Hedgehog

Why don't I hear fans of 22edo go on about the wonders of Hedgehog[14]? Complete 11-limit otonalities! When I asked the magic answer box what was the best for those in 22, it said "try hedgehog!"

On 2/6/2012 9:19 PM, genewardsmith wrote:
> Why don't I hear fans of 22edo go on about the wonders of
> Hedgehog[14]? Complete 11-limit otonalities! When I asked the magic
> answer box what was the best for those in 22, it said "try
> hedgehog!"
>

Wait, are you the same genewardsmith who was complaining about hedgehog
being on the top of the list just a month ago?

Oh I get it, you're subtly implying that you don't trust the "magic answer box". I was a little worried there.

:)

Petr Pařízek did write something in hedgehog once, but I seem to recall that wasn't exactly his intention. However, it does go to show that hedgehog can be useful after all. My top criterion for any temperament or tuning system is whether it's helpful for making music, and I haven't found a "magic" formula yet that's a good substitute for actual experimentation. But the badness functions are usually pretty good as a first approximation.

I tried.

http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2087

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:19 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Why don't I hear fans of 22edo go on about the wonders of Hedgehog[14]?
> Complete 11-limit otonalities! When I asked the magic answer box what was
> the best for those in 22, it said "try hedgehog!"
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I tried.

Don't be so pessimistic. I think you gave us a whole new angle on 22, for one thing.

Hi Gene,

Thanks for the comment. I feel like there is more here - I found it
difficult but at the same time there were some interesting harmonic
combinations.
My music feels stiff to me, which I think was the result of how I
accomplished the realization. I was unable to assimilate
this scale well enough to improvise in a more free manner as I am used to
doing.

I may give this another shot.

Chris

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:12 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I tried.
>
> Don't be so pessimistic. I think you gave us a whole new angle on 22, for
> one thing.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> Thanks for the comment. I feel like there is more here - I found it
> difficult but at the same time there were some interesting harmonic
> combinations.
> My music feels stiff to me, which I think was the result of how I
> accomplished the realization. I was unable to assimilate
> this scale well enough to improvise in a more free manner as I am used to
> doing.

This is a really important insight and I wish everyone would have it.

These temperaments we're talking about (and constantly making lists of them by the hundred) represent entire harmonic universes, with infinite possibilities in each one. Think if we were evaluating meantone in 12edo for the first time, rather than hedgehog in 22edo. Even if somebody wrote "Danny Boy" and somebody else wrote Toccata and Fugue in D Minor and somebody else wrote "Penny Lane" and somebody else wrote "Rhapsody in Blue"... it would still be insane to think that "meantone's been done - we know what meantone sounds like now". We would still have no idea that meantone could also sound like "Stars and Stripes Forever".

And in our case it's even worse because most xenharmonic pieces people create will inevitably be worse than any good meantone piece, simply because none of us has a lifetime of experience in hedgehog temperament, or equally important an entire history of people experimenting and creating new genres of hedgehog music. In meantone we're standing on the shoulders of giants, but in any different temperament like hedgehog, we're just beginning to construct scaffolding.

Keenan

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> And in our case it's even worse because most xenharmonic pieces people create will inevitably be worse than any good meantone piece, simply because none of us has a lifetime of experience in hedgehog temperament, or equally important an entire history of people experimenting and creating new genres of hedgehog music. In meantone we're standing on the shoulders of giants, but in any different temperament like hedgehog, we're just beginning to construct scaffolding.

I agree. However, I do find it noteworthy that certain temperaments in
12-EDO seem to have found themselves relegated to "side-roles"
compared to meantone, like diminished and augmented temperament for
instance.

Sometimes I'm not sure how to evaluate what it means to "use a
temperament." Does it mean to use the MOS's of that temperament? Does
it mean to use some other scale, and then use comma pumps in that
temperament, which is what happened with 50/49 in 12-EDO? Not sure.

-Mike

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> These temperaments we're talking about (and constantly making lists of them by the hundred) represent entire harmonic universes, with infinite possibilities in each one. Think if we were evaluating meantone in 12edo for the first time, rather than hedgehog in 22edo. Even if somebody wrote "Danny Boy" and somebody else wrote Toccata and Fugue in D Minor and somebody else wrote "Penny Lane" and somebody else wrote "Rhapsody in Blue"... it would still be insane to think that "meantone's been done - we know what meantone sounds like now". We would still have no idea that meantone could also sound like "Stars and Stripes Forever".

