"For dummies" introduction

I'd like some suggestions for a broad introduction to tuning theory and xenharmonic music for readers with no background knowledge other than playing a Western instrument. Looking for something several pages in length.

Ideally it should mention all these core concepts:

* 12edo isn't the only possible system; examples from historic or world music
* The diatonic scale is more than a mere subset of 12edo; it precedes it historically and is more fundamental in many ways
* Enharmonic equivalence isn't a necessary property of the common meantone-based notation and terminology; without it enharmonically equivalent intervals (e.g. major third / diminished fourth) gain an interesting and musically useful difference in flavor
* JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; explanation of frequency ratios
* Impossibility of playing most common practice music in JI because of puns / comma pumps
* Some examples of the use of other equal or regular temperaments

In an ideal world this would be something citeable like a textbook or academic review article, but at this point I'm sure that's impossible, so just suggest anything. Could be something you wrote, whatever.

Keenan

I'm working on something similar now, but for the moment I don't think
a comprehensive guide exists. Carl's tuning FAQ and the "too-condensed
tuning math outline" is a great resource and a good place to start.
Paul's "A Middle Path" is a bit more complete, although less easily
comprehensible to a novice. You might want to ask Igs if he can send
you a beta version of his "field guide" too, which might be helpful.
This random sentence at the end of my post encourages Carl to write a
best-selling book that explains all of the above concepts but in even
simpler fashion for the benefit of non-musicians, something like "this
is your brain on music" perhaps.

-Mike

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like some suggestions for a broad introduction to tuning theory and xenharmonic music for readers with no background knowledge other than playing a Western instrument. Looking for something several pages in length.
>
> Ideally it should mention all these core concepts:
>
> * 12edo isn't the only possible system; examples from historic or world music
> * The diatonic scale is more than a mere subset of 12edo; it precedes it historically and is more fundamental in many ways
> * Enharmonic equivalence isn't a necessary property of the common meantone-based notation and terminology; without it enharmonically equivalent intervals (e.g. major third / diminished fourth) gain an interesting and musically useful difference in flavor
> * JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; explanation of frequency ratios
> * Impossibility of playing most common practice music in JI because of puns / comma pumps
> * Some examples of the use of other equal or regular temperaments
>
> In an ideal world this would be something citeable like a textbook or academic review article, but at this point I'm sure that's impossible, so just suggest anything. Could be something you wrote, whatever.

"* JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; "

The remainder is ok by me.

On 31 Aug 2011, at 07:20, Keenan Pepper wrote:

> I'd like some suggestions for a broad introduction to tuning theory and xenharmonic music for readers with no background knowledge other than playing a Western instrument. Looking for something several pages in length.
>
> Ideally it should mention all these core concepts:
>
> * 12edo isn't the only possible system; examples from historic or world music
> * The diatonic scale is more than a mere subset of 12edo; it precedes it historically and is more fundamental in many ways
> * Enharmonic equivalence isn't a necessary property of the common meantone-based notation and terminology; without it enharmonically equivalent intervals (e.g. major third / diminished fourth) gain an interesting and musically useful difference in flavor
> * JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; explanation of frequency ratios
> * Impossibility of playing most common practice music in JI because of puns / comma pumps
> * Some examples of the use of other equal or regular temperaments
>
> In an ideal world this would be something citeable like a textbook or academic review article, but at this point I'm sure that's impossible, so just suggest anything. Could be something you wrote, whatever.
>
> Keenan
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

-- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning --

For more information on LucyTuning go to:

http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world) can found at:

http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> I'd like some suggestions for a broad introduction to tuning theory and xenharmonic music for readers with no background knowledge other than playing a Western instrument. Looking for something several pages in length.
>
> Ideally it should mention all these core concepts:
>
> * 12edo isn't the only possible system; examples from historic or world music
> * The diatonic scale is more than a mere subset of 12edo; it precedes it historically and is more fundamental in many ways
> * Enharmonic equivalence isn't a necessary property of the common meantone-based notation and terminology; without it enharmonically equivalent intervals (e.g. major third / diminished fourth) gain an interesting and musically useful difference in flavor
> * JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; explanation of frequency ratios
> * Impossibility of playing most common practice music in JI because of puns / comma pumps
> * Some examples of the use of other equal or regular temperaments
>
> In an ideal world this would be something citeable like a textbook or academic review article, but at this point I'm sure that's impossible, so just suggest anything. Could be something you wrote, whatever.
>
> Keenan

