The Jam

Paul,

Your new tunes on MP3.com are the JAM!!!

You are a very creative improvisor. And FUNKY too!

Are you using an "auto-wha" effect or a wha pedal? Sounds really cool!

I like some of the really free freak out playing too - after my own
heart.

I conjecture, that you might find enjoyment in the music of John
Scofield, Zappa (Guitar, Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar, Son of Shut up
and Play yer guitar) and Sonny Sharrock.

Dude - this really makes me itch to hear these microtonal pieces on
mini-disk. The ones with the Didj player - no I haven't forgot.

Will somebody with a way to transfer Paul's mini-disk to mp3, please
step forward, in the name of microtonality? There must be someone out
there with one of these things, who can run it into their soundcard.
Dang - don't record in this format again Paul! }: )

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

P.S. I love Funk. Good old 1970s "James Brown" grits and gravy Funk.
You play this style well.

Jacky wrote,

>Paul,

>Your new tunes on MP3.com are the JAM!!!

>You are a very creative improvisor. And FUNKY too!

Thanks for listening and for the kind words, Jacky. I've been working on the
FUNK for the past two years. Previously I was working in a folk group and
was told by the leader that though my melodic skills in improvisation over
chord changes were good, I needed to worry less about what notes to play and
more about how to play it . . . i.e., rhythmic pocket and syncopation . . .
i.e. FUNK. Well, the real funky cats down at Wally's (the Boston jazz/fusion
capital, NO COVER) on Tuesday night put me to shame, maybe in a couple of
years I might dare to try sitting in with them . . . but I'm glad I didn't
skip over this step in my education as a musician.

>Are you using an "auto-wha" effect or a wha pedal? Sounds really cool!

It's a Boss Dynamic Fiter, which can act _either_ as an "auto-wha" _or_,
with the use of the Roland expression pedal, a regular wha. I use it both
ways. Boss hasn't made them for years; my original one (bought in the late
'80s) was stolen, but I was lucky enough to later get a used one dumped on
me.

>I like some of the really free freak out playing too - after my own
>heart.

The use of a ring modulator was inspired by Wayne Krantz.

>I conjecture, that you might find enjoyment in the music of John
>Scofield, Zappa (Guitar, Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar, Son of Shut up
>and Play yer guitar) and Sonny Sharrock.

The 50-year old Scofield has of course had a surge in popularity of late,
both in general and in my own listening. His current quartet, with Ben
Perowky on drums, Avi Bortnick on rhythm guitar, and Jesse Murphy on bass,
is one of the funkiest and most forward-looking bands playing today. I
caught them (and recorded them onto minidisk) at a free Boston show in July,
and they blew my mind -- all were playing samplers as well as their
instruments and the result was an astonishing electronica/jazz tour de
force. Scofield was using a Whammy pedal for interesting-sounding bends,
octave transpositions, and a Leslie-like detuning effect. Scofield's next
project will supposedly be a mellow, traditional (acoustic?) enterprise . .
. yawn . . .

I have the Zappa three-disc "Guitar" set which is I think the same three
albums you mentioned . . . certainly an influence as well . . . lots of
one-chord or two-chord jams . . . there's a large gulf between Zappa's
composing and his improvising . . . not that there's anything wrong with
that . . .

Sonny Sharrock . . . would you recommend a CD to start with?

>P.S. I love Funk. Good old 1970s "James Brown" grits and gravy Funk.
>You play this style well.

It's coming to me indirectly via Herbie Hancock . . . I should start
listening to James Brown himself . . .

Now, back to worrying about notes . . .

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

> It's coming to me indirectly via Herbie Hancock . . .

Miles Davis' "On the Corner"?

I should start
> listening to James Brown himself . . .

His 70s band was amazing!

>
> Now, back to worrying about notes . . .

Not too much now.

JL

>> It's coming to me indirectly via Herbie Hancock . . .

Jacky wrote,

>Miles Davis' "On the Corner"?

I've only listened to that one, as I just recently acquired it. But yeah, my
bass player has been getting me into all the Miles and Herbie stuff for the
past two years.

>> Now, back to worrying about notes . . .

>Not too much now.

All right, I'll refrain from criticizing "The Prime Series as Generator"
even though it's one of my pet peeves!

