Re: [tuning] Hello Tuning World

> Then I discovered Csound! Now I use an Excel workbook with several
> interlinking spreadsheets for my adaptive tuning work. In a nutshell,
> one sheet holds an imported MIDI file that has been converted to
> text. This sheet also provides a convenient place to specify key and
> transposition, if needed. Another sheet supplies tables of pitch
> class and equally tempered frequencies for the MIDI note numbers, and
> a third sheet supplies the ratios associated with the diatonic major
> and minor scales. These include only dominant-side ii (9/8) and vii
> (9/5). I haven't automated contextual tuning yet, so I have to
> hand-tune plagal-side ii (10/9) and vii (16/9) and dominant 7ths. The
> diatonic chords are mostly 5-limit, but dominant 7ths are 7-limit.
> Finally, yet another sheet is used as an export platform to Csound.
>

Dear Patrick,

would you care to share your workbook?
i would love to try it out.
I am currently using t2mf as well but i am a bit of a foon when it comes to
excel
(though i can make a keen 3d pie chart! in a pinch.! :-)

cheers

Patrick K. Mullen wrote,

>An aside: If I understand Partch correctly, my term "dominant-side"
>would be his otonal, while "plagal-side" (subdominant) would be
>utonal.

I don't think you've understood Partch correctly. A major chord would be
otonal whether dominant or subdominant, and a minor chord would be utonal
whether dominant or subdominant.

>But wait! There's more! There are several D's (I put the piece in
>A-minor for convenience) that start out as the root of IV but are
>held across a bar line to become the dom7 of V7. When playing such a
>note on my trumpet I will, as subtly as possible, flatten the D to
>suit it's new role. But the whole point of this excercise is to
>brutally follow wherever the pitch takes me, so in these instances I
>must RAISE the non-held pitches by 64/63 so the D-4/3 is a relative
>7/4 to the E! Yeehaw! The net result may well mean an overall
>sharpening of pitch throughout the piece, but it's a wash so far.
>I'll post more when I get it done...

I suggest you have a look at what John deLaubenfels's program does to this
sequence, which to my ears is much more satisfactory than the sudden 81:80
and 64:63 pitch-shifts you're proposing here, even while attaining
essentially the same vertical sonorities (in the 7-limit version of his
method).