Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning pyclesfip17

Got it - thanks!!

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
>
> ! pyclesfip17.scl
> !
> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
> 17
> !
> 66.73123
> 130.99360
> 190.93224
> 261.57168
> 321.51031
> 385.77268
> 452.50392
> 571.99486
> 629.68133
> 695.44810
> 764.80077
> 826.25196
> 887.70314
> 957.05582
> 1022.82259
> 1080.50906
> 1200.00000
>
>
>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Got it - thanks!!
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
> > major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
> >
> > http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
> >
> > ! pyclesfip17.scl
> > !
> > 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
> > 17
> > !
> > 66.73123
> > 130.99360
> > 190.93224
> > 261.57168
> > 321.51031
> > 385.77268
> > 452.50392
> > 571.99486
> > 629.68133
> > 695.44810
> > 764.80077
> > 826.25196
> > 887.70314
> > 957.05582
> > 1022.82259
> > 1080.50906
> > 1200.00000

Note that, although you can use this as a sort-of-circulating 17-note temperament however you want, the "natural" or "characteristic" scales of pycnic temperament have two dense clusters of notes separated by larger intervals.

For example, the "enharmonic" omnitetrachordal MODMOS 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 5, which I guess ought to sound fine in any key of this tuning, but I'm not sure. The lesfip process yields wacky results sometimes.

Keenan

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Hi Keenan - are you saying this particulat tuning is "lumpy" to you or are
you talking generalities ?

Thanks for the input!

Chris

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Got it - thanks!!
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
> > > major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
> > >
> > > http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
> > >
> > > ! pyclesfip17.scl
> > > !
> > > 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
> > > 17
> > > !
> > > 66.73123
> > > 130.99360
> > > 190.93224
> > > 261.57168
> > > 321.51031
> > > 385.77268
> > > 452.50392
> > > 571.99486
> > > 629.68133
> > > 695.44810
> > > 764.80077
> > > 826.25196
> > > 887.70314
> > > 957.05582
> > > 1022.82259
> > > 1080.50906
> > > 1200.00000
>
> Note that, although you can use this as a sort-of-circulating 17-note
> temperament however you want, the "natural" or "characteristic" scales of
> pycnic temperament have two dense clusters of notes separated by larger
> intervals.
>
> For example, the "enharmonic" omnitetrachordal MODMOS 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 5,
> which I guess ought to sound fine in any key of this tuning, but I'm not
> sure. The lesfip process yields wacky results sometimes.
>
> Keenan
>
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Keenan - are you saying this particulat tuning is "lumpy" to you or are
> you talking generalities ?
>
> Thanks for the input!

No no, I'm not describing this tuning as a whole. The tuning is 17 roughly equally spaced notes. I'm describing the scales (subsets of this tuning) that are most basic/natural/characteristic for pycnic temperament.

Let's say you had a 31-tone circulating temperament based on meantone. (There wouldn't me much reason to make it unequal, but let's say you did.) If you then use wacky scales in this temperament like C Dbb C# E E# Fb F Bbb A# B C, you're not using it in a way that relates to meantone temperament at all. You could use all those notes in a meantone-temperament-based piece of music, but it would be involve either some modulations between distant keys, or higher-limit harmony, or something else that actually ties it back to the meantone framework. In composing meantone music, it's certainly helpful to know basic scales like the diatonic scale, which is 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 as steps of 31.

In this case, if you took that pycnic-based tuning and used some scale of it like 3 3 1 3 3 3 1, you could make beautiful music, sure, but it wouldn't be pycnic-based music. Pycnic isn't just a set of notes, it's also an idea of which notes are harmonically close or distant. An example of a scale consisting of notes that are closely harmonically related in pycnic is 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5. So that scale has a characteristic pycnic sound, and the more you alter it, the less it sounds characteristic of pycnic and the more it's related to different temperaments instead.

That's just my personal point of view. (Pycnic is also not the greatest example for the general point I'm trying to make.)

