RE: [tuning] Re: new webpage: JI modulation

I wrote,

>> Monz -- how about including a version in Vicentino's second
>> tuning of 1555?

Monz wrote,

>OK - lay it on me and I'll make one.

Remember? That's the one I e-mailed you about a few days ago and frequently
discuss on this list. It's where the roots are in 1/4-comma meantone and the
triads are in JI relative to the roots. It should be "better" than any of
Partch's three examples since all the chords aretuned optimally within
themseves and the maximum shift is reduced from 1 comma to 1/4 comma.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12466
>
> I wrote,
>
> > > Monz -- how about including a version in Vicentino's second
> > > tuning of 1555?
>
> Monz wrote,
>
> > OK - lay it on me and I'll make one.
>
> Remember? That's the one I e-mailed you about a few days ago
> and frequently discuss on this list.

Yeah, but...

> It's where the roots are in 1/4-comma meantone and the triads
> are in JI relative to the roots. It should be "better" than any
> of Partch's three examples since all the chords are tuned
> optimally within themseves and the maximum shift is reduced
> from 1 comma to 1/4 comma.

So I have to do the work, right?... I was hoping to get off the
lazy way - you send me the numbers, I'll do the MIDI.

I'm deeply involved in revising an old webpage, and don't want
to much time to lapse on the Partch page since I just put it up.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

>So I have to do the work, right?... I was hoping to get off the
>lazy way - you send me the numbers, I'll do the MIDI.

OK -- what are the MIDI units again? 4096 per semitone? or per whole-tone?

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12504
>
> [me, monz]
> > So I have to do the work, right?... I was hoping to get
> > off the lazy way - you send me the numbers, I'll do the MIDI.
>
> [Paul]
> OK -- what are the MIDI units again? 4096 per semitone? or per
> whole-tone?

Thanks Paul. 4096 per semitone, which amounts to 49152-tET.

If you want to post it in ratios or cents, I can do the MIDI
units.

I just didn't want to have to dig into the archives,
transpose, etc. Post the values that are relevant for the
chords in the modulation, and I can easily do the rest.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/

OK, Monz -- I'm glad you asked me to do this myself, because the Vicentino
idea doesn't really work for chords like that C-G-A chord . . . perhaps,
instead, John deLaubenfels can tell us what pitch-bend values he gets for
the optimal adaptive 5-limit JI tuning for the example (in
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm)?

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12525
>
> OK, Monz -- I'm glad you asked me to do this myself, because the
> Vicentino idea doesn't really work for chords like that C-G-A
> chord . . . perhaps, instead, John deLaubenfels can tell us what
> pitch-bend values he gets for the optimal adaptive 5-limit JI
> tuning for the example (in
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm)?

OK, cool... that works for me. I'd love for him to calculate
a version, and I'll put it on my webpage. John?

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>Anyway, my "adaptive" program tunes each note in a fixed place, no
>doubt because the sequence is so short! The values are:

>C: +11.37 cents from 12-tET
>D: -6.43 cents from 12-tET
>E: -2.45 cents from 12-tET
>F: +9.39 cents from 12-tET
>F# -20.27 cents from 12-tET
>G: +13.35 cents from 12-tET
>A: -4.45 cents from 12-tET
>B: -0.49 cents from 12-tET

I get it -- the D note in the D chord is not held over into the G chord. So,
with G as 1/1, you're retuning the sequence as

4/3 ---- 4/3 5/4 10/9-10/9 1/1

5/3 16/9 1/1 --- 1/1 50/27 5/4

10/9 1/1 5/4 4/3 40/27 1/1

Which is the same as Monz' second example.

Guys, this problem would be a lot more interesting if the D sustained into
the final G chord.

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>I'm using fairly weak vertical springs here; if there is interest I can
>run it again with stronger springs that will tend to move the intervals
>closer to JI.

That would probably be better, as the sequences we are comparing this with
use strict JI. Use as strong a set of springs as you can.

Carl wrote,

>You mean the two A's bother you when you listen to it in Joe's particular
>rendition [of Partch's third version], or you don't like it in theory?

The two A's bother me when I listen to it. Also, the D-major chord seems to
beat, so maybe there's an error in Joe's rendition. Monz???

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12643
> [regarding Partch's 3rd example at]
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm
>
> Carl wrote,
>
> > You mean the two A's bother you when you listen to it in Joe's
> > particular rendition [of Partch's third version], or you don't
> > like it in theory?
>
> The two A's bother me when I listen to it. Also, the D-major
> chord seems to beat, so maybe there's an error in Joe's rendition.
> Monz???

Nope - I just checked it. All the notes are tuned correctly,
and I set Cakewalk to loop just the D chord by itself and I don't
hear any beating either.

Should I bother to create an example using the 'weak spring'
adaptive JI versions John just posted? or just wait for the
'strong' version?

