Re: [tuning] the sound of a ?distant? horn...

STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET writes:

> As the 20th century gradually recedes into the distance and music
> inches its way out onto the 21st century stage, I'm curious what some
> folks might see as future developments or courses that music might --
> or even should -- take in the coming years.

What if composers could go beyond the implementation problems and use any
pitch in the audible range whenever they wanted to? No tunings needed.

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote,

>What if composers could go beyond the implementation problems and use any
>pitch in the audible range whenever they wanted to? No tunings needed.

Many people on this list (Johnny Reinhard, John deLaubenfels) effectively
have this freedom, and yet they are not freed from issues like the
consonance of chords, the intelligibility of melodies (which leads concepts
of scales), etc. These are tuning issues, aren't they?

Paul H. Erlich wrote,

> Many people on this list (Johnny Reinhard, John deLaubenfels)
effectively have this freedom

I know you said "effectively", but I don't think John deLaubenfels is
a good example here at all. John's program is very much designed to
*not* wind up at many many places in the continuum... which is all
well and fine (and in fact exactly on the path to what John ideally
wants), but it is a big difference aesthetically from someone like
Johnny Reinhard when it comes to the pitch continuum.

--d.stearns

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Paul H. Erlich wrote,
>
> > Many people on this list (Johnny Reinhard, John deLaubenfels)
> effectively have this freedom
>
> I know you said "effectively", but I don't think John deLaubenfels
is
> a good example here at all. John's program is very much designed to
> *not* wind up at many many places in the continuum... which is all
> well and fine (and in fact exactly on the path to what John ideally
> wants), but it is a big difference aesthetically from someone like
> Johnny Reinhard when it comes to the pitch continuum.

I agree that John deLaubenfels may not have been the most appropriate
example, but I
wouldn't be at all surprised if, in a given 7-limit or especially
11-limit retuning of a
conventional piece by John's algorithm, or especially if you looked
at several such pieces
as a group, each of the 12 pitch classes had a retuning range of plus
or minus 50 cents,
which a large number of particular values within this range,
effectively covering the
whole continuum.

PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> >What if composers could go beyond the implementation problems and use any
> >pitch in the audible range whenever they wanted to? No tunings needed.
>
> Many people on this list (Johnny Reinhard, John deLaubenfels) effectively
> have this freedom, and yet they are not freed from issues like the
> consonance of chords, the intelligibility of melodies (which leads concepts
> of scales), etc. These are tuning issues, aren't they?

I should have been more specific by typing "fixed tunings." That is what
I meant in response to the "future of music" thread and if Johnny Reinhard
and John deLaubenfels are the only two on the list with the said freedom then
what are the rest of you doing? I hear a lot of talk about how a new scale
is superior to 12et and reduces pain across the board or makes a great
picture but in reality you're just wasting time. The truth of the matter is
if you're going to limit yourself to a fixed tuning in the age of the
integrated circuit then your'e going to be way behind in your tonal
vocabulary when that age gives way to processors that blow the IC away. When
the new age dawns it will strip old rules from their foundations and music
will have to be explored from the ground up on a composer by composer basis.
The only "rule" that will apply will be the one that started it all -- If it
sounds good, It is good.
As for all of you who bag "computer music" your complaints are valid at
this point in time, but what are you going to be saying in 10 years? You're
going to be kicking yourself for not learning everything you could have about
it. The computer is the most powerful tool on the planet. When recording
was invented composers were given a "canvas" to work with a kind of stone to
be carved. The computer will let us do that with ease.
And for those of you who prefer live performance over "dead" - you should
wake up, too. If you're going to achieve higher art, you're going to have to
sculpt it just like you heard it. People are going to want to hear it
exactly like you did in your head.

Andrew F.

note: this was intended to incite backlash - steel sharpening steel!

it

>I hear a lot of talk about how a new scale
>is superior to 12et and reduces pain across the board or makes a great
>picture but in reality you're just wasting time. The truth of the matter
is
>if you're going to limit yourself to a fixed tuning in the age of the
>integrated circuit then your'e going to be way behind in your tonal
>vocabulary when that age gives way to processors that blow the IC away.

Assuming that all significant music is going to be computer music -- and I
think we're very far from that time.