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> All right, I'll refrain from criticizing "The Prime Series as
Generator"
> even though it's one of my pet peeves!

Paul,

No - please feel free to lay waste to it if you see fit. I will be
enriched by your criticism.

Sincerely,

Jacky Ligon

>No - please feel free to lay waste to it if you see fit. I will be
>enriched by your criticism.

Well, basically Jacky, I feel that the prime numbers are a bit overrated --
they are whay they are, and no more than that -- and if you were to throw in
composite numbers like 9 and 15, you wouldn't be disturbing any essential
features of your system.

Actually, many of the theorists who've over-emphasized primes in the past
have done the opposite of what you do -- they over-emphasize composite
numbers such as 9 and 15 over prime numbers such as 11 and 13, in the
context of intervallic complexity measures and such. But the point I feel
strongly about is that whether a number is prime or not matters very little
to the audible qualities of a ratio involving that number . . . where it
does matter is in exploring the resources of a full tuning system, where of
course composite ratios will arise inevitably from combining prime ratios
with one another (i.e., stacking one on top of, or within, another).

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> >No - please feel free to lay waste to it if you see fit. I will be
> >enriched by your criticism.
>
> Well, basically Jacky, I feel that the prime numbers are a bit
overrated --
> they are whay they are, and no more than that -- and if you were to
throw in
> composite numbers like 9 and 15, you wouldn't be disturbing any
essential
> features of your system.
>
> Actually, many of the theorists who've over-emphasized primes in
the past
> have done the opposite of what you do -- they over-emphasize
composite
> numbers such as 9 and 15 over prime numbers such as 11 and 13, in
the
> context of intervallic complexity measures and such. But the point
I feel
> strongly about is that whether a number is prime or not matters
very little
> to the audible qualities of a ratio involving that number . . .
where it
> does matter is in exploring the resources of a full tuning system,
where of
> course composite ratios will arise inevitably from combining prime
ratios
> with one another (i.e., stacking one on top of, or within, another).

Paul,

Well, it is an interesting issue, which from my humble point of view,
just looks like yet another way to get to the same point, as well as
to include some nice exotic intervals along the way.

I just find it fascinating and useful to explore intervals in a
system like this, which give ratios neighboring a lower number ratio,
such as:

163/109 696.653
3/2 701.955
191/127 706.493

Interestingly close to the Noble and Golden fifths, and these are the
prime ratios directly above and below the 3/2. I can find as much
value in getting these values by a rational means, as I can by
getting something practically inaudibly different from a phi weighted
fifth. Just another way to do it. Actually I use both, but that's not
what we're talking about either. : )

What would prevent one from forming a scale from a chain of 191/127?

Seems a valid area of exploration, especially for melodic energies
that could be found by strategically sharpening or flattening given
intervals in a scale or scale set.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

Jacky wrote,

>What would prevent one from forming a scale from a chain of 191/127?

Nothing would, of course, but the ratio 191/127 is absolutely useless in
telling you what the fifth will sound like or what properties a long chain
of such fifths will have. By the way, to learn about the properties of a
long chain of fifths of any given size from 689.3 to 714.9 cents, see
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/1ChainOfFifthsTunings.htm. From this,
you may decide that you want to flatten or sharpen your fifths by a given
amount, and then tweak that to affect how the 5- and 7-limit approximations
in your scale will sound. RI won't be of any help to you here.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> Jacky wrote,
>
> >What would prevent one from forming a scale from a chain of
191/127?
>
> Nothing would, of course, but the ratio 191/127 is absolutely
useless in
> telling you what the fifth will sound like or what properties a
long chain
> of such fifths will have.

Even though I haven't tried it, and just conceived of it; my approach
would likely be to play the scale to determine its audible
properties. I will tomorrow.

Obviously, even without having heard it, you could tell that it would
have at least 11 recognizable fifths @ 706.493 cents. Not a bad
property for a high prime scale.

> By the way, to learn about the properties of a
> long chain of fifths of any given size from 689.3 to 714.9 cents,
see
> http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/1ChainOfFifthsTunings.htm.
From this,
> you may decide that you want to flatten or sharpen your fifths by a
given
> amount, and then tweak that to affect how the 5- and 7-limit
approximations
> in your scale will sound. RI won't be of any help to you here.

Thanks - I'll check it out.

Jacky Ligon