Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning kiss

Hi tuning group

I used to beat my brains out working with the tuning systems and complicated math that most of you endorse. While the method that I use now will still allow for superparticular scales of all sorts and contain ratio pairs such as 67/41 or any of the "comma generators" that you want to study, I have found a much easier method.to reach levels that exceed your expectations.

Has anyone thought about what Pythagoras would have done to create a scale? With no knowledge of higher math and complex systems? And who believes he created a scale based on "perfect fifths" without first discovering a scale that actually had at least 5 tones?

I know the truth but find it incredible that scholars don't quite get how easy it is to understand the tuning of natural scales . My work proves this leads directly to all alternate tuning methods such as 12 TET and anything else you might want to compare it to.. ( am I the first to recognize this? What's up with that? )

Here is a clue that may put you on the right path, just in case it is "below you" to find out what I'm talking about directly from me: Harry Partch wrote one sentence in his "Genesis of a Music" that tells of the work of Timoteus; an ancient scholar, who (just like you can do, or scholars 1000 years from now can do) identified the first major scale using a very simple method. Believe it or not, this leads to all extremes of music systems... including the complex systems you now pride yourselves in studying.

Good luck to you all in finding the truth of tuning.

Tim

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...>

wow some really weird posts happen here...

Chris

🔗Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Tim Reeves <reevest360@...> wrote:
>
> Hi tuning group
>
> I used to beat my brains out working with the tuning systems and complicated math that most of you endorse. While the method that I use now will still allow for superparticular scales of all sorts and contain ratio pairs such as 67/41 or any of the "comma generators" that you want to study, I have found a much easier method.to reach levels that exceed your expectations.
>
> Has anyone thought about what Pythagoras would have done to create a scale? With no knowledge of higher math and complex systems? And who believes he created a scale based on "perfect fifths" without first discovering a scale that actually had at least 5 tones?
>
> I know the truth but find it incredible that scholars don't quite get how easy it is to understand the tuning of natural scales . My work proves this leads directly to all alternate tuning methods such as 12 TET and anything else you might want to compare it to.. ( am I the first to recognize this? What's up with that? )
>
> Here is a clue that may put you on the right path, just in case it is "below you" to find out what I'm talking about directly from me: Harry Partch wrote one sentence in his "Genesis of a Music" that tells of the work of Timoteus; an ancient scholar, who (just like you can do, or scholars 1000 years from now can do) identified the first major scale using a very simple method. Believe it or not, this leads to all extremes of music systems... including the complex systems you now pride yourselves in studying.
>
> Good luck to you all in finding the truth of tuning.
>
> Tim
>
I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but I do believe (from studying various tunings across musical cultures) that all expressions of music have a natural rooting in simple harmonic ratios (except in inharmonic instruments) and from there was further expounded on as a means of expression. You seem to be saying that tuning theory is too complex, correct? I believe the same thing, Occam's Razor states that the best solutions are often the most simple. Now, I'm not saying that all the tuning theory produced up until this point is pointless, but that it lacks a strong fundamental core, and comprehensive laws of tonal gravity. Certainly attempts have been made, and the newer theories are getting better (at the very least, more practical to real composition) but the end goal still needs to be in mind.

W.A. Mathieu, Wiliam Seathers, and even Joseph Schillinger (regarding a musical theory of rythym, his claims about pitch are dubious at best) have provided pieces of the puzzle, but I don't think there is one place that describes this ultimate theory, we all need to work together to realize and publish it.

Now, as long as I have not completely missed the mark on what point you are trying to make, I would love to share some of my ideas.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"I believe the same thing, Occam's Razor states that the best solutions
are often the most simple. Now, I'm not saying that all the tuning
theory produced up until this point is pointless, but that it lacks a
strong fundamental core, and comprehensive laws of tonal gravity."