Keenan

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

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

> Let's say you had a 31-tone circulating temperament based on meantone. (There wouldn't me much reason to make it unequal, but let's say you did.) If you then use wacky scales in this temperament like C Dbb C# E E# Fb F Bbb A# B C, you're not using it in a way that relates to meantone temperament at all. You could use all those notes in a meantone-temperament-based piece of music, but it would be involve either some modulations between distant keys, or higher-limit harmony, or something else that actually ties it back to the meantone framework. In composing meantone music, it's certainly helpful to know basic scales like the diatonic scale, which is 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 as steps of 31.
>
> In this case, if you took that pycnic-based tuning and used some scale of it like 3 3 1 3 3 3 1, you could make beautiful music, sure, but it wouldn't be pycnic-based music. Pycnic isn't just a set of notes, it's also an idea of which notes are harmonically close or distant. An example of a scale consisting of notes that are closely harmonically related in pycnic is 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5. So that scale has a characteristic pycnic sound, and the more you alter it, the less it sounds characteristic of pycnic and the more it's related to different temperaments instead.
>
> That's just my personal point of view. (Pycnic is also not the greatest example for the general point I'm trying to make.)
>
> Keenan
>

Yes, this is what I was saying some time ago, using the essential difference between 1/4 comma meantone and 31 equal divisions of the octave as an example. Without appropriate modalities, a collection of pitches is just a collection of pitches, and with different modalities, one collection of pitches may be many different things.

Now if you think about what I was saying recently, I was pointing out that the particular modalities I was using in 41-edo tend to call for pitches that deviate from practically-sized moments of symmetry. But I am not deviating from regular mapping- 6/5 is always mapped to a particular degree of 41 and 7/6 to another. So, problems arise not from the temperament, which is dandy, but from the collection of pitches available. In the worst case, a subset of pitches, were I to use it, would in actual practice force me off the temperament (imitative counterpoint entails using steps), so those subsets are non-starters.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal

http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112

On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

🔗Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>

Hi Chris,
thanks for the impressing audio experience(s)!

I liked the whole idea:
* the combination
* the title
* the illustration
* *the music*
:-)

Best regards,
Wolf

Am 13.02.2012 05:03, schrieb Chris Vaisvil:
> Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
>
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
>> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
>>
>> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
>>
>> ! pyclesfip17.scl
>> !
>> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
>> 17
>> !
>> 66.73123
>> 130.99360
>> 190.93224
>> 261.57168
>> 321.51031
>> 385.77268
>> 452.50392
>> 571.99486
>> 629.68133
>> 695.44810
>> 764.80077
>> 826.25196
>> 887.70314
>> 957.05582
>> 1022.82259
>> 1080.50906
>> 1200.00000
>>
>>
>>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Thank you Wolf I am very honored by your comments!

Chris

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Wolf Peuker <wolfpeuker@...>wrote:

> Hi Chris,
> thanks for the impressing audio experience(s)!
>
> I liked the whole idea:
> * the combination
> * the title
> * the illustration
> * *the music*
> :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Wolf
>
> Am 13.02.2012 05:03, schrieb Chris Vaisvil:
> > Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
> >
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
> >> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
> >>
> >> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
> >>
> >> ! pyclesfip17.scl
> >> !
> >> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
> >> 17
> >> !
> >> 66.73123
> >> 130.99360
> >> 190.93224
> >> 261.57168
> >> 321.51031
> >> 385.77268
> >> 452.50392
> >> 571.99486
> >> 629.68133
> >> 695.44810
> >> 764.80077
> >> 826.25196
> >> 887.70314
> >> 957.05582
> >> 1022.82259
> >> 1080.50906
> >> 1200.00000
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

Chris,

I liked about the first 25-30 seconds of the pycnic lesfip piece. I
liked the little cascades of notes played without harmony, mostly --
the less harmony the better -- with the exception of that little
fillip you do at about the 30-second mark. That was pretty cool.

The rest of it sounded pretty out-of-tune to me, which is funny, given
how much my ear has changed over the last year or so. When I look in
the tuning file I see lots of almost-pure intervals that I like, but
when I listen I get a bit of a muddle. I'm sure Mike B wonders why. :)

As you know, I say this not because I want to disparage the work --
you know how much I appreciate your willingness to share your efforts
-- but because experimentation requires both positive and negative
feedback.

I didn't listen to the other one yet. Will try to get to that soon.

