
>> suppose you did here?
>
> Sorry. I'm not used to folks discussing prime numbers and equal
> temperaments.
>
> And I forgot yer a ET sort of guy.

Yep. Jacky had just asked what prime equal temperaments were my favorite.

m

On 2/21/02 8:25 PM, "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>> David!
>> I like 32-37-42
>
> Well, KG, you certainly have an eye for those zaftig figures...

Yeah those are some of my favorite 5-ish temperaments. Or are you talking
about harmonics again.

Yes, harmonics it is, forgive me.

"Orphon Soul, Inc." wrote:

> On 2/21/02 8:25 PM, "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >> David!
> >> I like 32-37-42
> >
> > Well, KG, you certainly have an eye for those zaftig figures...
>
> Yeah those are some of my favorite 5-ish temperaments. Or are you talking
> about harmonics again.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

In-Reply-To: <a541sn+kgsu@...>
There have been a lot of on-topic posts here lately. I don't want to
cramp anybody's style, but can we try to keep it a bit less relevant?

Anyway, about this

paulerlich wrote:

> for graham's midi relay. unfortunately it's working really weird
> right now . . . hold down some notes, play some other notes, and the
> notes you're holding down change pitch! i signed ara up onto
> makemicromusic so hopefully this will get resolved . . .

It's always done that. The channels are assigned in order, and it doesn't
try to remember what order they got released in. You can improve it by
increasing the number of channels, or use Fractal Tune Smithy which has a
better assignment.

Why are people holding chords like that anyway? If you lift your left
hand up occasionally it adds a bit of rhythm, and the channels get
reassigned.

Graham

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@...>
To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Talkin' 'bout Marc Jones

> David!
> I like 32-37-42

I'll check it out this weekend.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In metatuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> Why are people holding chords like that anyway? If you lift your
> left hand up occasionally it adds a bit of rhythm, and the channels
> get reassigned.

Wait, Graham! I know that development of the midi widgets is not, for
you, a Full Time Job. But shouldn't a robust tool(set) encompass as
much of what anyone would like to do? Doesn't a question like "why
are people [fill in the blank]?" ultimately serve to limit artistic
exploration?

This is not to say there might not be limitations the tool simply
cannot get past, but don't put the onus on the user to reduce *their*
options! No?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> It's always done that. The channels are assigned in order, and it
doesn't
> try to remember what order they got released in. You can improve
it by
> increasing the number of channels,

tried that.

> or use Fractal Tune Smithy which has a
> better assignment.

may be the answer.

> Why are people holding chords like that anyway?

give me a break. ara is an unbelievable keyboard player and the music
he makes is by no means calculated to hit up against the limitations
of your program or his hardware.

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> give me a break. ara is an unbelievable keyboard player and the
> music he makes is by no means calculated to hit up against the
> limitations of your program or his hardware.

Your point is well taken, but a humorless response to someone who
created the tool and gives it away for free is... uncool.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > give me a break. ara is an unbelievable keyboard player and the
> > music he makes is by no means calculated to hit up against the
> > limitations of your program or his hardware.
>
> Your point is well taken, but a humorless response to someone who
> created the tool and gives it away for free is... uncool.

yes. i'm an uncool tool. sorry graham . . . :(