I think, in the end of the day (trying to "Keep It Simple Stupid") music can be reduced to a few things:

A) A "root" chord/mood (or usually two to three or so at most), which establishes the general emotion for any given theme/part of a piece of music.

This begs the challenge I mentioned before of which chords in microtonality, while certainly not necessarily as resolved as major chords, ARE resolved enough sounding to work as points of resolution in music... And, best yet, which ones of those are ALSO dissonant enough to work as points of tension IE very flexible "dual purpose" chords.

B) Use a bunch of more dissonant chords in between each "root" chord that builds tension, but always maintain an average level of tension not too far above the "root" chord's tension (this can be done via shorter phrasing of extremely dissonant chords, for example).
The tension/phrasing relationship applies for rhythm as well. This is basically a system for arranging what we get from A) intelligently.

C) The general goal of music is not just to communicate more emotion, but to do so with less processing required per piece of emotional information.

Thus, using less notes to generate a shifting sense of "root" tones and moods and using motifs but with slight changes that signify change in root, for example, are elegant and virtually ideal.
Virtually all pop songs (even) seem to have this...you hear/feel more content and mood variation than is actually in the chords...like viewing a constellation and having your mind draw between the dots to make full pictures. A pop song may have 3 chords and a vocal lead...but you may easily (in your head) add chords to make it 6 or 7 to bring out the sense of shifting root tones better as those 3 chords "clearly point at several more".

More complex
pieces of music cater to those on the spectrum of listeners more skilled at digesting music quickly and willing to use a lot more effort in order to get some more emotional content/variety... But still, in general, even a few notes of the most complex piece are "efficient" enough to denote a strong emotion even when standing by themselves.

Psychoacoustics also seems to come into this: the clearer/easier something is read by the mind in terms of root tone, the more tones you can recognize quickly with less effort. Of course, this doesn't mean force everything to be consonant in an almost mechanical fashion, but to give yourself more options for chords while staying near the average "root" mood of the piece of music you are composing.

Far as determining Tonal Gravitation, Critical Band Dissonance, sense of root and Virtual Pitch...I've come to the conclusion A LOT OF IT VARIES WIDELY BETWEEN DIFFERENT PEOPLE. At best, these theories give us some clues as to what qualifies in A) as a "dual purpose chord" and some sense of where the root is (although, again, even that perception can vary widely per person).

But what, perhaps, does not vary widely is

A) How much TONAL COLOR a piece has (IE sense of different roots)
B) How much PLAYFULNESS a piece has between switching tonal colors and rhythms EASILY AKA without requiring much effort of the listener to follow the music.
C) How much complexity can be allowed without making the dissonance (or consonance!) of the music sway too far from it's original "root" theme.

And these, I believe, is where microtonality can truly give us many more options virtually all listeners can agree on as valuable.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Gene>"What in the world makes you think music must have a tonal center?"

I never said tonal center, I said root "mood". I'm referring to the average mood and amount of tension of that mood in a piece of music.
In the same way a song starting in C minor may have a "minor" mood even if it has another resolved-sounding chord that does NOT have a root at C. A lot of this goes back to "mode theory"...IE what's the difference between major and relative minor in 12TET when the notes and chords used are the same?...a lot of it goes back to the mood of the often longer-held resolved chords in the piece of music in question. I'm talking mood here, not "math".

--- On Thu, 6/23/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 9:46 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> I think, in the end of the day (trying to "Keep It Simple Stupid") music can be reduced to a few things:

> A) A "root" chord/mood (or usually two to three or so at most), which establishes the general emotion for any given theme/part of a piece of music.

What in the world makes you think music must have a tonal center?

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

Hi Gotta

wow, I really am in good company here...I too have studied Schlillinger and many others along the way. The math of music is the key to really understanding how it works and how to expand that knowledge. Natural scales is a good starting point, everything else can be found relative to this basis. You will also find that there is more than one NHS, occuring naturally in both lineal and exponential forms. When you add in other forms of synthesis, such as interference of random or arbitrary factors, the permutations are incredible.. Still the bottom line is that you will never stray that far from " do re mi..." because we are grounded in the infinite world of the octave.
tune on brothers and sisters
Tim
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...> wrote:

From: Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 3:29 AM

Now, as long as I have not completely missed the mark on what point you are trying to make, I would love to share some of my ideas.

