Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning-math lattices of Schoenberg's rational implications

> </tuning-math/message/44>
> From: "monz" <joemonz@y...>
> Date: Sun May 27, 2001 5:55 pm
> Subject: Re: Fwd: optimizing octaves in MIRACLE scale.
>
> (My quotes of Schoenberg are from the English translation
> of _Harmonielehre_ by Roy Carter, and the page numbers
> refer to that edition.)
>
>
> Schoenberg [p 23] posits the existences of two "forces", one
> pulling downward and one pulling upward around the tonic,
> which he illustrates as: F <- C -> G and likens to resistance
> against gravity. In mathematical terms, he is referring to
> the harmonic relationships of 3^-1 and 3^1, respectively.
>
>> [Schoenberg, p 24:]
>>
>> ...thus it is explained how the scale that finally emerged
>> is put together from the most important components of a
>> fundamental tone and its nearest relatives. These nearest
>> relatives are just what gives the fundamental tone stability;
>> for it represents the point of balance between their opposing
>> tendencies. This scale appears as the residue of the properties
>> of the three factors, as a vertical projection, as addition:
>
>
> Schoenberg then presents a diagram of the overtones and the
> resulting scale, which I have adaptated, adding the partial-numbers
> which relate all the overtones together as a single set:
>
> b-45
> g-36
> e-30
> d-27
> c-24
> a-20
> g-18 g-18
> f-16
> c-12 c-12
> f-8
>
>
> f c g a d e b
> 8 12 18 20 27 30 45
>

I will now lattice these pitches, using as nomenclature
for the notes my ASCII 72-EDO notation; legend:

- + ~cents alteration from 12-EDO

b # 100 [i.e., 12-EDO]
v ^ 50
< > 33&1/3
- + 16&2/3
no accidental 0 [12-EDO]

Here is a "standard triangular" 5-limit lattice
of this diatonic scale:

20--- 30--- 45
A- E- B-
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
8 ---12--- 18--- 27
F C G D

Look familiar? It should.

An ASCII representation of a Monzo lattice
of this scale looks like this:

D
/27
B- /
/45'-._ /
/ G
/ /18
E- /
30'-._ /
/ ' C
/ /12
A- /
20'-._ /
' F
8

>
>> [Schoenberg:]
>>
>> Adding up the overtones (omitting repetitions) we get the seven
>> tones of our scale. Here they are not yet arranged consecutively.
>> But even the scalar order can be obtained if we assume that the
>> further overtones are also in effect. And that assumption is
>> in fact not optional; we must assume the presence of the other
>> overtones. The ear could also have defined the relative pitch
>> of the tones discovered by comparing them with taut strings,
>> which of course become longer or shorter as the tone is lowered
>> or raised. But the more distant overtones were also a
>> dependable guide. Adding these we get the following:
>
>
>
> Schoenberg then extends the diagram to include the
> following overtones:
>
> fundamental partials
>
> F 2...12, 16
> C 2...11
> G 2...12
>
> (Note, therefore, that he is not systematic in his employment
> of the various partials.)
>
>
> Again, I adapt the diagram by adding partial-numbers:
>
> d-108
> c-99
> b-90
> a-81
> g-72
> f-66
> f-64
> (f-63)
> e-60
> d-54 d-54
> c-48 c-48
> b-45
> b-44
> (bb-42)
> a-40
> g-36 g-36 g-36
> f-32
> e-30
> (eb-28)
> d-27
> c-24 c-24
> a-20
> g-18 g-18
> f-16
> c-12 c-12
> f-8
>
>
> (eb) (bb)
> c d e f g a b c d e f g a b c d
> [44] [64]
> (28) (42) [66]
> 24 27 30 32 36 40 45 48 54 60 63 72 81 90 99 108
>
>
> (Note also that Schoenberg was unsystematic in his naming
> of the nearly-1/4-tone 11th partials, calling 11th/F by the
> higher of its nearest 12-EDO relatives, "b", while calling
> 11th/C and 11th/G by the lower, "f" and "c" respectively.
> This, ironically, is the reverse of the actual proximity
> of these overtones to 12-EDO: ~10.49362941, ~5.513179424,
> and ~0.532729432 Semitones, respectively).
>
>
> The partial-numbers are also given for the resulting scale
> at the bottom of the diagram, showing that 7th/F (= eb-28)
> is weaker than 5th/C (= e-30), and 7th/C (= bb-42) is weaker
> than 5th/G (= b-45).
>
> Also note that 11th/F (= b-44), 16th/F (= f-64) and 11th/C
> (= f-66) are all weaker still, thus I have included them in
> square brackets. These overtones are not even mentioned by
> Schoenberg.