>As for all of you who bag "computer music" your complaints are valid at
>this point in time, but what are you going to be saying in 10 years?

I might be making a lot of computer music, but I still might believe in the
magic of live performance.

In a message dated 10/18/00 11:20:29 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> >if you're going to limit yourself to a fixed tuning in the age of the
> >integrated circuit then your'e going to be way behind in your tonal
> >vocabulary when that age gives way to processors that blow the IC away.
>
> Assuming that all significant music is going to be computer music -- and I
> think we're very far from that time.

Why do you think it's so far off?

> >As for all of you who bag "computer music" your complaints are valid at
> >this point in time, but what are you going to be saying in 10 years?
>
> I might be making a lot of computer music, but I still might believe in the
> magic of live performance.

There is only one original "Starry Night" as Van Gogh saw it.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14620

Well, I'm not particularly interested in adding to the "flames"
here... but I do have one comment.

Within the last year I have TOTALLY stopped writing music at the
piano and am only working at a MIDI keyboard with the computer in
front of me... so I guess I'm getting affected by this process to
some
degree as well...
__________ ____ __ _ _
Joseph Pehrson

In a message dated 10/19/00 1:35:45 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
josephpehrson@compuserve.com writes:

> Within the last year I have TOTALLY stopped writing music at the
> piano and am only working at a MIDI keyboard with the computer in
> front of me... so I guess I'm getting affected by this process to
> some
> degree as well...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The old ways are severely outdated,
the notation system sucks and we're trying to adapt an adaptation just to
hear something which was there from the start. What would happen if a
programmer set out to code a music composition application and just said to
hell with backward compatability? How would the composition process be
implemented? What kind of music would be heard?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMiltonF@aol.com [mailto:AMiltonF@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:14 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] the sound of a ?distant? horn...
>
> The truth of
> the matter is
> if you're going to limit yourself to a fixed tuning in the age of the
> integrated circuit then your'e going to be way behind in your tonal
> vocabulary when that age gives way to processors that blow the IC
> away. When
> the new age dawns it will strip old rules from their foundations
> and music
> will have to be explored from the ground up on a composer by
> composer basis.
> The only "rule" that will apply will be the one that started it
> all -- If it
> sounds good, It is good.

Composers are still writing tonal 12-TET music for conventional instruments.
I listen to their music, I don't think it will ever die -- I certainly hope
it doesn't! I don't happen to write that kind of music because I have
neither the skill set nor the patience to do so. But I am not willing to
discard the efforts, talents, and creations of those who do.

> As for all of you who bag "computer music" your complaints
> are valid at
> this point in time, but what are you going to be saying in 10
> years? You're
> going to be kicking yourself for not learning everything you
> could have about
> it. The computer is the most powerful tool on the planet.

I first got interested in computer music in the 1960s when I was an
undergraduate at the University of Illinois. Both Lejaren Hiller, the first
person I know of to compose music by an algorithm, and Harry Partch, whose
memory is revered here, were on the faculty. The first program I ever wrote
and the first program I got paid to write were written for the same ILLIAC I
where Hiller's "ILLIAC Suite" was composed. I still have the programmer's
manual for ILLIAC I. :-)

That was almost 40 years ago, and "the most powerful tool on the planet" has
replaced neither the composer nor the conventional musical instrument in all
that time. In that time I have "learned everything I could have about it"
and make my living in computer science and applied mathematics to this day.
I am currently getting back into computer music after a long (18 year)
absence from it. In short, I have no complaints about today's tools;
computer-synthesized music is my chosen form and I welcome as much help as
can be obtained from algorithmic composition.

> And for those of you who prefer live performance over "dead"
> - you should
> wake up, too. If you're going to achieve higher art, you're
> going to have to
> sculpt it just like you heard it. People are going to want to hear it
> exactly like you did in your head.

Here I have to disagree. Music is a social phenomenon; not all music is
written by a solitary composer in a room with pen and music paper. A fairly
large effort by some major talents, for example, Barry Vercoe, is being
invested in real-time computer music and making the computer an instrument
that can participate in live performances played by a performer just like a
clarinet, piano or violin. Will there ever be a "concerto for computer and
orchestra?" Will there ever be scholarships to prestigious conservatories
for young computer virtuosi? Maybe ... certainly if a piece of music comes
along that is *recognized* as good that happens to be for computer and
orchestra, it could happen.

