Re: JdL

>
> By contrast, I can only make a single small claim: that, to my ear, the
> tunings I present sound nice. That's enough for me.

Enough for me too, well said. But the previous post where you divined
Werkmeister (or Young) from the adaptive tuning program was really
something! I think that not only supports what Ed was saying (my
check will be in the mail soon too) but it also validates on some
level, that your program is doing the 'right' thing in terms of
determining the intentions (or at least the tuning habitat) of the
original work.

There may be parallels between what your program does for tuning with
how David Cope determines 'note choice'. You might think about doing a
write-up in Computer Music Journal.

Bob Valentine

Robert C Valentine wrote,

<< You might think about doing a write-up in Computer Music Journal.
>>

I agree, that's an excellent idea!

--Dan Stearns

[I wrote:]
>>By contrast, I can only make a single small claim: that, to my ear,
>>the tunings I present sound nice. That's enough for me.

[Bob Valentine wrote:]
>Enough for me too, well said. But the previous post where you divined
>Werkmeister (or Young) from the adaptive tuning program was really
>something! I think that not only supports what Ed was saying (my
>check will be in the mail soon too) but it also validates on some
>level, that your program is doing the 'right' thing in terms of
>determining the intentions (or at least the tuning habitat) of the
>original work.

Thanks for your encouraging words, Bob! The Waldstein Sonata happens
to work particularly well with Young tuning. But it occurs to me that,
for something like, say, Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, if I were to
feed an individual section in a distant key into my program, it would
almost certainly come up with COFT values very different from anything
historical, and, arguably, very different from what Bach intended.
There would be at least two possible ways of dealing with this:

. Concatenate the entire set of sections together and get COFT
numbers to be used for grounding the entire work.

. Simply instruct the program to ground to a Well Temperament such
as Bach might have used, then allow subtle adaptive variations from
those grounding points.

The second option is not something I support at the moment, but just
a couple of new lines of programming code could change that. The
results of the first option would be very interesting to compare against
what was present in Bach's time!

[Bob:]
>There may be parallels between what your program does for tuning with
>how David Cope determines 'note choice'. You might think about doing a
>write-up in Computer Music Journal.

Sorry to say that I'm not familiar with David Cope and his work. Please
tell me more! If it's not tuning related, we should probably take it
off-list (in case you don't receive e-mails from the list, my addr is
jdl"at"adaptune.com).

I've thought of submitting write-ups of my work to CMJ and/or other
similar journals. I feel as if I'd need help getting it worked up into
a form suitable for academic periodicals, however.

JdL

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>for something like, say, Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier,[...]
> . Concatenate the entire set of sections together and get COFT
> numbers to be used for grounding the entire work.

John, something like this was attempted by several researchers, including
Barnes, Kellner, and van Eck. See the Microtonal bibliography.

>The
>results of the first option would be very interesting to compare against
>what was present in Bach's time!

The above researchers generally came up with temperaments roughly along the
lines of Werckmeister/Kirnberger philosophy, differing only in the details.

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17568

>
> John, something like this was attempted by several researchers,
including Barnes, Kellner, and van Eck. See the Microtonal
bibliography.
>
> The above researchers generally came up with temperaments roughly
along the lines of Werckmeister/Kirnberger philosophy, differing only
in the details.

Well, I wonder then why John is coming up with the numbers he has...
Anybody have any thoughts??