Thanks,
Jake

On 2/12/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
>
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
>> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
>>
>> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
>>
>> ! pyclesfip17.scl
>> !
>> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
>> 17
>> !
>> 66.73123
>> 130.99360
>> 190.93224
>> 261.57168
>> 321.51031
>> 385.77268
>> 452.50392
>> 571.99486
>> 629.68133
>> 695.44810
>> 764.80077
>> 826.25196
>> 887.70314
>> 957.05582
>> 1022.82259
>> 1080.50906
>> 1200.00000
>>
>>
>>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Hi Jake,

Thanks for the listen and comments - they are very much appreciated!
For me the positive part of the pycnic lesfip 17 piece was the energy of
the tempo / chromaticism / rhythmic motives combined.
I wondered what this would sound like in 17 equal when performing it and
now with your comment I will certainly run it through 17 equal. If not
anything else it will be an interesting comparison.
That will have to wait until this afternoon.

Take care!

Chris

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Chris,
>
> I liked about the first 25-30 seconds of the pycnic lesfip piece. I
> liked the little cascades of notes played without harmony, mostly --
> the less harmony the better -- with the exception of that little
> fillip you do at about the 30-second mark. That was pretty cool.
>
> The rest of it sounded pretty out-of-tune to me, which is funny, given
> how much my ear has changed over the last year or so. When I look in
> the tuning file I see lots of almost-pure intervals that I like, but
> when I listen I get a bit of a muddle. I'm sure Mike B wonders why. :)
>
> As you know, I say this not because I want to disparage the work --
> you know how much I appreciate your willingness to share your efforts
> -- but because experimentation requires both positive and negative
> feedback.
>
> I didn't listen to the other one yet. Will try to get to that soon.
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>
>
> On 2/12/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
> >
> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
> >> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
> >>
> >> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
> >>
> >> ! pyclesfip17.scl
> >> !
> >> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
> >> 17
> >> !
> >> 66.73123
> >> 130.99360
> >> 190.93224
> >> 261.57168
> >> 321.51031
> >> 385.77268
> >> 452.50392
> >> 571.99486
> >> 629.68133
> >> 695.44810
> >> 764.80077
> >> 826.25196
> >> 887.70314
> >> 957.05582
> >> 1022.82259
> >> 1080.50906
> >> 1200.00000
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

FWIW here is the straight up 17 equal version for comparison -
http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/20120212-non-pyclesfip17.mp3

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> Hi Jake,
>
> Thanks for the listen and comments - they are very much appreciated!
> For me the positive part of the pycnic lesfip 17 piece was the energy of
> the tempo / chromaticism / rhythmic motives combined.
> I wondered what this would sound like in 17 equal when performing it and
> now with your comment I will certainly run it through 17 equal. If not
> anything else it will be an interesting comparison.
> That will have to wait until this afternoon.
>
> Take care!
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I liked about the first 25-30 seconds of the pycnic lesfip piece. I
>> liked the little cascades of notes played without harmony, mostly --
>> the less harmony the better -- with the exception of that little
>> fillip you do at about the 30-second mark. That was pretty cool.
>>
>> The rest of it sounded pretty out-of-tune to me, which is funny, given
>> how much my ear has changed over the last year or so. When I look in
>> the tuning file I see lots of almost-pure intervals that I like, but
>> when I listen I get a bit of a muddle. I'm sure Mike B wonders why. :)
>>
>> As you know, I say this not because I want to disparage the work --
>> you know how much I appreciate your willingness to share your efforts
>> -- but because experimentation requires both positive and negative
>> feedback.
>>
>> I didn't listen to the other one yet. Will try to get to that soon.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jake
>>
>>
>> On 2/12/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>> > Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
>> >
>> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
>> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>> >
>> >> **
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
>> >> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
>> >>
>> >> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
>> >>
>> >> ! pyclesfip17.scl
>> >> !
>> >> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
>> >> 17
>> >> !
>> >> 66.73123
>> >> 130.99360
>> >> 190.93224
>> >> 261.57168
>> >> 321.51031
>> >> 385.77268
>> >> 452.50392
>> >> 571.99486
>> >> 629.68133
>> >> 695.44810
>> >> 764.80077
>> >> 826.25196
>> >> 887.70314
>> >> 957.05582
>> >> 1022.82259
>> >> 1080.50906
>> >> 1200.00000
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

The 17-EDO wasn't particularly worse, but wasn't better, either. I
think the first 30 seconds are slightly better in the lesfip version,
because the falling notes are a little less flat-sounding. It still
sounded out of tune to me, too, which is funny because I've heard
plenty of 17-EDO by now that seems fine. Maybe I had already corrupted
my expectations.

