Latest tuning

Bugs, bugs, BUGS! This whole business of dynamically re-assigning
MIDI channels, in preparation for dynamically retuning them, has proven
more difficult than I had anticipated. I created a SHOOTLOAD of bugs in
the process, and am still finding them. All the multi-voice sequences
I've posted so far aren't "quite right", I now learn (beyond, of course,
the limitations in my current methods per se).

I woke up in the middle of the night and did the latest fix. In
celebration, I've uploaded a really fun number called "Caravan" to the
file area.

The "tonic" of the piece is F,Ab,C,D, or Fmin6 (?). I wonder when
chords like this first came into use (as tonic) - does anybody know? I
don't think any of the classical boys used it, but it's not uncommon in
20th century popular music.

http://www.egroups.com/files/tuning/
change into the JMids directory, and download caravan.zip.

Includes original 12-tET, 5-limit adaptive tuning, 7-limit adaptive
tuning.

As always, I recommend the sweet rich 7-limit version. When I had to go
back and listen to a little of the original 12-tET today, it sounded SO
sour and buzzy - bleccch!!

JdL

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>The "tonic" of the piece is F,Ab,C,D, or Fmin6 (?).

>As always, I recommend the sweet rich 7-limit version.

I haven't listened yet -- does the "tonic" get tuned to 6:7:9:10?

[Paul E:]
>Well, in my experience, this doesn't make a very good tuning for a
>tonic chord, since Bb really does sound like the root note rather than
>F. I'd go with either the 1/6:1/5:1/4:2/7 or 10:12:15:17 instead, so
>that F Ab C is the usual 5-limit just minor triad rather than the
>subdominant-implying 6:7:9.

I understand what you're saying. Any implication of the subdominant
is a "tonic killer". But see if this is in fact what you hear in the
tuning; I don't.

JdL

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>I understand what you're saying. Any implication of the subdominant
>is a "tonic killer". But see if this is in fact what you hear in the
>tuning; I don't.

At two point in the sequence, it is; at other points, the chord is not
presented with enough simultaneity to imply the subdominant. By the way, I
find this a pretty annoying arrangement of a tune I often play (not that the
arrangement is your fault).

[I wrote:]
>>I understand what you're saying. Any implication of the subdominant
>>is a "tonic killer". But see if this is in fact what you hear in the
>>tuning; I don't.

[Paul E:]
>At two point in the sequence, it is; at other points, the chord is not
>presented with enough simultaneity to imply the subdominant. By the
>way, I find this a pretty annoying arrangement of a tune I often play
>(not that the arrangement is your fault).

Sorry you don't like it! I find it wonderfully energetic. When you
say you play it often, do you mean on CD? Or in your own group?

JdL

>Sorry you don't like it! I find it wonderfully energetic.

Good energy, yes, but what's with those solos?

>When you
>say you play it often, do you mean on CD? Or in your own group?

My own group -- a guitar duo, in this case.

[I wrote:]
>>Sorry you don't like it! I find it wonderfully energetic.

[Paul E:]
>Good energy, yes, but what's with those solos?

I dunno - I have the advantage, or the disadvantage, of not being
terribly familiar with this piece, so I have no particular expectations
to dash. The solos are wacky, but to my ear in keeping with the spirit
of the piece.

>>When you say you play it often, do you mean on CD? Or in your own
>>group?

[Paul:]
>My own group -- a guitar duo, in this case.

Kyool. I don't wonder that you have a particular viewpoint, then.

JdL