Actually, I was going to make two examples from John's 'weak'
version: one using the target COFT pitches, and one using the
dynamically-retuned ones, which I believe I'd like better.

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

Monz -- you still have John deLaubenfels' first adaptive JI version, but
isn't it exactly identical to your second example?

>> The two A's bother me when I listen to it. Also, the D-major
>> chord seems to beat, so maybe there's an error in Joe's rendition.
>> Monz???

>Nope - I just checked it. All the notes are tuned correctly,
>and I set Cakewalk to loop just the D chord by itself and I don't
>hear any beating either.

Well, maybe the melodic shift just jars my brain. The D in the D chord
definitely sounds too high to me when it comes in.

>Should I bother to create an example using the 'weak spring'
>adaptive JI versions John just posted? or just wait for the
>'strong' version?

I'd say, wait for the strong one. This should all go in an addendum to the
page where the passage is altered by having a D sustaining into the final
chord. You might want to include "Partch" and "Monz" versions of that
passage as well.

By the way, the link from the definition of "pain" in your dictionary, on
the word "adaptive", would better lead to a definition for "adaptive tuning"
rather than "adaptive JI". In adaptive JI the pain of having vertical
sonorities deviate from JI is infinite, while in adaptive tuning, all the
different components of pain get traded off against one another.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12649
>
> Monz -- you still have John deLaubenfels' first adaptive JI
> version, but isn't it exactly identical to your second example?

Yes. But I decided to keep it, and have amended the text in the
webpage accordingly.

> >> The two A's bother me when I listen to it. Also, the D-major
> >> chord seems to beat, so maybe there's an error in Joe's
> >> rendition. Monz???
>
> > Nope - I just checked it. All the notes are tuned correctly,
> > and I set Cakewalk to loop just the D chord by itself and I
> > don't hear any beating either.
>
> Well, maybe the melodic shift just jars my brain. The D in the
> D chord definitely sounds too high to me when it comes in.

The 'D' is tuned precisely to 3/2, so what you're hearing is
an interesting perceptual abberation. Hmm...

> I'd say, wait for the strong one. This should all go in an
> addendum to the page where the passage is altered by having a
> D sustaining into the final chord. You might want to include
> "Partch" and "Monz" versions of that passage as well.

I guess once again 'great minds think alike' :) ...

I've changed the webpage so that all commentary subsequent to
my announcing it here on the List is in an addendum. But I didn't
actually add the 'D' to the final chord; I'm just using the
values John calculates *as if* it were there.

> By the way, the link from the definition of "pain" in your
> dictionary, on the word "adaptive", would better lead to a
> definition for "adaptive tuning" rather than "adaptive JI". In
> adaptive JI the pain of having vertical sonorities deviate from
> JI is infinite, while in adaptive tuning, all the different
> components of pain get traded off against one another.

Yes, Paul, this is a distinction that should be pointed out
in the Dictionary. But I'm not sure why you say (in private
email) that 'adaptive JI' is *not* a temperament... I think it is.

How about giving me a nice general definition for 'adaptive tuning',
and also one for 'optimal tuning'. You said my 'sentence' was
an excellent definition of that, but I've already changed my
'adaptive JI' definition and now I'm not sure what you meant...

-monz
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html

Monz wrote,

>Actually, IMO John deLaubenfel's dynamic version doesn't sound
>bad at all, my only objection being a slight beating on the
>'D' chord.

That's where stronger springs will help.

>I'd like to include the dynamic version of your
>first retuning, John (the one which didn't sustain the 'D'
>into the final chord). Please post the results.

You must have misunderstood John's post. The result he posted _was_ the
dynamic retuning, identical to your second example. The reason this didn't
have any retune motion for any notes was that one already has all chords
perfectly in JI without encountering any retune motion or drift, which you
must have appreciated when you created your second example.

>(BTW, I need a definition for COFT).

Optimal tuning for short -- the definition is the same as the incorrect
definition you previously had for "adaptive JI" -- namely, a form of
temperament where some function (say, sum-of-squares) of the deviation of
the intervals from JI is minimized.

>I'd still like to make a version using Vicentino's tuning, just
>to hear what it sounds like. Please post the values.

As I said, Vicentino's method is not defined for minor seventh aka added 6th
chords, since retuning them to JI would require three, rather than two,
meantone chains. There are two ways of doing that, and also two ways of
sticking with one meantone chain and allowing one harmonic interval to be in
meantone rather than JI. So there are four near-Vicentino solutions. . . .

I wrote,

>> Well, maybe the melodic shift just jars my brain. The D in the
>> D chord definitely sounds too high to me when it comes in.

Monz wrote,

>The 'D' is tuned precisely to 3/2, so what you're hearing is
>an interesting perceptual abberation. Hmm...

I don't think it's an abberation at all -- I meant it sounds too high
melodically, as it shifts up a comma right there.

>I've changed the webpage so that all commentary subsequent to
>my announcing it here on the List is in an addendum. But I didn't
>actually add the 'D' to the final chord; I'm just using the
>values John calculates *as if* it were there.

hmm....