I liked the 21-ED4 thing more than either of the above. The notes were
still unusual, but didn't give me an out-of-tune sensation. It's
restful, a little pensive. Nice.

Regards,
Jake

On 2/13/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> FWIW here is the straight up 17 equal version for comparison -
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/20120212-non-pyclesfip17.mp3
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:
>
>> Hi Jake,
>>
>> Thanks for the listen and comments - they are very much appreciated!
>> For me the positive part of the pycnic lesfip 17 piece was the energy of
>> the tempo / chromaticism / rhythmic motives combined.
>> I wondered what this would sound like in 17 equal when performing it and
>> now with your comment I will certainly run it through 17 equal. If not
>> anything else it will be an interesting comparison.
>> That will have to wait until this afternoon.
>>
>> Take care!
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jake Freivald
>> <jdfreivald@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> I liked about the first 25-30 seconds of the pycnic lesfip piece. I
>>> liked the little cascades of notes played without harmony, mostly --
>>> the less harmony the better -- with the exception of that little
>>> fillip you do at about the 30-second mark. That was pretty cool.
>>>
>>> The rest of it sounded pretty out-of-tune to me, which is funny, given
>>> how much my ear has changed over the last year or so. When I look in
>>> the tuning file I see lots of almost-pure intervals that I like, but
>>> when I listen I get a bit of a muddle. I'm sure Mike B wonders why. :)
>>>
>>> As you know, I say this not because I want to disparage the work --
>>> you know how much I appreciate your willingness to share your efforts
>>> -- but because experimentation requires both positive and negative
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> I didn't listen to the other one yet. Will try to get to that soon.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jake
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/12/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>>> > Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
>>> >
>>> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
>>> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> **
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds
>>> >> of
>>> >> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
>>> >>
>>> >> ! pyclesfip17.scl
>>> >> !
>>> >> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
>>> >> 17
>>> >> !
>>> >> 66.73123
>>> >> 130.99360
>>> >> 190.93224
>>> >> 261.57168
>>> >> 321.51031
>>> >> 385.77268
>>> >> 452.50392
>>> >> 571.99486
>>> >> 629.68133
>>> >> 695.44810
>>> >> 764.80077
>>> >> 826.25196
>>> >> 887.70314
>>> >> 957.05582
>>> >> 1022.82259
>>> >> 1080.50906
>>> >> 1200.00000
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

The two versions were very different. I'd say almost different pieces entirely. The 17-equal version had a certain "consistency" of harmonic texture that I liked, while the pycnic version was much more varied in texture; I found the frequent changes in harmonic texture
of the pycnic version to be a bit disconcerting. Less intelligible perhaps. The occasional 5-limit harmonies seemed to contrast a bit too strongly with the higher-limit chords for my taste. With the 17-equal version, I felt like the contrast was less and that that allowed for more smoothness through the piece. Less "jumpy" and "lumpy", perhaps.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> FWIW here is the straight up 17 equal version for comparison -
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/17-ET/20120212-non-pyclesfip17.mp3
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:
>
> > Hi Jake,
> >
> > Thanks for the listen and comments - they are very much appreciated!
> > For me the positive part of the pycnic lesfip 17 piece was the energy of
> > the tempo / chromaticism / rhythmic motives combined.
> > I wondered what this would sound like in 17 equal when performing it and
> > now with your comment I will certainly run it through 17 equal. If not
> > anything else it will be an interesting comparison.
> > That will have to wait until this afternoon.
> >
> > Take care!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> I liked about the first 25-30 seconds of the pycnic lesfip piece. I
> >> liked the little cascades of notes played without harmony, mostly --
> >> the less harmony the better -- with the exception of that little
> >> fillip you do at about the 30-second mark. That was pretty cool.
> >>
> >> The rest of it sounded pretty out-of-tune to me, which is funny, given
> >> how much my ear has changed over the last year or so. When I look in
> >> the tuning file I see lots of almost-pure intervals that I like, but
> >> when I listen I get a bit of a muddle. I'm sure Mike B wonders why. :)
> >>
> >> As you know, I say this not because I want to disparage the work --
> >> you know how much I appreciate your willingness to share your efforts
> >> -- but because experimentation requires both positive and negative
> >> feedback.
> >>
> >> I didn't listen to the other one yet. Will try to get to that soon.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jake
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/12/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >> > Two pieces, one in the tuning below - the other in 10.5 equal
> >> >
> >> > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2112
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:29 AM, genewardsmith
> >> > <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> **
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Since pycnic temperament perversely wants to have two differnt kinds of
> >> >> major and minor thirds, it seemed like a natural candidate for lesfip.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Sensamagic+clan#Pycnic
> >> >>
> >> >> ! pyclesfip17.scl
> >> >> !
> >> >> 9-limit 15 cent lesfip derived from Pycnic[17]
> >> >> 17
> >> >> !
> >> >> 66.73123
> >> >> 130.99360
> >> >> 190.93224
> >> >> 261.57168
> >> >> 321.51031
> >> >> 385.77268
> >> >> 452.50392
> >> >> 571.99486
> >> >> 629.68133
> >> >> 695.44810
> >> >> 764.80077
> >> >> 826.25196
> >> >> 887.70314
> >> >> 957.05582
> >> >> 1022.82259
> >> >> 1080.50906
> >> >> 1200.00000
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