------------------------------------

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Tim Reeves <reevest360@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gotta
>
> wow, I really am in good company here...I too have studied Schlillinger and many others along the way. The math of music is the key to really understanding how it works and how to expand that knowledge. Natural scales is a good starting point, everything else can be found relative to this basis. You will also find that there is more than one NHS, occuring naturally in both lineal and exponential forms. When you add in other forms of synthesis, such as interference of random or arbitrary factors, the permutations are incredible.. Still the bottom line is that you will never stray that far from " do re mi..." because we are grounded in the infinite world of the octave.
> tune on brothers and sisters
> Tim
> --- On Thu, 6/23/11, Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...> wrote:

>
Yes, Schillinger's work is definitely interesting, but I put it down after I got past the chapter on rhythm, skimmed through the rest of the book, and then read this one section that was basically a slap in the face to all logical theories of tonality and pitch;

"Facing facts,
we have to admit that all the acoustical explanations of chord structures-- to the effect that they are developed from
simple ratios-- are pesudo-scientific attempts to rehabilitate musical harmony and to give the latter a greater prestige"

Yep, besides just skimming through the rest, I put the book down right there.

By the way, what do you think of the Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal organization? From what I hear it is also very 12-edo centric, and makes some ridiculous claims by comparing the Lydian scale to the 8th-16th harmonics, but I have never read it. I believe the LCCOTO is where the term "tonal gravity" first originated.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds
<microtonal76@...> wrote:
>
> By the way, what do you think of the Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal organization? From what I hear it is also very 12-edo centric, and makes some ridiculous claims by comparing the Lydian scale to the 8th-16th harmonics, but I have never read it. I believe the LCCOTO is where the term "tonal gravity" first originated.

Lydian Chromatic Concept isn't 12-edo centric, but it is meantone
centric. The basic point of it is that Lydian is the most "otonal"
mode and hence it sounds the most stable, I believe. There's
definitely a bit of truth to that, but you could also say that lydian
dominant is even stronger if you want to use that logic. And then
there's also the idea that we may not want 100% otonalness to a tonal
scale - part of the reason Ionian works so well is that it -does-
contain this other root in the scale, the 4/3, and that you can go
there and come back. Paul Erlich would call this a "dynamic" tonality,
whereas something like Lydian would be a "static" tonality. He uses
the words very slightly differently than that, but that's the gist of
it.

But I feel that the recent stuff with comma pumps right on this list
has been more illuminating of how tonality works than any of it,
really. Here's a few examples:

http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/functionalporcupineexcerpt/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSfnyr1MhXE

Some more theoretical ones:
http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/hanson-comma-pump/
http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/17496-16807-comma-pump-subminor-34-equal/
http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/blackwood-comma-pump/

Petr Parizek has to get credit for kicking the comma pump madness off.
He has a lot of great ones too, although we have slightly different
approaches to creating them. Some of my favorites:

http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_3.ogg -
negri temperament
http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_5.ogg -
sensi temperament (also known as semisixths)
http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_1.ogg -
diaschismatic temperament (found in 12-equal)
http://micro.soonlabel.com/gene_ward_smith/pumps/pp_amity_pump.ogg -
amity temperament
http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_2.ogg -
porcupine temperament
http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pp_orwell_pump.ogg
- orwell temperament

Gene Smith has a bunch of good ones too in the 7-limit, but they're
much more complex. The whole range of them can be found here:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Comma+pump+examples

-Mike

🔗Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...>

> Lydian Chromatic Concept isn't 12-edo centric, but it is meantone
> centric. The basic point of it is that Lydian is the most "otonal"
> mode and hence it sounds the most stable, I believe. There's
> definitely a bit of truth to that, but you could also say that lydian
> dominant is even stronger if you want to use that logic. And then
> there's also the idea that we may not want 100% otonalness to a tonal
> scale - part of the reason Ionian works so well is that it -does-
> contain this other root in the scale, the 4/3, and that you can go
> there and come back. Paul Erlich would call this a "dynamic" tonality,
> whereas something like Lydian would be a "static" tonality. He uses
> the words very slightly differently than that, but that's the gist of
> it.