Also, I even still think that about 12-EDO. Before I joined this
community I was trying to find cool stuff to do in 12-EDO, and
concluded that there's lots of awesome stuff that hasn't been done in
12-EDO yet. There's a ton of stuff with modal harmony that hasn't been
done, and I don't think anyone's explored that space between upper
structure triad and polytonality, where you have multiple simultaneous
tonal centers which are themselves harmonically related (the thing
Gene called "the Battaglia chord" on the Wiki exists in 12-EDO and I
think is pretty xenharmonic).

Anyway, I sometimes I think it's funny that people believe that
there's no good music left to write in 12-EDO. If this is true at all,
I think it'll probably be for financial and economic reasons, not
because there's nothing left to do in 12-EDO just because it doesn't
have the 11-limit.

-Mike

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

> And in our case it's even worse because most xenharmonic pieces people create will inevitably be worse than any good meantone piece, simply because none of us has a lifetime of experience in hedgehog temperament, or equally important an entire history of people experimenting and creating new genres of hedgehog music. In meantone we're standing on the shoulders of giants, but in any different temperament like hedgehog, we're just beginning to construct scaffolding.
>

Quite true. It's impossible to know from a few cursory noodlings what can or cannot be accomplished with a given tuning. I spent a looooong time hating 17-TET, and I almost sold my guitar (would have if anyone wanted to pay me $1000 for it), until I forced myself to really try to learn how to make it interesting. In fact, it wasn't until I was so thoroughly bored of it that I was able to figure out how to compose with it to make it interesting. I kinda think you *have to* get bored of a tuning in order to write great music with it, otherwise the tuning will do all the talking and you won't really say anything as a composer. This is doubly-true of tunings that are extremely versatile.

I also think this is why people tend to be attracted to tunings that carry something of the familiar with them; it's hard to completely split off from all familiar aspects of traditional music and try to begin again from a new set of first principles.

I wish more of us would become more deeply dedicated to a few tunings. I mean, I'm not impressed with 22-ED2 based on what I've done with it or heard done with it so far, but if everyone who likes it would just really go to town with it, I'd love to see what happens.

-Igs

On 2/9/2012 2:34 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Keenan Pepper<keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>>
>> And in our case it's even worse because most xenharmonic pieces people create will inevitably be worse than any good meantone piece, simply because none of us has a lifetime of experience in hedgehog temperament, or equally important an entire history of people experimenting and creating new genres of hedgehog music. In meantone we're standing on the shoulders of giants, but in any different temperament like hedgehog, we're just beginning to construct scaffolding.
>
> I agree. However, I do find it noteworthy that certain temperaments in
> 12-EDO seem to have found themselves relegated to "side-roles"
> compared to meantone, like diminished and augmented temperament for
> instance.
>
> Sometimes I'm not sure how to evaluate what it means to "use a
> temperament." Does it mean to use the MOS's of that temperament? Does
> it mean to use some other scale, and then use comma pumps in that
> temperament, which is what happened with 50/49 in 12-EDO? Not sure.
>
> -Mike

A comma pump is sufficient, but it's not the only option. Another option is to use the same interval in two different roles. Dividing a major third into two equal steps is enough to define meantone, for instance. You can identify either of the steps as 9/8 or 10/9, but it doesn't matter which -- it ends up tempering out 81/80 one way or the other. (Although this is the most likely identification, it could turn out that you're using the steps in a way that identifies them with some other pair of intervals, like 8/7 and 35/32, in which case you'd be tempering out 256/245.)

May I offer that it isn't boredom that is the important point. It is when
you move past the low hanging obvious fruit. Like Mike I still find
interesting things to play in 12. And as I progress I find myself using
dissonances and chords I discarded when I first learned my guitar. An
interesting fact is that Beethoven (and others whom I can't remember right
now) wrote some piety chromatic stuff that pushed the boundaries later in
life. (I'm thinking specifically of a string quartet(s) if memory serves).
In fact what I just posted to my blog has a bit of this.