>But I'm not sure why you say (in private
>email) that 'adaptive JI' is *not* a temperament... I think it is.

I think of JI and temperament as mutually exclusive opposites . . . maybe I
shouldn't.

>How about giving me a nice general definition for 'adaptive tuning',
>and also one for 'optimal tuning'. You said my 'sentence' was
>an excellent definition of that, but I've already changed my
>'adaptive JI' definition and now I'm not sure what you meant...

Didn't I just paraphrase that sentence?

Monz wrote,

>How about giving me a nice general definition for 'adaptive tuning'

That would be a form of tuning, often specific to a single piece of music,
where the exact pitch of each pitch class changes at each instance in order
to minimize pain. If the pain of having vertical deviations from JI is
considered infinite, one obtains adaptive JI. Harald Waage had described one
form of adaptive JI in the pages of 1/1.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12655

Cursory impressions of great new JI Webpage with the Fox-Strangways
criticisms, the Partch JI modulations and John deLaubenfels "adapted
JI."

This is really interesting, expecially since there are so many sound
examples, Monz!!

First impression is that the Partch JI modulations seem a little
"wierd." Interesting, though... Maybe the "hate" (wazzat??) isn't
being distributed in quite the right ways...

12-tET now seems to be beating so much as to be intolerable. That's
really good... or I guess I would be on a 12-tET list...

Finally, I was surprised on how smooth and proportioned John
deLaubenfels' examples seemed again. He's really "onto" something,
whether it's a "temperament" or not... but it wouldn't actually be a
"temperament" would it?? It's too dynamic, and changes all the time!

It really sounds gooood.

But, am I possibly being influence by what I am HOPING to hear??
That I don't know, since I haven't been "blindfolded" or "earfolded."

Hopefully I will have some more detail when I can study this some
more. This is a great "multimedia" (well at least SOUND) project
though!!!! Sound reasoning!
__________ _____ __ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph wrote,

>Finally, I was surprised on how smooth and proportioned John
>deLaubenfels' examples seemed again. He's really "onto" something,
>whether it's a "temperament" or not... but it wouldn't actually be a
>"temperament" would it?? It's too dynamic, and changes all the time!

Well, so far there are three John deLaubenfels examples up. The first one is
identical to Joe Monzo's second example, and is strict JI, with no pitch
classes having more than one exact pitch. The dynamic one was derived with
weak "springs" from JI simultaneities and should probably be replaced with
one with stronger springs that puts the chords pretty much in JI, for better
comparability with the other examples. The COFT/fixed one is definitely a
temperament, with one pitch per pitch class, nothing dynamic about it.

A similar question is the one Monz and I are currently grappling with,
whether adaptive JI should be considered a temperament. I initially thought
not since the chords are in JI within themselves, but perhaps you've given
me another reason to think not, Joseph: in a temperament, each pitch-class
would only have one pitch associated with it, while something more dynamic
shouldn't be considered a temperament at all? Or maybe it should . . . geez,
do we have any linguistic precedents to guide us here?

connection refused

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://www.virtulink.com/immp/video/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:41 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: new webpage: JI modulation

>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12717
>
> > Helloa all. I've uploaded the latest version of my 'JI webpage'
> > to my website at:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm
> >
>
> I'm having trouble accessing the Monzo webpage now... anybody else
> having that difficulty??
> ________ ___ __ __ _
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
>
>
>

> I'm having trouble accessing the Monzo webpage now... anybody else
> having that difficulty??

No problems here . . .

Carl wrote,

>> . most striking is that you have G (1/1) fall by 15.4 cents between
>> the 5th and 7th chords; I drop it by 9.57 cents, still a sizeable
>> amount! It does not sound in the intervening 6th chord, but the
>> tuning change might still be objectionable to some.

>Probably to me, judging by Monz' 1st example. But I'd like to hear it.

>>I dunno, Carl - can you make a sequence doing it your way? Or will
>>Monz volunteer? We may be getting down to splitting hairs here.

>I hope Monz will, since I don't have a convenient way to do the sequence.
>'d Love to compare these with Partch #3; see how important the tonic
>really is.

It's already up! See
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/lummaaji.mid. At this hour,
Carl's adaptive JI version sounds just fine to me -- one doesn't notice the
15¢ shift when there's intervening chord that doesn't contain that note.

I wrote,

>>At this hour, Carl's adaptive JI version sounds just fine to me -- one
>>doesn't notice the 15¢ shift when there's intervening chord that
>>doesn't contain that note.

John wrote,

>Wow, I'm surprised! Not that _I_ would be likely to hear the 15¢, but
>it seems like you've balked at less in the past. Must've been
>different circumstances.

Clearly, a pitch shift is much easier to hear when it occurs between
successive pitches than between pitches separated by an intervening chord.
In the former case, even a 9¢ shift can be noticeable.