Here is a triangular 5-limit lattice of this expanded
scale, showing 7- and 11-limit ratios in () and [] which
are near in pitch to the 5-limit ones as physically close
to them on the diagram. * indicates notes which are not
exact 8ve-equivalents even tho Schoenberg implied that
they are.

*81*----- ------90
40------60--(42)[44]45
20--(28)30------
A- E- B-
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
63[64][66]-*99*------72-----108
32------48-------36------54
16------24-------18------27
8------12------- ------
F C G D

And here is an ASCII-fied 11-limit Monzo lattice
showing where all of these pitches actually fall
according to my lattice formula, when prime-factored:

C^
/ \99
/ \
/ \ A
F^ \ /81
/ \[66] \ /
/ \ \ /
/ \ \ D
Bb^ \ \ /27 54 108
\[44] \ B- \ /
\ \/90-._ \ /
\ /\45 ' G ---------------F<
\ / \ /18 36 72 /63
\ E- \ / /
\/60-._ \ / /
/\30 ' C ---------------Bb<
/ \ /12 24 48 /(42)
A- \ / /
40'-._ \ / /
20 ' F ---------------Eb<
8 16 32 [64] (28)

Of course, this description of the scale is only valid
where "C" is the "tonic". Given Schoenberg's ideas about
"pantonality", it will be difficult if not impossible
to determine what the "tonic" is. Perhaps an interval
analysis of the composition can reveal something. Of
course, the tonic will be dynamically shifting all the
time.

Also, this explanation was intended to describe the
rational implications of the *diatonic* scale, allowing
only a few of the chromatic pitches. For the full
chromatic scale, Schoenberg's later 13-limit system
presented in "Problems of Harmony" must be consulted.

Could anyone out there do some periodicity-block
calculations on this theory and say something about that?
Altho I analyze this tuning exactly according to Schoenberg's
analysis (i.e., 8ve-specific), he himself considered it
to represent 8ve-invariant pitches. His unison-vectors
are 33:32, 45:44 64:63, and 81:80. His unusual explanation
of Eb< (28) and Bb< (42) also makes 16:15 some type of
special interval, if not a unison-vector.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

I was looking again at the post I sent here regarding the
math of Schoenberg's tuning ideas:
/tuning-math/messages/516?expand=1

I constructed matrices of the unison-vectors mentioned
by Schoenberg. The matrix of the later 13-limit system
(explained by Schoenberg in 1934) expectedly has a determinant
of 12. But interestingly, the 11-limit matrix (as described
in 1911 in _Harmonielehre_) has a determinant of 7.

I found this interesting first of all because Schoenberg,
in _Harmonielehre_, defines the 7-tone diatonic scale in
familiar 5-limit terms, then introduces the 11-limit ratios
in an attempt to explain the origin of the chromatic notes.
But his explanation is somewhat vague and incomplete, and
introduces a notational inconsistency about which I say
more below, so it's not really a surprise that the determinant
of this periodicity-block is not 12.

For the unison-vectors, I specified the relationships between
pairs of notes which Schoenberg described as equivalent.

Unison-vector matrices:

1911 _Harmonielehre_ 11-limit system

( 1 0 0 1 ) = 33:32
(-2 0 -1 0 ) = 64:63
( 4 -1 0 0 ) = 81:80
( 2 1 0 -1 ) = 45:44

Determinant = 7

1934 _Problems of Harmony_ 13-limit system

(-2 0 0 -1 1 ) = 104:99
( 2 0 -1 0 1 ) = 117:112
(-2 0 -1 0 0 ) = 64:63
( 4 -1 0 0 0 ) = 81:80
( 2 1 0 -1 0 ) = 45:44

Determinant = 12

The 13-limit system gives me no surprises. But the 11-limit
system is intriguing. I have noted many times (as in my book
and in that post) that Schoenberg was inconsistent in his
naming of the pitches of this system.

From my tuning-math post:

>> (Note also that Schoenberg was unsystematic in his naming
>> of the nearly-1/4-tone 11th partials, calling 11th/F by the
>> higher of its nearest 12-EDO relatives, "b", while calling
>> 11th/C and 11th/G by the lower, "f" and "c" respectively.
>> This, ironically, is the reverse of the actual proximity
>> of these overtones to 12-EDO: ~10.49362941, ~5.513179424,
>> and ~0.532729432 Semitones, respectively).