So... I venture to postulate that if one progresses as a composer you end
up using the finer points of your art. And probably if you don't you
haven't progressed - and perhaps are making a craft of music not art.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:44 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> until I forced myself to really try to learn how to make it interesting.
> In fact, it wasn't until I was so thoroughly bored of it that I was able to
> figure out how to compose with it to make it interesting. I kinda think you
> *have to* get bored of a tuning in order to write great music with it,
> otherwise the tuning will do all the talking and you won't really say
> anything as a composer. This is doubly-true of tunings that are extremely
> versatile.
>
>

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> May I offer that it isn't boredom that is the important point. It is when you move past the low hanging obvious fruit. Like Mike I still find interesting things to play in 12. And as I progress I find myself using dissonances and chords I discarded when I first learned my guitar. An interesting fact is that Beethoven (and others whom I can't remember right now) wrote some piety chromatic stuff that pushed the boundaries later in life. (I'm thinking specifically of a string quartet(s) if memory serves). In fact what I just posted to my blog has a bit of this.
>
> So... I venture to postulate that if one progresses as a composer you end up using the finer points of your art. And probably if you don't you haven't progressed - and perhaps are making a craft of music not art.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure I sound like a broken record at this point, but
harmonically I think that Western music hit some kind of peak around
the early 20th century. Compared to the harmonic stuff a few decades
before, the French school was like this huge monumental leap forward,
with everyone exploring other modes and MODMOS's and other
temperaments in 12 besides meantone, and all kinds of awesome stuff
happening. And then there's also the blues and jazz, and Gershwin,
fusing the styles together in some kind of new cross-cultural 7-limit
dominant sound that unfortunately got cut short because he died too
early. There was all of this rapid development happening, and then two
world wars put a pretty big damper on Europe's cultural output and it
never really recovered, and ever since then fine art has been really
really dark.

Where would it have gone? I wonder what it'd be like if there'd never
been a World War II.

-Mike

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> There was all of this rapid development happening, and then two
> world wars put a pretty big damper on Europe's cultural output and it
> never really recovered, and ever since then fine art has been really
> really dark.

I should add that I'm just talking about so-called "classical" music
here, not like pop music and stuff. British rock is awesome.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> I agree. However, I do find it noteworthy that certain temperaments in
> 12-EDO seem to have found themselves relegated to "side-roles"
> compared to meantone, like diminished and augmented temperament for
> instance.
>
> Sometimes I'm not sure how to evaluate what it means to "use a
> temperament." Does it mean to use the MOS's of that temperament? Does
> it mean to use some other scale, and then use comma pumps in that
> temperament, which is what happened with 50/49 in 12-EDO? Not sure.

No, it doesn't mean using MOSes, and it doesn't mean using comma pumps, and it doesn't even mean *not* taking advantage of other commas vanishing. The Looney Tunes theme has an obvious augmented comma pump, but it's still meantone-based music rather than augmented-based. You could still make a 31edo version and people wouldn't bat an eye at it, but a 27edo version would necessarily be pretty crazy.

To me, "using a temperament" means literally having your internal mental space of "notes" and "intervals" collapsed into a lower dimensional space, such that it never even crosses your mind to think of identified intervals (e.g. 10/9~9/8) as being different. Musicians in the 12edo world often think of G# and Ab as being somehow different, even though they're intoned the same. They even have different names. But none of them ever think of D (9/8 above C) and D (10/9 above C) as being different - that's just not "how intervals work".

You can tell you're really "using" a temperament when you can't tell the difference between comma pumps and non-comma-pump chord progressions.

Keenan

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> No, it doesn't mean using MOSes, and it doesn't mean using comma pumps, and it doesn't even mean *not* taking advantage of other commas vanishing. The Looney Tunes theme has an obvious augmented comma pump, but it's still meantone-based music rather than augmented-based. You could still make a 31edo version and people wouldn't bat an eye at it, but a 27edo version would necessarily be pretty crazy.

Hahaha, I just said this in XA chat and Keenan totally used it against
me here. Touche. But I don't see how you say it's meantone-based,
rather than 5-limit JI based or something like that.

> To me, "using a temperament" means literally having your internal mental space of "notes" and "intervals" collapsed into a lower dimensional space, such that it never even crosses your mind to think of identified intervals (e.g. 10/9~9/8) as being different. Musicians in the 12edo world often think of G# and Ab as being somehow different, even though they're intoned the same. They even have different names. But none of them ever think of D (9/8 above C) and D (10/9 above C) as being different - that's just not "how intervals work".
>
> You can tell you're really "using" a temperament when you can't tell the difference between comma pumps and non-comma-pump chord progressions.