The mythical introduction to the Sagittal notation has a very brief introduction to the history and issues involving alternative tunings and those who advocate them.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like some suggestions for a broad introduction to tuning theory and xenharmonic music for readers with no background knowledge other than playing a Western instrument. Looking for something several pages in length.
> >
> > Ideally it should mention all these core concepts:
> >
> > * 12edo isn't the only possible system; examples from historic or world music
> > * The diatonic scale is more than a mere subset of 12edo; it precedes it historically and is more fundamental in many ways
> > * Enharmonic equivalence isn't a necessary property of the common meantone-based notation and terminology; without it enharmonically equivalent intervals (e.g. major third / diminished fourth) gain an interesting and musically useful difference in flavor
> > * JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; explanation of frequency ratios
> > * Impossibility of playing most common practice music in JI because of puns / comma pumps
> > * Some examples of the use of other equal or regular temperaments
> >
> > In an ideal world this would be something citeable like a textbook or academic review article, but at this point I'm sure that's impossible, so just suggest anything. Could be something you wrote, whatever.
> >
> > Keenan
>
> The mythical introduction to the Sagittal notation has a very brief introduction to the history and issues involving alternative tunings and those who advocate them.
>
> --George

Sorry, I intended to give a link:
http://dkeenan.com/sagittal/gift/GiftOfTheGods.htm

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> "* JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; "
>
> The remainder is ok by me.

I'm sorry, did you have a suggestion for an introduction? Or did you just chime in to dispute that one item?

I would like an introduction that *mentions* that one concept which I consider central. It does not have to be sympathetic to that idea. If your introduction said something like

"Although some people consider just intonation the ideal tuning, they are wrong because... [list of good reasons not to use JI]"

that would satisfy my criteria because it mentions JI and that some people consider it ideal.

I'm not demanding that this introduction agree with all my personal points of view on these issues.

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I'm working on something similar now, but for the moment I don't think
> a comprehensive guide exists. Carl's tuning FAQ and the "too-condensed
> tuning math outline" is a great resource and a good place to start.
> Paul's "A Middle Path" is a bit more complete, although less easily
> comprehensible to a novice. You might want to ask Igs if he can send
> you a beta version of his "field guide" too, which might be helpful.
> This random sentence at the end of my post encourages Carl to write a
> best-selling book that explains all of the above concepts but in even
> simpler fashion for the benefit of non-musicians, something like "this
> is your brain on music" perhaps.

Let's work on your thing together, if you want. You can still be first author. =)

The tuning FAQ is here, for future reference: http://lumma.org/tuning/faq/ It was way too difficult to find.

This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"), even though it's really about something more specific, are the two that first came to mind.

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
> even though it's really about something more specific, are the
> two that first came to mind.

Forms of Tonality is really the intro article from Paul.

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

-C.

No particular suggestion or list of limitations of JI; I was opposed to the statement of "fact", which to my mind is merely the opinion of a few diehards.

IMHO JI is not "ideal" for anything except matching (beatless?) integer frequency ratios.

What you intent to suggest this has to do with harmonic timbres is beyond my imagination.

On 31 Aug 2011, at 20:09, Keenan Pepper wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> > "* JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; "
> >
> > The remainder is ok by me.
>
> I'm sorry, did you have a suggestion for an introduction? Or did you just chime in to dispute that one item?
>
> I would like an introduction that *mentions* that one concept which I consider central. It does not have to be sympathetic to that idea. If your introduction said something like
>
> "Although some people consider just intonation the ideal tuning, they are wrong because... [list of good reasons not to use JI]"
>
> that would satisfy my criteria because it mentions JI and that some people consider it ideal.
>
> I'm not demanding that this introduction agree with all my personal points of view on these issues.
>
> Keenan
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

-- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning --

For more information on LucyTuning go to:

http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world) can found at:

http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
>
> > This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
> > even though it's really about something more specific, are the
> > two that first came to mind.
>
> Forms of Tonality is really the intro article from Paul.
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

Yeah, this one. But it's somewhat too long and not basic enough.

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> The tuning FAQ is here, for future reference:
> http://lumma.org/tuning/faq/ It was way too difficult to find.
>
> This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"), even
> though it's really about something more specific, are the two that
> first came to mind.
>

Paul's decatonic paper had come to my mind, too. Another one would be the Armodue article on 16edo harmony:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Armodue+armonia

Both papers actually treat special cases (one 22edo, the other 16edo), but both expose inspiring general ideas on the kinds of benefits you can gain from getting microtonal.
--
Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:

> >
> > > This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
> > > even though it's really about something more specific, are the
> > > two that first came to mind.

> Yeah, this one. But it's somewhat too long and not basic enough.

It's more basic than Middle Path, don't you think? -C.