I don't think there is the widespread discrimination against computer music
there was in, say, Hiller's day. The simple fact is that, while a quite a
number of halfway decent computer-only pieces do exist, and some pieces for
conventional instruments accompanied by computers also exist, *nothing* has
been written for computer and orchestra that has caught the fancy of a major
musical institution, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for a composer to
write such a piece. Nor am I attempting to create one myself. It's just too
big a job for an amateur like me.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMiltonF@aol.com [mailto:AMiltonF@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 6:46 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: the sound of a ?distant? horn...
>
>
> In a message dated 10/19/00 1:35:45 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
> josephpehrson@compuserve.com writes:
>
> > Within the last year I have TOTALLY stopped writing music at the
> > piano and am only working at a MIDI keyboard with the computer in
> > front of me... so I guess I'm getting affected by this process to
> > some
> > degree as well...
>
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The old ways are
> severely outdated,
> the notation system sucks and we're trying to adapt an adaptation just to
> hear something which was there from the start. What would happen if a
> programmer set out to code a music composition application and
> just said to
> hell with backward compatability? How would the composition process be
> implemented? What kind of music would be heard?

It would depend on how good the programmer was, what his or her musical
interests and expertise were, and so on. I have to disagree with you about
"the old ways". Just intonation, for example, is one of those "old ways"
that's been around in some form or another since ancient Greece! The
notation system is nothing more than a communication tool ... without
agreed-upon tools you don't have "co-mmunication", just "munication". :-)

I've seen some pretty impressive music tools in the past few months that
I've been getting back into computer music. One that stands out in my
estimation is Michael Gogin's "Silence", a Java wrapper around CSound that
is designed for algorithmic composition. "Silence" features an
11-dimensional musical space. Another is Phil Burk's "JSyn", also written in
Java, which is descended from something called HMSL (Hierarchical Music
Specification Language), another algorithmic composition tool. For composers
with a "musique concrete" bent, there is the "Composer's Desktop Project".

I prefer building my own tools, and both "Silence" and "JSyn" require the
Java 2 Release 1.3 System Development Kit, which unfortunately occupies far
more disk space than I am willing to give up for the pretty GUIs and the
pseudo-portability that the current bloated Java offers. I mostly use the
emerging MPEG-4 Structured Audio standard for synthesis, and for algorithmic
work I use either the Derive math package, the Perl scripting language or
the SwiftForth Windows development environment, depending on the nature of
the task that needs to be done. The only tools I use that actually cost real
money are Derive, SwiftForth and CoolEdit; everything else is freeware
downloaded from the web.

And what kind of music do I write with these tools? Well ... the past few
weeks I have mostly been experimenting with John deLaubenfels' retuned MIDI
files, getting them to play with a piano emulation "instrument" from the
MPEG-4 Structured Audio examples. My next project is something I call the
"Setharophone" ... a computer sound generator that uses additive synthesis
and can actually compute the Sethares dissonance score as it plays. Once I
get that built, I'll be posting some sounds on my web site.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

--- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

> > Assuming that all significant music is going to be computer
music -- and I
> > think we're very far from that time.
>
> Why do you think it's so far off?

Because there's still a lot of instrumental performance that's worth
doing, and I can't
imagine that changing before dramatic changes in our civilization
take place.
>
> > >As for all of you who bag "computer music" your complaints are
valid at
> > >this point in time, but what are you going to be saying in 10
years?
> >
> > I might be making a lot of computer music, but I still might
believe in the
> > magic of live performance.
>
> There is only one original "Starry Night" as Van Gogh saw it.

I see live improv groups (such as the Fringe here in Cambridge, MA)
regularly create new
Van Goghs every time they play.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@c...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14620
>
> Well, I'm not particularly interested in adding to the "flames"
> here... but I do have one comment.
>
> Within the last year I have TOTALLY stopped writing music at the
> piano and am only working at a MIDI keyboard with the computer in
> front of me... so I guess I'm getting affected by this process to
> some
> degree as well...

But working at a MIDI keyboard the way you do, you're still
restricted to 12 pitches out of
the infinity at a time, right?