This conversation is pretty interesting - many views!

Gene - which "The 17edo "blues" thing Chris did was how 17 ought to be, I
think; much better IMHO." are you referring to - the guitar piece with the
clouds as an icon?

Thanks,

Chris

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
> >
> > The 17-EDO wasn't particularly worse, but wasn't better, either.
>
> I thought it was night and day. The lesfip version was beautiful madness,
> the 17edo verion was same old same old, and with a sour sound. The 17edo
> "blues" thing Chris did was how 17 ought to be, I think; much better IMHO.
>
>
>
>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

Chris, I'll start giving you bad reviews more often -- to incite other
people to giving you feedback! :)

Regarding how much of a difference there is, I find Gene's and Igs's
emphatic assertions of differences to be interesting. I readily
acknowledge that my ears aren't as good as many people's here; I've
been listening to microtonal music for only about 18 months -- count
me as a close-to-worst-case listener, if you like. Recall that I
didn't think Sweelinck's Chromatic Fantasie sounded out of tune in
12-EDO, and it just sounded a little richer in meantone. Those are the
ears I have right now. That's probably why I like 11- and 13-limit so
much: They're far enough out of typical 12-EDO range to be easily
identifiable, while still sounding "good" or "just" or "in tune"
somehow.

Anyway, I was originally going to say that the 17-EDO piece sounded a
little flatter or hollow or something, but I wasn't convinced that the
effect was more than psychological. I think 17-EDO was marginally more
dull than the lesfip in the first 30 seconds, and marginally better
than the lesfip after that. Maybe. It's not a big difference to me, at
any rate. I didn't get "beautiful madness" from the lesfip piece or
"different pieces entirely" from them, either. But the piece didn't
really work for me, so I may not be a good judge.

Interesting to get the different perspectives.

Regards,
Jake

On 2/14/12, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> This conversation is pretty interesting - many views!
>
> Gene - which "The 17edo "blues" thing Chris did was how 17 ought to be, I
> think; much better IMHO." are you referring to - the guitar piece with the
> clouds as an icon?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > The 17-EDO wasn't particularly worse, but wasn't better, either.
>>
>> I thought it was night and day. The lesfip version was beautiful madness,
>> the 17edo verion was same old same old, and with a sour sound. The 17edo
>> "blues" thing Chris did was how 17 ought to be, I think; much better IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Yes, that is the one I suspected you meant. - Thanks for pointing it out!

Chris

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:05 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

> **
>
> > >
> > > This conversation is pretty interesting - many views!
> > >
> > > Gene - which "The 17edo "blues" thing Chris did was how 17 ought to
> be, I
> > > think; much better IMHO." are you referring to - the guitar piece with
> the
> > > clouds as an icon?
> >
> > Probably, but I just spent five minutes clicking on the search thing in
> Chrome and didn't find it.
>
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2032
>
>
>
>