As a "dummy" in the process of transforming to ... something else (I
hope), I'll just mention that the "Middle Path" article was a huge
watershed in understanding for me, more than any of the other papers
you guys have mentioned.

I'll grant that it took a little bit more background in JI than just
having played an instrument (eg I'd already read Partch and Helmholtz)
but something about the way Erlich walks you through the
lattice-building and tempering process in that paper was especially
illuminating, at least until he starts in on TOP.

Nothing wrong with placing it a little further down on the list, or
maybe putting a caveat that the reader may want some JI familiarity
before hitting that article, but based on my own experience I would
not recommend discarding it from a list of this type!

Jason

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 15:15, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
> > > > even though it's really about something more specific, are the
> > > > two that first came to mind.
>
> > Yeah, this one. But it's somewhat too long and not basic enough.
>
> It's more basic than Middle Path, don't you think? -C.
>
>

It's funny, but I find the discussions of the lattice almost
completely unhelpful in gaining an intuitive grasp of what's going on.
I understand what it is and its implications for "dimensionality", and
I can see how people would find it useful, but I sure wouldn't want a
description of lattices to be the way I first started to learn about
microtonality.

Different brains work different ways....

Regards,
Jake

On 9/1/11, Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:
> As a "dummy" in the process of transforming to ... something else (I
> hope), I'll just mention that the "Middle Path" article was a huge
> watershed in understanding for me, more than any of the other papers
> you guys have mentioned.
>
> I'll grant that it took a little bit more background in JI than just
> having played an instrument (eg I'd already read Partch and Helmholtz)
> but something about the way Erlich walks you through the
> lattice-building and tempering process in that paper was especially
> illuminating, at least until he starts in on TOP.
>
> Nothing wrong with placing it a little further down on the list, or
> maybe putting a caveat that the reader may want some JI familiarity
> before hitting that article, but based on my own experience I would
> not recommend discarding it from a list of this type!
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 15:15, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>>
>> > >
>> > > > This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
>> > > > even though it's really about something more specific, are the
>> > > > two that first came to mind.
>>
>> > Yeah, this one. But it's somewhat too long and not basic enough.
>>
>> It's more basic than Middle Path, don't you think? -C.
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

I'm sort with Jake on this.

I didn't grok the lattice until Andrew built one in class (and we sang it)
at the Xenharmonic praxis.

http://oddmusicuc.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/xenharmonic-praxis-summer-camp-ji-praxis-choir/

As I understand it now, in short the lattice is a consequence of applying JI
intervals in an almost fractal equation way and building up comma errors.

Chris

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> It's funny, but I find the discussions of the lattice almost
> completely unhelpful in gaining an intuitive grasp of what's going on.
> I understand what it is and its implications for "dimensionality", and
> I can see how people would find it useful, but I sure wouldn't want a
> description of lattices to be the way I first started to learn about
> microtonality.
>
> Different brains work different ways....
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>
> On 9/1/11, Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:
> > As a "dummy" in the process of transforming to ... something else (I
> > hope), I'll just mention that the "Middle Path" article was a huge
> > watershed in understanding for me, more than any of the other papers
> > you guys have mentioned.
> >
> > I'll grant that it took a little bit more background in JI than just
> > having played an instrument (eg I'd already read Partch and Helmholtz)
> > but something about the way Erlich walks you through the
> > lattice-building and tempering process in that paper was especially
> > illuminating, at least until he starts in on TOP.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with placing it a little further down on the list, or
> > maybe putting a caveat that the reader may want some JI familiarity
> > before hitting that article, but based on my own experience I would
> > not recommend discarding it from a list of this type!
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 15:15, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > > This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
> >> > > > even though it's really about something more specific, are the
> >> > > > two that first came to mind.
> >>
> >> > Yeah, this one. But it's somewhat too long and not basic enough.
> >>
> >> It's more basic than Middle Path, don't you think? -C.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I see where you're coming from, but I'm with Jake on the "different brains
work different ways" idea.

Building up lattices and thinking about JI pitch relations, commas, and
pitch contours in a visual/structural way was what *clicked* for me; my main
point above was that I'm an individual case (maybe not representative) of a
"dummy" who got a lot out of that paper. Since it's often difficult for
initiates/experts to recognize what a novice isn't getting about their
personal mental model, it may be better to err toward inclusiveness. I
understand that you don't want to totally overwhelm newcomers, either ("this
list is required reading and if you don't get it U DUM!") ... it's just
something to think about.

In any case, I very much encourage having a "xenharmonics for dummies"
reading list of some kind in an easy-to-find place. Whatever/wherever it
goes, link it from the wiki main page! I wish I'd found such a thing 6
months ago.