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@t...> wrote:

> My next project is something I call the
> "Setharophone" ... a computer sound generator that uses additive
synthesis
> and can actually compute the Sethares dissonance score as it plays.

How do you compute Sethares dissonance? In my latest discussions with
Bill Sethares,
he started off saying that the "amplitudes" in his formulas are not
meant to be
amplitudes at all but should be volumes in decibels, and then he
ended up retracting
that and seemed to suggest that psychoacoustic loudness was the right
measure to plug
in. I haven't heard from him for weeks (Bill?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Erlich [mailto:PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:22 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: the sound of a ?distant? horn...
>
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@t...> wrote:
>
> > My next project is something I call the
> > "Setharophone" ... a computer sound generator that uses additive
> synthesis
> > and can actually compute the Sethares dissonance score as it plays.
>
> How do you compute Sethares dissonance? In my latest discussions with
> Bill Sethares,
> he started off saying that the "amplitudes" in his formulas are not
> meant to be
> amplitudes at all but should be volumes in decibels, and then he
> ended up retracting
> that and seemed to suggest that psychoacoustic loudness was the right
> measure to plug
> in. I haven't heard from him for weeks (Bill?)

Well, my plan was to use the formulas from the book. I think what's
important is the location of the sharp mimima, not the amplitudes / volumes.
Actually, I think it makes more sense to display consonance peaks rather
than dissonance mimima. In any event, I've got to do some math to get the
computational complexity down. The consonance or dissonance calculations
will be done at the "control rate", which is typically on the order of once
every 1 to 10 milliseconds, so efficiency is important.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

--- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
> I should have been more specific by typing "fixed tunings."
That is what
> I meant in response to the "future of music" thread and if Johnny
Reinhard
> and John deLaubenfels are the only two on the list with the said
freedom then
> what are the rest of you doing? I hear a lot of talk about how a
new scale
> is superior to 12et and reduces pain across the board or makes a

I do not believe that 31t-ET, 22t-ET, the myriad just intonation
scales, or any other scale is superior or inferior to 12t-ET. The
statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies to the ear
as well. Of course, we're not even taking into account
_functionality_ - e.g. do you want to modulate to different tonal
centers or not.

> The truth of the matter is
> if you're going to limit yourself to a fixed tuning in the age of
the
> integrated circuit then your'e going to be way behind in your tonal
> vocabulary when that age gives way to processors that blow the IC
away.

Actually computers and other electronic instruments seem to be
_encouraging_ folks to investigate non 12t-ET scales because they
make it so much more convenient than having to hand-build your own
instrument(s) for each scale you want to investigate.

At one time I too used to believe that music was all 12t-ET and any
music that remained to be made outside of that existed solely in
tonal experimental noise (Merzbow, Jim O'Rourke, Kenji Haino, etc.).
Didn't know that music in just intonation and alternate ET's was out
there or just under my now. Now I know better.

When
> the new age dawns it will strip old rules from their foundations
and music
> will have to be explored from the ground up on a composer by
composer basis.

Except for the bar bands that will continue to play "Freebird" for
the bikers, organists who will continue to play at their churches and
baseball parks, the guy who will continue to blow into his harmonica
while hoping you'll drop some change into his hat, etc.

> And for those of you who prefer live performance over "dead" -
you should
> wake up, too. If you're going to achieve higher art, you're going
to have to
> sculpt it just like you heard it. People are going to want to hear
it
> exactly like you did in your head.

I enjoy listening to the finished, scuplted in stone works that have
been posted to MP3.com and other places. But I also like to get out
and feel the energy generated by living, breathing musicians
interacting with an audience. If you try to start legislation to
outlaw live music, I will fight you every step of the way.

Paolo

--- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14628

> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The old ways are severely
outdated, the notation system sucks and we're trying to adapt an
adaptation just to hear something which was there from the start.
What would happen if a programmer set out to code a music
composition application and just said to hell with backward
compatability? How would the composition process be implemented?
What kind of music would be heard?

