Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning-math Simultaneous Tunings?

Has anyone given much thought to devising tunings that could be used simultaneously?

I have run into a couple that sound good for a limited range of notes in my Fractal Tune Smithy relay retune experiments - http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=404

It would seem to be a cool, though obscure, goal to have poly-tuned intruments. Only... Igs? I think has mentioned this besides me - that I've seen anyway.

Chris

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:02 AM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone given much thought to devising tunings that could be used simultaneously?
>
> I have run into a couple that sound good for a limited range of notes in my Fractal Tune Smithy relay retune experiments - http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=404
>
> It would seem to be a cool, though obscure, goal to have poly-tuned intruments. Only... Igs? I think has mentioned this besides me - that I've seen anyway.
>
> Chris

If you mean tunings in which multiple mappings exist for each
interval, 35-tet is a good example I've been messing around with
lately. It's a multiple of 5-equal and 7-equal, so you can get both
the super-bright 5-tet fifths and the subdued 7-tet fifths if you
want, since both 686 cents and 720 cents exist in the tuning.

The 5-limit extensions of 5-tet and 7-tet, blackwood and whitewood,
are well represented in this tuning. It's nearly optimal for both.
Furthermore, blackwood[10] and whitewood[14] share an interval; the
480 cent fourth, so you can use this interval to springboard off of
one into the other to create some kind of larger interlocking pantonal
structure.

The mood of the piece ends up being dictated in large part by which
size fifth you use, not just whether you write it in major or minor. A
major piece in blackwood will sound bright and exciting, and in
whitewood it will sound calm and subdued, so you could say that
blackwood is analogous to "major" and whitewood is analogous to
"minor". Or you could say blackwood is "male" and whitewood is
"female," or that blackwood is the tribe of the sun people and
whitewood is the tribe of the moon people, or really a million things.
There are a million ways you could milk this idea.

If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

Hi Mike, I'm interested too!

72 equal is far more than I could handle live without using subsets.

If you have scala formatted subsets I'd be happy to give them a try
(perhaps they exist already in the scala archive?)

Otherwise I'll devise my own. I'm wondering if the major and minor
versions of either can be combined into one subset of 72.
To be sure I'd have to resort to graph paper and visually map them out.

(that is combine blackwood major + minor and combine whitewood major and minor)

Chris

>
> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>
> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

Well, what I meant is playing in two tunings at the same time with layered
instruments

However, I'm going to get some graph paper and see what I can do with the
below scales in blackwood.

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:02 AM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone given much thought to devising tunings that could be used
> simultaneously?
> >
> > I have run into a couple that sound good for a limited range of notes in
> my Fractal Tune Smithy relay retune experiments -
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=404
> >
> > It would seem to be a cool, though obscure, goal to have poly-tuned
> intruments. Only... Igs? I think has mentioned this besides me - that I've
> seen anyway.
> >
> > Chris
>
> If you mean tunings in which multiple mappings exist for each
> interval, 35-tet is a good example I've been messing around with
> lately. It's a multiple of 5-equal and 7-equal, so you can get both
> the super-bright 5-tet fifths and the subdued 7-tet fifths if you
> want, since both 686 cents and 720 cents exist in the tuning.
>
> The 5-limit extensions of 5-tet and 7-tet, blackwood and whitewood,
> are well represented in this tuning. It's nearly optimal for both.
> Furthermore, blackwood[10] and whitewood[14] share an interval; the
> 480 cent fourth, so you can use this interval to springboard off of
> one into the other to create some kind of larger interlocking pantonal
> structure.
>
> The mood of the piece ends up being dictated in large part by which
> size fifth you use, not just whether you write it in major or minor. A
> major piece in blackwood will sound bright and exciting, and in
> whitewood it will sound calm and subdued, so you could say that
> blackwood is analogous to "major" and whitewood is analogous to
> "minor". Or you could say blackwood is "male" and whitewood is
> "female," or that blackwood is the tribe of the sun people and
> whitewood is the tribe of the moon people, or really a million things.
> There are a million ways you could milk this idea.
>
> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>
> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>
> -Mike
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

Can you give me a scala file for one of these? (just paste the text)

When I try to take blackwood and delete the skips in 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
I do not get the right scale. I either have no octave or no 480 cent
step so I'm doing something wrong.

Chris

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, what I meant is playing in two tunings at the same time with layered instruments

>>
>> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
>> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
>> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
>> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>>
>> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
>> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Can you give me a scala file for one of these? (just paste the text)
>
> When I try to take blackwood and delete the skips in 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
> I do not get the right scale. I either have no octave or no 480 cent
> step so I'm doing something wrong.