Yeah, but, I dunno man. What about scalar structure and internalized
interval categories and all that? Isn't that where all of this stuff
comes from, and not ratios and JI and such?

-Mike

Mike I don't know how you generalized my specifics to all of European art
but undeterred I don't think harmonic development stopped in the early 20th
century though probably the larger story of the mid to latter 20th century
has been exploration of timbre and rhythm.

And the really really dark art you refer to is probably a reaction to the
wars.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> **
> There was all of this rapid development happening, and then two
> world wars put a pretty big damper on Europe's cultural output and it
> never really recovered, and ever since then fine art has been really
> really dark.
>
> Where would it have gone? I wonder what it'd be like if there'd never
> been a World War II.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
>

On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

Mike I don't know how you generalized my specifics to all of European art

What is this, Chris, a performance review?

but undeterred I don't think harmonic development stopped in the early 20th
century

I think it hit a peak of development speed that's never been matched.
Harmonically, there's obviously been some new developments, many of which I
feel took place in jazz, but the larger story of the mid to latter 20th
century has been exploration of timbre and rhythm.

though probably the larger story of they mid to latter 20th century has
been exploration of timbre and rhythm.

Oh good, you agree.

And the really really dark art you refer to is probably a reaction to the
wars.

Yes, that was the point of me bringing it up. Since those wars it's been
trendy in art to express dark emotions, and it's still like that today.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> Hahaha, I just said this in XA chat and Keenan totally used it against
> me here. Touche. But I don't see how you say it's meantone-based,
> rather than 5-limit JI based or something like that.

There are so many reasons... Everything in it is intimately connected to the structure of meantone. Melodic fragments are way more likely to be snippets of pentatonic and diatonic scales than any other scales. The whole notion of harmonic "distance" that's intrinsic to it (a.k.a. the circle of fifths) is based on meantone.

> Yeah, but, I dunno man. What about scalar structure and internalized
> interval categories and all that? Isn't that where all of this stuff
> comes from, and not ratios and JI and such?

Okay, then forget I said "10/9" and "9/8" above. Doesn't matter at all, it's still the non-temperament-scale-system-thing with fourths and fifths as generators that's the important one. It's still the pentatonic and diatonic scales that are the important "non-altered" scales.

Similarly, if other temperaments ever catch on and become reasonably mainstream, people aren't going to keep using JI ratios to refer to their intervals.

Keenan

You are chiding me for pointing out that you changed my point into
something I didn't intend?

A classic example of how conversations on this list tend to devolve.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike I don't know how you generalized my specifics to all of European art
>
> What is this, Chris, a performance review?
>
> but undeterred I don't think harmonic development stopped in the early
> 20th century
>
> I think it hit a peak of development speed that's never been matched.
> Harmonically, there's obviously been some new developments, many of which I
> feel took place in jazz, but the larger story of the mid to latter 20th
> century has been exploration of timbre and rhythm.
>
> though probably the larger story of they mid to latter 20th century has
> been exploration of timbre and rhythm.
>
> Oh good, you agree.
>
> And the really really dark art you refer to is probably a reaction to the
> wars.
>
> Yes, that was the point of me bringing it up. Since those wars it's been
> trendy in art to express dark emotions, and it's still like that today.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>

On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

You are chiding me for pointing out that you changed my point into
something I didn't intend?

A classic example of how conversations on this list tend to devolve.

No offense, but this is a silly discussion to have. I can't say I'm
terribly remorseful to have continued "your point" into my own, original
point. If it makes you happy I'll fire my editor.

I'm not going to respond to posts like these anymore as they seem petty to
me.

-Mike

Mike,

This conversation grew out of my observations while using the scale Gene
provided. So I have no idea why you are responding as if I have no reason
to be a part of the conversation...

Chris

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> You are chiding me for pointing out that you changed my point into
> something I didn't intend?
>
> A classic example of how conversations on this list tend to devolve.
>
> No offense, but this is a silly discussion to have. I can't say I'm
> terribly remorseful to have continued "your point" into my own, original
> point. If it makes you happy I'll fire my editor.
>
> I'm not going to respond to posts like these anymore as they seem petty to
> me.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> This conversation grew out of my observations while using the scale Gene provided. So I have no idea why you are responding as if I have no reason to be a part of the conversation...

Chris, I'll respond to you offlist about this.