Well, quite frankly I think there would be a lot of composers who
would go along with progressive new developments, if they could get
their works played. The problem is, I personally believe, more with
traditional performers and YEARS of "ingrained" performance practice.
That's why in my own stuff right now, I am still "translating" what
is essentially non-12-equal music into a 12-tET notational
framework... using quartertone +/- notation, as Johnny Reinhard has
frequently recommended. However, I only deviate from the quartertone
by +/- 25 cents as Joe Monzo recommends, but which Johnny Reinhard
finds too restrictive...

_________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14638
>
> But working at a MIDI keyboard the way you do, you're still
> restricted to 12 pitches out of
> the infinity at a time, right?

Well, fortunately, the synth I have can tune ANY midi note number to
ANY pitch in its entire range, so I'm not limited to "adjustments"
from a basic 12-tET repeating octave...

HOWEVER, I AM limited by the number of keys on the keyboard...
5-octaves or 61 notes. So, a 72-tET octave doesn't quite fit!

So until Joel Mandelbaum purchases the Starr Labs' "generalized
Bosanquet keyboard" of 800+ keys ($7,000) for all of us to use, we
will be restricted.

Of course, PLAYING, the Bosanquet is yet another matter (!!) :)

__________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

Ed Borasky wrote,

>Well, my plan was to use the formulas from the book. I think what's
>important is the location of the sharp mimima, not the amplitudes /
volumes.

Well, the latter affects the former!

And, if you go over to the harmonic entropy list, you'll see that most
people seem to come up with dissonance rankings that have a very poor
correlation with any dyadic measure such as Sethares'. It does seem to be a
factor, but a more powerful factor seems to be overall harmonic entropy.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> Ed Borasky wrote,
>
> >Well, my plan was to use the formulas from the book. I think what's
> >important is the location of the sharp mimima, not the amplitudes /
> volumes.
>
> Well, the latter affects the former!
>
> And, if you go over to the harmonic entropy list, you'll see that most
> people seem to come up with dissonance rankings that have a very poor
> correlation with any dyadic measure such as Sethares'. It does seem to be a
> factor, but a more powerful factor seems to be overall harmonic entropy.

I can certainly make harmonic entropy measure an option, assuming it can
be coded as an algorithm in SAOL. Essentially, if it can be coded in C, it
can be coded in SAOL, although some of the "conveniences" of C like "for"
loops, pre-increment and post-increment operators and multi-dimensional
arrays are not available.

I guess my question about harmonic entropy vs. Sethares' curves is, "What
is the background of 'most people'?" Sethares based his formulas on fits
to the Plomp-Levelt data, which deliberately used pure sine waves and
musically naive listeners. If you are prepared to run an experiment with
Sethares dissonance vs. harmonic entropy on more complex sounds with naive
listeners, I'll be more willing to accept that HE is an "improvement" than
I am willing to accept the say-so of us tuning geeks :-). The CD that
comes with "The CSound Book" has a whole bunch of instruments that Rossing
has used in psychoacoustics; perhaps these can be hacked up to do the
testing scenarios. Now, who can we get to do the double-blind analysis?
:-)
--
znmeb@teleport.com (M. Edward Borasky) http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb

If they named a street after Picabo Street, would it be called Picabo
Street, Street Street or Picabo Street Street?

Ed Borasky wrote,

>I guess my question about harmonic entropy vs. Sethares' curves is, "What
>is the background of 'most people'?" Sethares based his formulas on fits
>to the Plomp-Levelt data, which deliberately used pure sine waves and
>.musically naive listeners. If you are prepared to run an experiment with
>Sethares dissonance vs. harmonic entropy on more complex sounds with naive
>listeners, I'll be more willing to accept that HE is an "improvement" than
>I am willing to accept the say-so of us tuning geeks :-). The CD that
>comes with "The CSound Book" has a whole bunch of instruments that Rossing
>has used in psychoacoustics; perhaps these can be hacked up to do the
>testing scenarios. Now, who can we get to do the double-blind analysis?

Well, those who have listened so far have included Carl Lumma and Joseph
Pehrson, who are not musically naive but certainly weren't biased toward
reaching a certain conclusion. Why don't you listen and decide for yourself?

--- In tuning@egroups.com, phv40@h... wrote:
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14644
>
> If you try to start legislation to outlaw live music, I will
> fight you every step of the way.

Remember Frank Zappa's great 'rock-opera' _Joe's Garage_?