Well, the thing that seems evident to me is that both the completely Otonal (lydian) and the completely Utonal (locrian) modes are actually the least harmonically stable, and the ones that are mostly Otonal (Ionian) and mostly Utonal (Phrygian) are the most stable modes. I couldn't tell you exactly why, but that is what I have observed. The thing is, once you get into the middle ground between the Utonal and Otonal-ness, the stability dips.

Another thing we have to consider is the difference between melodic and harmonic stability in a scale. One thing I have also noticed is that the Otonal (major) intervals seem to flow melodically best upwards, and the Utonal (minor) intervals flow melodically best downwards. Maybe the slightly mixed U/Otonal scales work better because the melodic movement is directed better to the chord tones of the tonic triad.

I find Ionian b6 to be more tonally stable than regular Ionian; The 7th leads to the tonic, the 6th leads to the fifth, and the 4th to the 3rd. According to my theory, in regular Ionian the 6th has more of a tendency to move up because it is a major interval even though the 5th and 7th are both the same distance away. (in equal temperament anyway)

But I don't know, maybe this could be better explained simply by the concept of leading tones? Or does my theory provide some further insight?

>
> But I feel that the recent stuff with comma pumps right on this list
> has been more illuminating of how tonality works than any of it,
> really. Here's a few examples:
>
> http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/functionalporcupineexcerpt/
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSfnyr1MhXE
>
> Some more theoretical ones:
> http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/hanson-comma-pump/
> http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/17496-16807-comma-pump-subminor-34-equal/
> http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/blackwood-comma-pump/
>
> Petr Parizek has to get credit for kicking the comma pump madness off.
> He has a lot of great ones too, although we have slightly different
> approaches to creating them. Some of my favorites:
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_3.ogg -
> negri temperament
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_5.ogg -
> sensi temperament (also known as semisixths)
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_1.ogg -
> diaschismatic temperament (found in 12-equal)
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/gene_ward_smith/pumps/pp_amity_pump.ogg -
> amity temperament
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pump_2.ogg -
> porcupine temperament
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/petr_parizek/pp_pump_examples/pp_orwell_pump.ogg
> - orwell temperament
>
> Gene Smith has a bunch of good ones too in the 7-limit, but they're
> much more complex. The whole range of them can be found here:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Comma+pump+examples
>
>
> -Mike
>
Yeah, I've just been getting into studying different types of commas and what I suppose you could call "comma pumps".

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

Hello again,
I moved on past the "Mathematical Basis of Art" long ago, but I have learned to appreciate the quote from the Liki that goes something like " the common herd can hear sound, but to understand music is reserved for the wise" On a diferent note, my brother used the numeric color permutation charts to create fractals that were totally awesome when printed out.

Schlillinger is also a very good source for info on Andreas Werkmeister...before reading MBoA my "classical training" taught that 12 TET was a system ( Queen's Hall pitch) developed for Her Majesty the Queen of England by her loyal servants,,pretty funny eh?.

Speaking of more classical training, does anyone think naming the tone degrees of the major scale after the cities of Ionia, Phrygia, Lydia..etc should be changed to New York City, Las Vegas, Miami or any others? Just askin haha
Tim
--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...> wrote:

From: Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 10:47 PM

Yep, besides just skimming through the rest, I put the book down right there.

