Comparative Tuning of Debussy’s Arabesque No. 1.

Having been fortunate to find a real performance that was midi recorded I
present several versions of Debussy’s Arabesque No. 1. One of the tunings
presented seemed to be magical at places. I will let the listener decide
which, if any, of these trans-tuned versions are ear-worthy.
The tunings used are listed below.
*Margo Schulter’s Indigo 12*
*Gene Ward Smith’s Locomotive*
*Keenan Pepper’s paraphy*
*Pythagorean*

More details here
http://chrisvaisvil.com/?page_id=3135

Hi Chris,

Sorry to have to say this, but the Pythagorean version is not correct.
You did not follow the enharmonic spelling in the score.
The original score uses the notes F till Fx, that is 15 unique notes per
octave.
You tuned your Pythagorean version from Eb to G#, and remapped notes to
the closest enharmonic equivalence.
The result is very out of tune and not a proper representation of
Pythagorean.
And since the correct way of tuning to Pythagorean requires 15 notes per
octave, there is no easy fix.

Kind regards,
Marcel

> Having been fortunate to find a real performance that was midi
> recorded I present several versions of Debussy’s Arabesque No. 1. One
> of the tunings presented seemed to be magical at places. I will let
> the listener decide which, if any, of these trans-tuned versions are
> ear-worthy.
> The tunings used are listed below.
> /Margo Schulter’s Indigo 12/
> /Gene Ward Smith’s Locomotive/
> /Keenan Pepper’s paraphy/
> /Pythagorean/
>
> More details here
> http://chrisvaisvil.com/?page_id=3135
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <marcel@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry to have to say this, but the Pythagorean version is not correct.
> You did not follow the enharmonic spelling in the score.
> The original score uses the notes F till Fx, that is 15 unique notes per
> octave.
> You tuned your Pythagorean version from Eb to G#, and remapped notes to
> the closest enharmonic equivalence.
> The result is very out of tune and not a proper representation of
> Pythagorean.
> And since the correct way of tuning to Pythagorean requires 15 notes per
> octave, there is no easy fix.
>

I've been working with some Pyth tunings after reading your posts about the well-tuned sound of the Pythagorean.

It appears to me that 15 notes is pretty small. To include both enharmonics for the black keys alone, wouldn't you require 17 notes? If you extend the chain of fifths to go from B# to Cbb, that would be 25 notes. Which 3 notes are you adding to the "Eb to G#" piano tuning to come up with 15? Do you have a place where you describe this?

Thanks.
Billy

Hi Billy,

The 15 notes per octave I stated were needed only for this specific piece.
And I missed one Bb in the score so it turned out to be 16 (from Bb to Fx, so there is no Eb in the score).
The score you can find here: http://imslp.org/wiki/2_Arabesques_(Debussy,_Claude)
My Pythagorean version according to the enharmonics of the score you can listen to here:
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/debussy-arabesque-no-1-in

Pythagorean in general has a chain of fifths that continues into infinity in both directions.
Though something like a 53 tone per octave Pythagorean should cover just about anything ever written in the common practice period. (even after correcting scores that use enharmonic equivalence to simplify spelling in parts of the score for better readability)

>
> I've been working with some Pyth tunings after reading your posts > about the well-tuned sound of the Pythagorean.
>
> It appears to me that 15 notes is pretty small. To include both > enharmonics for the black keys alone, wouldn't you require 17 notes? > If you extend the chain of fifths to go from B# to Cbb, that would be > 25 notes. Which 3 notes are you adding to the "Eb to G#" piano tuning > to come up with 15? Do you have a place where you describe this?
>
> Thanks.
> Billy
>
> __._,_

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <marcel@...> wrote:
> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/debussy-arabesque-no-1-in
>
> ... [53] should cover just about anything ever written in the common practice period. (even after correcting scores that use enharmonic equivalence to simplify spelling in parts of the score for better readability) ...

On a related note (?) I recently rendered a well-known piece into 19-edo - mostly to check my understanding of how these things work in Scala's "linear temperament" mode - but I did note how the correct enharmonics are not always used. I guess I should try a "corrected" version ...

https://soundcloud.com/martinsj013/i-got-rhythm

Steve M.