-Mike

Warren Buffett's partner Charlie Munger has a catchphrase:
"I have nothing further to add". Munger has even given Buffett
a microcassette recording of him saying this to play after
Buffett has finished a sentence, when Munger cannot be there
in person. Increasingly, I feel like giving you such a
recording.

-Carl

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

> No, it doesn't mean using MOSes, and it doesn't mean using
> comma pumps, and it doesn't even mean *not* taking advantage of
> other commas vanishing. The Looney Tunes theme has an obvious
> augmented comma pump, but it's still meantone-based music rather
> than augmented-based. You could still make a 31edo version and
> people wouldn't bat an eye at it, but a 27edo version would
> necessarily be pretty crazy. [snip]
> Musicians in the 12edo world often think of G# and Ab as being
> somehow different, even though they're intoned the same. They
> even have different names. But none of them ever think of D
> (9/8 above C) and D (10/9 above C) as being different - that's
> just not "how intervals work".
> You can tell you're really "using" a temperament when you can't
> tell the difference between comma pumps and non-comma-pump chord
> progressions.

Interesting posts. My friend Jeff went several classical
performance tour of Europe and said the old timers there
said the same thing about the wars (esp. WWI).

But I reckon Western music evolved at a more or less constant
rate from about 1800 until 1974, with the death of the
progressive rock movement.

http://i.minus.com/i0dD078ghJnW4.png

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I should add that I'm just talking about so-called "classical" music
> here, not like pop music and stuff. British rock is awesome.
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> But I reckon Western music evolved at a more or less constant
> rate from about 1800 until 1974, with the death of the
> progressive rock movement.

I think it evolved at a more or less constant rate from 1400 to 1975, with the death of Shostakovich.

Alrighty; here is a highly speculative picture

http://i.minus.com/iY0I7KVj7dcoh.png

strongly biased by my own life course (including aging,
moving house...) and of course, my own taste in music.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting posts. My friend Jeff went several classical
> performance tour of Europe and said the old timers there
> said the same thing about the wars (esp. WWI).
>
> But I reckon Western music evolved at a more or less constant
> rate from about 1800 until 1974, with the death of the
> progressive rock movement.
>
> http://i.minus.com/i0dD078ghJnW4.png
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
>
> > I should add that I'm just talking about so-called "classical" music
> > here, not like pop music and stuff. British rock is awesome.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>

Consumption of energy (in the form of wind power) increased
dramatically circa 1400, and the rate of music evolution
increased then too, but there is another discontinuity around
the end of the Baroque, when the first freelance musicians
appeared. And steam power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Steam_power

From the mid 1700s to 1974, music genres passed more quickly
than typical human lives. The century from 1550-1650 saw
comparatively little change. Westurn musicians during this
period all worked in more or less the same genre.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > But I reckon Western music evolved at a more or less constant
> > rate from about 1800 until 1974, with the death of the
> > progressive rock movement.
>
> I think it evolved at a more or less constant rate from 1400
> to 1975, with the death of Shostakovich.
>

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Alrighty; here is a highly speculative picture
>
> http://i.minus.com/iY0I7KVj7dcoh.png
>
> strongly biased by my own life course (including aging,
> moving house...) and of course, my own taste in music.
>
> -Carl

What is this graph of? Nominal vs real what? GDP?

I think Western music on the whole still continued to evolve after
prog rock died. Why, in fact, just a few days ago I heard the most
amazing musical effect - they can automatically retune your voice on
the fly so that you sound like a robot! You don't even need to be a
robot to sound like a robot anymore! Westerners used technology to
figure out how to fake it anyway. I heard it on a song about how
someone apparently figured out how to move like Mick Jagger.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > http://i.minus.com/iY0I7KVj7dcoh.png

> What is this graph of? Nominal vs real what? GDP?

Sorry; it is the price of oil. I guess you have to know
what "Brent spot" and "Arabian light" are to figure that out.

> I think Western music on the whole still continued to evolve after
> prog rock died.

Of course it did. But there seems to be circumstantial
evidence that the rate changed dramatically in 1974.

Paul recently posted an exploitable image to facebook
that compares Sinatra lyrics to Justin Bieber lyrics.
It occurred to me that the lyrics would have even been
better in 1973

"Open doors we find our way
We look we see we smile
Surely daybreaks cross our path
And stay maybe a while"

-Carl