------------------------------------

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

well said, bro

--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 3:17 PM

I think, in the end of the day (trying to "Keep It Simple Stupid") music can be reduced to a few things:

A) A "root" chord/mood (or usually two to three or so at most), which establishes the general emotion for any given theme/part of a piece of music.

C) The general goal of music is not just to communicate more emotion, but to do so with less processing required per piece of emotional information.

But what, perhaps, does not vary widely is

And these, I believe, is where microtonality can truly give us many more options virtually all listeners can agree on as valuable.

------------------------------------

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

just a few thoughts on tonality...

Following the 3/2 process beyond the 13 step limit shows a much larger set ( than 12 tone) that seems to repeat after 53 steps ( creating a 53 note scale ) and also closely resolves to near proximity of the octave, certainly not a comma. Continuing this process 666 times reveals an octave or value of A that is exact to .0001 or better. Each set that is generated shows a shifft in tonality, but on a very subtle level in most cases Tonality seems to flow in an expanding elliptical form, not a circle.

Did Schoenberg ever venture down this path? ( just had to ask)
Tim

--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...> wrote:

From: Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds <microtonal76@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 10:36 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
>
> > I think, in the end of the day (trying to "Keep It Simple Stupid") music can be reduced to a few things:
> >
> > A) A "root" chord/mood (or usually two to three or so at most), which establishes the general emotion for any given theme/part of a piece of music.
>
> What in the world makes you think music must have a tonal center?
>
Music without a tonal center doesn't exist; just ask Schoenberg.

------------------------------------

🔗Steve Parker <steve@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

cool, thanks for the feed back

--- On Fri, 6/24/11, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 4:02 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Tim Reeves <reevest360@...> wrote:

> Did Schoenberg ever venture down this path? ( just had to ask)

Schoenberg didn't, but mathematicians have. If you take the continued fraction for the log base 2 of 3 (or 3/2, it doesn't matter) then the denominators go 1, 2, 5, 12, 41, 53, 306, 665, 15601 ... This is well-known, and theoretical interest in 53 because of its excellent approximation to 3 goes back to Ching Fang in the first century BC. Isaac Newton seems to have been the first to notice that 53 approximates 5 well also.

------------------------------------

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Kees van Prooijen <keesvp@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

nice work guys.
Kees, you have been busy at this a long time, too. Have you got recent publishings as well? I'd like to see more.

genewardsmith, I think you see a lot of the same things I do. I appreciate that you have done the math that so closely follows my train of thought on my previous post.

Mike, I think you probably "get" any of it no matter where it comes from. It's good to know people like you guys are around.

It probably won't surprise you all that I have a simple theory to explain equal temperaments: haha

Since the octave factor is spaced over the audio spectrum and beyond in exponential powers, then it follows that exponetial roots of 2 will equally space intervals within the octave. Of course all manner of interference and synthesis can be applied from this basis to further expand the system, but the next step I take is using exponetial roots of other exponential roots to form a multilevel harmonic structure...I'll have to look thru my notes to give you examples.
Tim

--- On Fri, 6/24/11, Kees van Prooijen <keesvp@...> wrote:

From: Kees van Prooijen <keesvp@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 7:07 PM

You can take a look at my ancient article to see how that works: http://www.kees.cc/tuning/interface.html

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:02 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

-Mike

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

Hi wolf
Thanks for the extended number crunching...before I came to this group, I couldn't find a single musician that wasn't bewildered by the rocket science of music. Thanks so much to all of you. Tim

--- On Sun, 6/26/11, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...> wrote:

From: Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: kiss
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 26, 2011, 2:28 PM

Am 24.06.2011 18:02, schrieb genewardsmith:
> If you take the continued fraction for the log base 2 of 3 (or 3/2, it doesn't matter)
> then the denominators go 1, 2, 5, 12, 41, 53, 306, 665, 15601 ...
>
...the full sequence: http://oeis.org/A005664 :) --Wolf

------------------------------------