I'm not so sure you are. 72 is not divisible by 5, so it can't do blackwood, nor by 7, so it can't do whitewood. Possible blackwood edos are the obvious one, 15, but others such as 25 or 55 could be used. For whitewood, do you want to pretend you can deal with the 7-limit? If not, maybe 35 or 77 edo.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

Just type

mode/equal 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2

and it'll generate the scale for you.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Can you give me a scala file for one of these? (just paste the text)
>
> When I try to take blackwood and delete the skips in 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
> I do not get the right scale. I either have no octave or no 480 cent
> step so I'm doing something wrong.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, what I meant is playing in two tunings at the same time with
> layered instruments
>
> >>
> >> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
> >> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
> >> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
> >> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
> >> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
> >>
> >> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
> >> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
> >>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

that is after loading the blackwood tuning?

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Just type
>
> mode/equal 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>
> and it'll generate the scale for you.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Can you give me a scala file for one of these? (just paste the text)
>>
>> When I try to take blackwood and delete the skips in 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>> I do not get the right scale. I either have no octave or no 480 cent
>> step so I'm doing something wrong.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, what I meant is playing in two tunings at the same time with
>> layered instruments
>>
>> >>
>> >> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
>> >> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>> >> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
>> >> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
>> >> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>> >>
>> >> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
>> >> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>> >>
>>
>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

looks like a yes

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>wrote:

> that is after loading the blackwood tuning?
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Just type
>>
>> mode/equal 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>
>> and it'll generate the scale for you.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you give me a scala file for one of these? (just paste the text)
>>>
>>> When I try to take blackwood and delete the skips in 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>> I do not get the right scale. I either have no octave or no 480 cent
>>> step so I'm doing something wrong.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Well, what I meant is playing in two tunings at the same time with
>>> layered instruments
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
>>> >> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>> >> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
>>> >> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
>>> >> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>>> >>
>>> >> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
>>> >> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

nope, just type it in at the command line.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> that is after loading the blackwood tuning?
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Just type
>>
>> mode/equal 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>
>> and it'll generate the scale for you.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you give me a scala file for one of these? (just paste the text)
>>>
>>> When I try to take blackwood and delete the skips in 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>> I do not get the right scale. I either have no octave or no 480 cent
>>> step so I'm doing something wrong.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Well, what I meant is playing in two tunings at the same time with
>>> layered instruments
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
>>> >> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>> >> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
>>> >> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
>>> >> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>>> >>
>>> >> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
>>> >> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

So then

It is not necessarily a subset of blackwood?

I could for instance, without prior loading of any tuning, execute

mode/equal 6 3 7 3 6 3 7

and get a 7 note tuning?

Hmmm - obviously I can try this out - this is quite interesting.

Chris

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>wrote:

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So then
>
> It is not necessarily a subset of blackwood?

I don't know what you mean = 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 IS blackwood, as a
subset of 35-tet. The mode/equal function works like this: you type in
a series of scale intervals, and it automatically adds them up and
figures out what ET it's a subset of. So mode/equal 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 will
automatically get you the 12-tet diatonic scale, since 2+2+1+2+2+2+1 =
12. mode/equal 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 will get you the 17-tet superpyth
diatonic scale, etc.

> I could for instance, without prior loading of any tuning, execute
>
> mode/equal 6 3 7 3 6 3 7

This is some 7-note subset of 35-tet - not sure which, I don't have
scala open now.

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

ok, I think I understand you.

This is very useful information. Thanks you!!

Chris

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > So then
> >
> > It is not necessarily a subset of blackwood?
>
> I don't know what you mean = 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 IS blackwood, as a
> subset of 35-tet. The mode/equal function works like this: you type in
> a series of scale intervals, and it automatically adds them up and
> figures out what ET it's a subset of. So mode/equal 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 will
> automatically get you the 12-tet diatonic scale, since 2+2+1+2+2+2+1 =
> 12. mode/equal 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 will get you the 17-tet superpyth
> diatonic scale, etc.
>
>
> > I could for instance, without prior loading of any tuning, execute
> >
> > mode/equal 6 3 7 3 6 3 7
>
> This is some 7-note subset of 35-tet - not sure which, I don't have
> scala open now.
>
> -Mike
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

ok, here is a rough sketch.

I see this going to a jazz band format - since I used a mapping kbm in
pianoteq I'm not sure how difficult this will be to transcribe into aria. I
do know kontakt and pianoteq didnot play well with this tuning (using
scala2kontakt) - not sure why though I've had trouble with pianoteq playing
nice before.

http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3

Chris

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
wrote:

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

woohoo!~!

At 09:23 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:

>ok, here is a rough sketch.
>
>I see this going to a jazz band format - since I used a mapping kbm in pianoteq I'm not sure how difficult this will be to transcribe into aria. I do know kontakt and pianoteq didnot play well with this tuning (using scala2kontakt) - not sure why though I've had trouble with pianoteq playing nice before.
>
><http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3>http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3
>
>Chris
>
>On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Battaglia <<mailto:battaglia01@gmail.com>battaglia01@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
>> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
>> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
>> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>>
>> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
>> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>>
>> -Mike
>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

Thanks Carl!