What I found is that eliminating this inconsistency, i.e.,
calling 11th/F a "Bb" instead of "B", also destroys the
periodicity-block aspect of this system. The 45:44 unison-vector
which results from calling that note "B" is *necessary*
in order to define the 7-tone periodicity-block. Calling it
a "Bb" removes the 45:44 UV and replaces it with the 22:21 UV
already found as a result of combining the existing 33:32
and 64:63 UVs for the various "F"s. Thus, the matrix has
only 3 UVs and lacks the remaining one which is necessary
to define a PB.

But why do I get a determinant of 7 for the 11-limit system?
Schoenberg includes Bb and Eb as 7th harmonics in his description,
which gives a set of 9 distinct pitches. But even when
I include the 15:14 unison-vector, I still get a determinant
of -7. And if I use 16:15 instead, then the determinant
is only 5.

Can someone explain what's going on here, and what candidates
may be found for unison-vectors by extending the 11-limit system,
in order to define a 12-tone periodicity-block? Thanks.

(and Merry Christmas to all)

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

Help!

I set up an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the notes of
a periodicity-block according to Gene's formula as expressed here:

> Message 2164
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
> Date: Wed Dec 26, 2001 3:27 am
> Subject: Re: lattices of Schoenberg's rational implications
/tuning-math/message/2164
>
>
> We can extend the set {33/32,64/63,81/80,45/44} to an
> 11-limit notation in various ways, for instance
>
> <56/55,33/32,65/63,81/80,45/44>^(-1) = [h7,h12,g7,-h2,h5]
>
> where g7 differs from h7 by g7(7)=19. Using this,
> we find the corresponding block is
>
> (56/55)^n (33/32)^round(12n/7) (64/63)^n (81/80)^round(-2n/12)
> (45/44)^round(5n/7), or 1-9/8-32/27-4/3-3/2-27/16-16/9;
> the Pythagorean scale. We don't need anything new to find
> a 12-note scale; we get
>
> 1--16/15--9/8--32/27--5/4--4/3--16/11--3/2--8/5--5/3--16/9--15/8
>
> or variants, the variants coming from the fact that 12 is even,
> by using 12 rather than 7 in the denominator.

> Message 2185
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
> Date: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:25 pm
> Subject: Re: Gene's notation & Schoenberg lattices
/tuning-math/message/2185
>
> ...
>
> For any non-zero I can define a scale by calculating for 0<=n<d
>
> step[n] = (56/55)^round(7n/d) (33/32)^round(12n/d)
> (64/63)^round(7n/d) (81/80)^round(-2n/d) (45/44)^round(5n/d)

It worked just fine for both of these examples,
the 7-tone and 12-tone versions.

But for the kernel I recently posted for Schoenberg ...

> kernel
>
> 2 3 5 7 11 unison vectors ~cents
>
> [ 1 0 0 0 0 ] = 2:1 0
> [-5 2 2 -1 0 ] = 225:224 7.711522991
> [-4 4 -1 0 0 ] = 81:80 21.5062896
> [ 6 -2 0 -1 0 ] = 64:63 27.2640918
> [-5 1 0 0 1 ] = 33:32 53.27294323
>
> adjoint
>
> [ 12 0 0 0 0 ]
> [ 19 1 2 -1 0 ]
> [ 28 4 -4 -4 0 ]
> [ 34 -2 -4 -10 0 ]
> [ 41 -1 -2 1 12 ]
>
> determinant = | 12 |

... it doesn't work. All I get are powers of 2.

Why? How can it be fixed? Do I need yet another
independent unison-vector instead of 2:1?

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: [tuning-math] Re: lattices of Schoenberg's rational implications

> --- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > > determinant = | 12 |
>
> > ... it doesn't work.
>
> This determinant is why. In my example, the determinant
> had an absolute value of 1, and so we get what I call a
> "notation", meaning every 11-limit interval can be expressed
> in terms of integral powers of the basis elements. You have
> a determinant of 12, and therefore torsion.

OK ... I still have lots to learn about torsion.

> In fact, you map to the cyclic group C12 of order 12,

Huh?

> and the twelveth [_sic_: twelfth] power (or additively,
> twelve times) anything is the identity.

OK, I can follow that.