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

>Remember Frank Zappa's great 'rock-opera' _Joe's Garage_?

"THIS IS THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER"

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> Well, those who have listened so far have included Carl Lumma and Joseph
> Pehrson, who are not musically naive but certainly weren't biased toward
> reaching a certain conclusion. Why don't you listen and decide for yourself?

Yeah, I guess I can do that. I'm not musically naive either, but my ear
ain't as good as it used to be :-). For my purposes, the decision between
two schemes that are similar aurally to an audiophile will be made on the
basis of which one is cheaper to compute (CPU and memory usage) in real
time. BTW, speaking of such things, one of the many things I've learned
how to do over the years is optimizing scientific calculations on a
computer. So if your friend at Fermilab can't help you, let me take a look
at the problem. :-).

--
znmeb@teleport.com (M. Edward Borasky) http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb

If they named a street after Picabo Street, would it be called Picabo
Street, Street Street or Picabo Street Street?

Ed Borasky wrote,

>For my purposes, the decision between
>two schemes that are similar aurally to an audiophile will be made on the
>basis of which one is cheaper to compute (CPU and memory usage) in real
>time.

Believe me, the two schemes are completely different aurally to an
audiophile, an anglophile, a pedophile . . .

>BTW, speaking of such things, one of the many things I've learned
>how to do over the years is optimizing scientific calculations on a
>computer. So if your friend at Fermilab can't help you, let me take a look
>at the problem. :-).

Come on over to the harmonic entropy list and we'll discuss it there.

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

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14696
>
> [me, monz]
> >
> > Remember Frank Zappa's great 'rock-opera' _Joe's Garage_?
>
> [Paul]
>
> "THIS IS THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER"

Paul, do you realize how appropriate that quote is,
coming from *you*, on *this* list!?

I vote that we just endow you with the title, outright! ;-)

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

In a message dated 10/19/00 2:34:50 AM !!!First Boot!!!, znmeb@teleport.com
writes:

> > And for those of you who prefer live performance over "dead"
> > - you should
> > wake up, too. If you're going to achieve higher art, you're
> > going to have to
> > sculpt it just like you heard it. People are going to want to hear it
> > exactly like you did in your head.
>
> Here I have to disagree. Music is a social phenomenon; not all music is
> written by a solitary composer in a room with pen and music paper. A fairly
> large effort by some major talents, for example, Barry Vercoe, is being
> invested in real-time computer music and making the computer an instrument
> that can participate in live performances played by a performer just like a
> clarinet, piano or violin.

There is no such thing as a "solitary" composer.

At this point I feel like I need to clarify my overriding goal in
composition.
I am on a quest for higher art. I have been taught that, to achieve higher
art, one must incarnate one's idea in an embodiment that conveys to the
consumer as much of the idea as possible. Many composers have struggled with
the incarnation aspect of this trinity due to the fact that the mind can
create far beyond what the embodiment can achieve. Today, like never before,
there are a plethora of emobodiments to choose from, but a large majority of
them are based on a previous embodiments and have similar limitations. My
calling is to break free from previous embodiments and make a new one from
the ground up, thus freeing us from traditional limitations and allowing us
to write the most beautiful music you can imagine.

Now for the rhetorical question of the day:
What kind of music would you write if you could easily compose (and
notate) a piece at the level of timbre by manipulating the overtones?

Steel sharpening steel ---
Andrew F.

>What kind of music would you write if you could easily compose (and
>notate) a piece at the level of timbre by manipulating the overtones?

Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones to
being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the surface
of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the spectral
pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.

In a message dated 10/19/00 3:08:50 AM !!!First Boot!!!, znmeb@teleport.com
writes:

> My next project is something I call the
> "Setharophone" ... a computer sound generator that uses additive synthesis
> and can actually compute the Sethares dissonance score as it plays. Once I
> get that built, I'll be posting some sounds on my web site.

I'm holding my breath. (and smokers can't wait!!!)

In a message dated 10/19/00 4:08:01 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> > There is only one original "Starry Night" as Van Gogh saw it.
>
> I see live improv groups (such as the Fringe here in Cambridge, MA)
> regularly create new
> Van Goghs every time they play.
>

To achieve higher art you need to dig it out of your head with everything
you've got.
A live performance is not going to get you there.