/jc

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 18:26, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I'm sort with Jake on this.
>
> I didn't grok the lattice until Andrew built one in class (and we sang it)
> at the Xenharmonic praxis.
>
>
> http://oddmusicuc.wordpress.com/2011/07/27/xenharmonic-praxis-summer-camp-ji-praxis-choir/
>
> As I understand it now, in short the lattice is a consequence of applying
> JI intervals in an almost fractal equation way and building up comma errors.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> It's funny, but I find the discussions of the lattice almost
>> completely unhelpful in gaining an intuitive grasp of what's going on.
>> I understand what it is and its implications for "dimensionality", and
>> I can see how people would find it useful, but I sure wouldn't want a
>> description of lattices to be the way I first started to learn about
>> microtonality.
>>
>> Different brains work different ways....
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jake
>>
>>
>> On 9/1/11, Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:
>> > As a "dummy" in the process of transforming to ... something else (I
>> > hope), I'll just mention that the "Middle Path" article was a huge
>> > watershed in understanding for me, more than any of the other papers
>> > you guys have mentioned.
>> >
>> > I'll grant that it took a little bit more background in JI than just
>> > having played an instrument (eg I'd already read Partch and Helmholtz)
>> > but something about the way Erlich walks you through the
>> > lattice-building and tempering process in that paper was especially
>> > illuminating, at least until he starts in on TOP.
>> >
>> > Nothing wrong with placing it a little further down on the list, or
>> > maybe putting a caveat that the reader may want some JI familiarity
>> > before hitting that article, but based on my own experience I would
>> > not recommend discarding it from a list of this type!
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 15:15, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > This and Paul's decatonic paper (rather than "A Middle Path"),
>> >> > > > even though it's really about something more specific, are the
>> >> > > > two that first came to mind.
>> >>
>> >> > Yeah, this one. But it's somewhat too long and not basic enough.
>> >>
>> >> It's more basic than Middle Path, don't you think? -C.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:

> In any case, I very much encourage having a "xenharmonics for dummies"
> reading list of some kind in an easy-to-find place. Whatever/wherever it
> goes, link it from the wiki main page! I wish I'd found such a thing 6
> months ago.

I think this is a great idea, but I think someone else other than me needs to do it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@> wrote:
> >
> > "* JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; "
> >
> > The remainder is ok by me.
>
> I'm sorry, did you have a suggestion for an introduction? Or did you just chime in to dispute that one item?
>
> I would like an introduction that *mentions* that one concept which I consider central. It does not have to be sympathetic to that idea. If your introduction said something like
>
> "Although some people consider just intonation the ideal tuning, they are wrong because... [list of good reasons not to use JI]"
>
> that would satisfy my criteria because it mentions JI and that some people consider it ideal.
>
> I'm not demanding that this introduction agree with all my personal points of view on these issues.
>
> Keenan
>
Personally, I don't think the article should mention JI as 'Ideal', as idealism in music is subjective and one may very well prefer the buzzy, "happy", bright sound of 12-tet major thirds, or the colors that the varied sizes of thirds in a well temperament bring, for example, or the deliberate beats in gamelan music for another example. However, it SHOULD mention the historical and psychological base of just intonation as a yardstick for consonance/basis of music.

Just my two cents.

Nate

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gotta Love Septimal Minor Thirds" <microtonal76@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@> wrote:
> > >
> > > "* JI as ideal tuning at least for harmonic timbres; "
> > >
> > > The remainder is ok by me.
> >
> > I'm sorry, did you have a suggestion for an introduction? Or did you just chime in to dispute that one item?
> >
> > I would like an introduction that *mentions* that one concept which I consider central. It does not have to be sympathetic to that idea. If your introduction said something like
> >
> > "Although some people consider just intonation the ideal tuning, they are wrong because... [list of good reasons not to use JI]"
> >
> > that would satisfy my criteria because it mentions JI and that some people consider it ideal.
> >
> > I'm not demanding that this introduction agree with all my personal points of view on these issues.
> >
> > Keenan
> >
> Personally, I don't think the article should mention JI as 'Ideal', as idealism in music is subjective and one may very well prefer the buzzy, "happy", bright sound of 12-tet major thirds, or the colors that the varied sizes of thirds in a well temperament bring, for example, or the deliberate beats in gamelan music for another example. However, it SHOULD mention the historical and psychological base of just intonation as a yardstick for consonance/basis of music.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Nate
>
Also, I found this to be a good introduction, the only problem being that it doesn't introduce very xenharmonic tunings, but that can be fixed.

http://www.h-pi.com/theory/naturals1.html