> > Why? How can it be fixed? Do I need yet another
> > independent unison-vector instead of 2:1?
>
> If you want a notation, yes. One which makes the matrix
> unimodular, ie with determinant +-1.

So what's the secret to finding that?

And so then is there or is there not any value in calculating
the kernel which has 2:1 in it? If yes, then what? If no,
then why not?

Don't we need determinants <-1 and >1 in order to have a
denominator with which to find the JI scale?

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> However, I think the only reality for Schoenberg's
> > system is a tuning where there is ambiguity, as defined by the
kernel
> > <33/32, 64/63, 81/80, 225/224>. BTW, is this Minkowski-reduced?
>
> Nope. The honor belongs to <22/21, 33/32, 36/35, 50/49>.

Awesome. So this suggests a more compact Fokker parallelepiped
as "Schoenberg PB" -- here are the results of placing it in different
positions in the lattice (you should treat the inversions of these as
implied):

0 1 1
84.467 21 20
203.91 9 8
315.64 6 5
386.31 5 4
470.78 21 16
617.49 10 7
701.96 3 2
786.42 63 40
933.13 12 7
968.83 7 4
1088.3 15 8

0 1 1
119.44 15 14
203.91 9 8
315.64 6 5
386.31 5 4
470.78 21 16
617.49 10 7
701.96 3 2
786.42 63 40
933.13 12 7
968.83 7 4
1088.3 15 8

0 1 1
119.44 15 14
155.14 35 32
301.85 25 21
386.31 5 4
470.78 21 16
617.49 10 7
701.96 3 2
772.63 25 16
884.36 5 3
968.83 7 4
1088.3 15 8

0 1 1
84.467 21 20
155.14 35 32
266.87 7 6
386.31 5 4
470.78 21 16
582.51 7 5
701.96 3 2
737.65 49 32
884.36 5 3
968.83 7 4
1053.3 147 80

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

Gene, Paul, Graham,

> Message 2850
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 10:48 pm
> Subject: Re: lattices of Schoenberg's rational implications
/tuning-math/message/2850
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > > However, I think the only reality for Schoenberg's
> > > system is a tuning where there is ambiguity, as defined by
> > > the kernel <33/32, 64/63, 81/80, 225/224>. BTW, is this
> > > Minkowski-reduced?
> >
> > Nope. The honor belongs to <22/21, 33/32, 36/35, 50/49>.
>
> Awesome. So this suggests a more compact Fokker parallelepiped
> as "Schoenberg PB" -- here are the results of placing it in different
> positions in the lattice (you should treat the inversions of these as
> implied):
>
> <tables of scales snipped>

Paul, thanks!!! This *is* awesome! Just what I've been
waiting and hoping for since that posting on Christmas day.
Actually, it's something I've been trying to achieve since
about 1988 or so. Fantastic. Thanks for your help too, Gene,
and for your explanations, Graham.

Lattices and webpages to follow soon!!
And then, some serious work on retuning Schoenberg MIDIs!

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

returning to an old subject ...

during a big discussion i instigated concerning
possible periodicity-blocks which might describe
Schoenberg's 1911 12-tET theory as posited in his
_Harmonielehre_,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith"
<genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning-math/message/2848

> Message 2848
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
> Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:20 pm
> Subject: Re: lattices of Schoenberg's rational implications
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > However, I think the only reality for Schoenberg's
> > system is a tuning where there is ambiguity, as defined
> > by the kernel <33/32, 64/63, 81/80, 225/224>. BTW,
> > is this Minkowski-reduced?
>
> Nope. The honor belongs to <22/21, 33/32, 36/35, 50/49>.

a few messages after that,

/tuning-math/message/2850

Paul Erlich posted four different possible lattices
based on those unison-vectors.

i've made a rectangular-style lattice based on those
same four unison-vectors, using the Tonalsoft software.
this is what the software gave me:

~cents.. ratio

0000.000 1/1
0084.467 21/20
0231.174 8/7
0266.871 7/6
0386.314 5/4
0498.045 4/3
0582.512 7/5
0701.955 3/2
0813.686 8/5
0884.359 5/3
0968.826 7/4
1115.533 40/21

here is a screen-shot of the actual Tonalsoft lattice:

/tuning-math/files/monz/
tuning-math-2848-minkowski-reduced-schoenberg-12et.jpg

... delete the line-break in that URL, or use this one:

http://tinyurl.com/yspc3

-monz