<AMiltonF@aol.com> wrote,

> To achieve higher art you need to dig it out of your head with
everything you've got. A live performance is not going to get you
there.

Surely you jest!

--dan

>> I see live improv groups (such as the Fringe here in Cambridge, MA)
>> regularly create new
>> Van Goghs every time they play.

>To achieve higher art you need to dig it out of your head with everything
>you've got.
>A live performance is not going to get you there.

These guys dig it out of their heads with everything they've got, _and_
they're communicating with the audience.

So you don't like live music?

In a message dated 10/19/00 11:57:17 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:

> Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones to
> being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the
surface
> of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the spectral
> pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.

Yesss!!!! That rocks!!!!! Implement it.

In a message dated 10/20/00 12:11:51 AM !!!First Boot!!!, STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET
writes:

> Surely you jest!

Devils advocate. I take a stand for the sole purpose of debate. Steel
sharpening steel.

Who decides what is higher art , You and Pierre Boulez, I assume. The more complex the better
it is?
Higher art is something that happens that i hate to disappoint comes out the the gutter more
often than any ivory tower!

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote:

> To achieve higher art you need to dig it out of your head with everything
> you've got.
> A live performance is not going to get you there.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/19/00 11:57:17 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM writes:
>
> > Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones to
> > being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the
> surface
> > of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the spectral
> > pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.
>
> Yesss!!!! That rocks!!!!! Implement it.

Haven't we already been doing this for quite some time?

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

I wrote,

>>> Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones
to
>>> being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the
>> surface
>>> of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the
spectral
>>> pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote,

>> Yesss!!!! That rocks!!!!! Implement it.

Kraig Grady wrote,

>Haven't we already been doing this for quite some time?

Who's been doing this?

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote:

> There is no such thing as a "solitary" composer.

I guess you missed all the post serialist stuff that was just that. All you have to do is use
your tools and methods to separate yourself from the final sound and that is what you get,
hiding behind your tools .
Com on give us an example of the great recorded music that surpasses the shackuhachi player.
lets put his single stick of bamboo on one side of the stage and you with you million of
dollar machines that you have to kiss ass to get . We will give you each 20 seconds. you lose
on his first note!

>
>
> At this point I feel like I need to clarify my overriding goal in
> composition.
> I am on a quest for higher art. I have been taught that, to achieve higher
> art, one must incarnate one's idea in an embodiment that conveys to the
> consumer as much of the idea as possible. Many composers have struggled with
> the incarnation aspect of this trinity due to the fact that the mind can
> create far beyond what the embodiment can achieve. Today, like never before,
> there are a plethora of emobodiments to choose from, but a large majority of
> them are based on a previous embodiments and have similar limitations. My
> calling is to break free from previous embodiments and make a new one from
> the ground up, thus freeing us from traditional limitations and allowing us
> to write the most beautiful music you can imagine.
>
> Now for the rhetorical question of the day:
> What kind of music would you write if you could easily compose (and
> notate) a piece at the level of timbre by manipulating the overtones?
>
> Steel sharpening steel ---
> Andrew F.
>
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

Where is Brian McLaren when we need him!!

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 10/20/00 12:11:51 AM !!!First Boot!!!, STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET
> writes:
>
> > Surely you jest!
>
> Devils advocate. I take a stand for the sole purpose of debate. Steel
> sharpening steel.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> I wrote,
>
> >>> Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones
> to
> >>> being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the
> >> surface
> >>> of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the
> spectral
> >>> pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.
>
> AMiltonF@aol.com wrote,
>
> >> Yesss!!!! That rocks!!!!! Implement it.
>
> Kraig Grady wrote,
>
> >Haven't we already been doing this for quite some time?
>
> Who's been doing this?

every composer who changes a tone by changing instruments. How about Giomento Scelsi just to
name one. Ligeti, Stravinsky. How about ravels bolero! Tenney!

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

Kraig wrote,

>every composer who changes a tone by changing instruments. How about
Giomento Scelsi just to
>name one. Ligeti, Stravinsky. How about ravels bolero! Tenney!