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

>
>
> woohoo!~!
>
>
> At 09:23 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
>
> >ok, here is a rough sketch.
> >
> >I see this going to a jazz band format - since I used a mapping kbm in
> pianoteq I'm not sure how difficult this will be to transcribe into aria. I
> do know kontakt and pianoteq didnot play well with this tuning (using
> scala2kontakt) - not sure why though I've had trouble with pianoteq playing
> nice before.
> >
> ><http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3
> >
> >Chris
>
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Battaglia <<mailto:
> battaglia01@gmail.com <battaglia01%40gmail.com>>battaglia01@gmail.com<battaglia01%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
> >> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
> >> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
> >> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
> >> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
> >>
> >> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
> >> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

Add a track (lead guitar?) on top of it and you'll have a
serious winner. -Carl

At 09:37 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:

>Thanks Carl!
>
>On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Carl Lumma <<mailto:carl@lumma.org>carl@lumma.org> wrote:
>
>
>woohoo!~!
>
>
>At 09:23 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
>
>>ok, here is a rough sketch.
>>
>>I see this going to a jazz band format - since I used a mapping kbm in pianoteq I'm not sure how difficult this will be to transcribe into aria. I do know kontakt and pianoteq didnot play well with this tuning (using scala2kontakt) - not sure why though I've had trouble with pianoteq playing nice before.
>>
>><<http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3>http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3>http://micro.soonlabel.com/blackwood/blackwood-minor-ver1.mp3
>>
>>Chris
>
>>
>>On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Mike Battaglia <<mailto:battaglia01@gmail.com><mailto:battaglia01%40gmail.com>battaglia01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you feel like messing around with it, the scales in 72-equal are:
>>> Blackwood[10] (major): 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2
>>> Blackwood[10] (minor): 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5
>>> Whitewood[10] (major): 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
>>> Whitewood[10] (minor): 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1
>>>
>>> As an aside, I'm really interested in seeing what you'd write in
>>> blackwood[10], whether you use this multiple mapping scheme or not.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@sbcglobal.net>

It works a lot better than most people would think, and requires surprisingly little care. I've thrown caution to the wind on a few occasions and found that as long as you avoid the out-of-tune unisons that tend to arise, the results are just fine.

However, a more systematic approach is surely possible, but only if there is an obvious goal in mind for combining tunings. I like to combine them for extra weirdness, but "weirdness" is pretty hard to quantify.

The real question is, if they are being used simultaneously, are they really separate tunings? Or just one big tuning?

-Igs

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone given much thought to devising tunings that could be used simultaneously?
>
> I have run into a couple that sound good for a limited range of notes in my Fractal Tune Smithy relay retune experiments - http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=404
>
> It would seem to be a cool, though obscure, goal to have poly-tuned intruments. Only... Igs? I think has mentioned this besides me - that I've seen anyway.
>
> Chris
>

🔗christopherv <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

I think there is a parallel with poly-tonality. I question if I hear more than one tonal center or just some hugely extended tonality when I hear a polytonal piece (Charles Ives Symphony 4, 4th movement for instance). References that I've seen for producing poly tonal pieces suggest using a difference of a tritone in tonics for maximum effect.

Since there seems to be no systematic approach at least not one devised by the members of this list (assuming my original question was understood) - I'm think this approach might bear some investigation.

Rant Alert:

My selfish reason for doing so is trying to get as much mileage as possible from a single improvisation. The minor miracle of midi and the layering possible has made a huge impact in what I can improvise, or compose, which is really closer to the truth since I spend significant time adding and fine tuning software and hardware sound sources and controllers as part of my act of composing.

I've seen people with their Macs and Abelton live - I want to do this with more reliance on performance and far less reliance on computer sequencing of pre-made loops. I have heard (and loved) the guitar work done with looper pedals - truth is I did that with a real Echoplex decades ago.

http://www.traxinspace.com/song/40974

/Rant over

So... back to the point there are probably sets of tunings that play nicely with each other and used correctly could change the character of a piece as it is being performed / improvised / composed.

Chris

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

>
> The real question is, if they are being used simultaneously, are they really separate tunings? Or just one big tuning?
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone given much thought to devising tunings that could be used simultaneously?
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>

Can you give me an example?

I don't comprehend "regular" with regard to tuning. I'm pretty sure
you mean it in a way I don't. To me a regular tuning would be 17 et or
19 et...

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > So... back to the point there are probably sets of tunings that play nicely with each other and used correctly could change the character of a piece as it is being performed / improvised / composed.
>
> Something related I've done is to mutate one regular tuning into another.
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Can you give me an example?

(6/5)^2/(10/7) = 126/125
(4/3)^2/(7/4) = 64/63

allowing starling (126/125) temperament and archytas (64/63) temperament to be translated. I did this here:

http://www.archive.org/details/MusicForYourEars

> I don't comprehend "regular" with regard to tuning. I'm pretty sure
> you mean it in a way I don't. To me a regular tuning would be 17 et or
> 19 et...

Or 1/4 comma meantone, etc. Anything where the same rational number is approximated by the same interval everywhere.