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote -- though maybe Tenney is an
exception. I wrote:

> >>> Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones
> to
> >>> being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the
> >> surface
> >>> of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the
> spectral
> >>> pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14712

> Now for the rhetorical question of the day:
> What kind of music would you write if you could easily compose
(and notate) a piece at the level of timbre by manipulating the
overtones?
>
> Steel sharpening steel ---
> Andrew F.

Actually, Arnold Schoenberg already did this with piece # III "Summer
Morning by a Lake" in 1909 in his "Five Pieces for Orchestra..."

_________ ____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14722

> In a message dated 10/20/00 12:11:51 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
STEARNS@C...
> writes:
>
> > Surely you jest!
>
> Devils advocate. I take a stand for the sole purpose of debate.
Steel sharpening steel.

Hmmm. And to think I was just looking for a pencil sharpener...

________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Pehrson [mailto:josephpehrson@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 8:43 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: the sound of a ?distant? horn...
>
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, AMiltonF@a... wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14712
>
>
> > Now for the rhetorical question of the day:
> > What kind of music would you write if you could easily compose
> (and notate) a piece at the level of timbre by manipulating the
> overtones?
> >
> > Steel sharpening steel ---
> > Andrew F.
>
> Actually, Arnold Schoenberg already did this with piece # III "Summer
> Morning by a Lake" in 1909 in his "Five Pieces for Orchestra..."

How could he have done so when computers weren't invented until the 1930s??
:-)
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

>Music where spectral pitches morphed from being perceived as overtones to
>being perceived as fundamentals. Overtone singing just scratches the surface
>of would be possible in this realm using synthesized sounds -- the spectral
>pitches in overtone singing are fixed relative to one another.

Hell yeah!

>>Haven't we already been doing this for quite some time?
>
>Who's been doing this?

Well, if we look at music as a sort of meta-timbre... your suggestion
is somewhere in-between music and normal timbre.

-Carl

AMiltonF@aol.com wrote,

> Devils advocate. I take a stand for the sole purpose of debate.

Well that's all well and good, and a lot of the directions your
mentioning, or pointing at, seem like good ones to me as well. But the
way you lay them out there, at the expense of this and that, just
makes me want to say 'OK bub, show me the music!' I too want to be
excited, to hear and dream of "new" things, to know what might be on
or beyond the cutting edge... but I guess I'd prefer it if there were
some interesting demonstrative music to flesh out the steady diet of
rhetoric!

Anyway, as an example of someone who I personally think is doing very
nice work embracing technology, microtonality, and the "cutting edge",
I'd mention Christopher Bailey... Check out his "Ooogaaah: Dungeony
Specimen Spaceship" at:

<http://music.columbia.edu/~chris/tunes.html>

Sort of a cross between the European spectral "school" (Grisey, Hurel,
Murail, etc.) and the quick-cut, pluderphonics "school" (Zorn, Oswald,
Harth, etc.).

I think the integration of technology and tradition in say the vein of
the Chris Cutler Lutz Glandien collaboration "Domestic Stories" is
also an area full of exciting possibilities.

--d.stearns

Hi,

Andrew F. asks

> What kind of music would you write if you could easily compose (and
> notate) a piece at the level of timbre by manipulating the overtones?

Conklin included, I think "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as an example of
tuned (12tET) longitudinal modes in otherwise like-tuned piano bass
strings per his patent with Baldwin. This was on the cd accompanying
Askenfelt's "Five Lectures on the Acoustics of the Piano," but hasn't
made it to the online reprint yet.

Clark

In a message dated 10/20/00 4:05:49 PM !!!First Boot!!!, STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET
writes:

> Well that's all well and good, and a lot of the directions your
> mentioning, or pointing at, seem like good ones to me as well. But the
> way you lay them out there, at the expense of this and that, just
> makes me want to say 'OK bub, show me the music!' I too want to be
> excited, to hear and dream of "new" things, to know what might be on
> or beyond the cutting edge... but I guess I'd prefer it if there were
> some interesting demonstrative music to flesh out the steady diet of
> rhetoric!
>

Points taken and apologies to all i've offended.

As far as the music goes - i'll start uploading my experimental stuff at the
end of every other week and now that you all know where i'm coming from, the
criticism is going to be great!!!

{:>Q AF