Re: Bernard Herrmann meets John deLaubenfels

Jacky, thanks for your kind words! Like you, I find that tuning a
sequence turns it from 2-D to 3-D in some very tangible way. To me,
it's a lot like hearing stereo instead of mono (and boy do I remember
the first time I heard stereo on headphones - it sounded like the woman
singer was hovering just behind my neck - mmmm!). The feeling is not
quite as explicitly spatial as stereo, but... well, I sure miss it when
back in the 12-tET world.

Again, thanks so much for your glowing review!

JdL

John deLaubenfels:

How do you specify the tuning files for your 11/13-limit (whatever that
means) adaptive tunings? Since the original sequences are in 12-tET, I see
possible inconsistencies: for example, 8:11 rounds to 6 semitones, 8:13
rounds to 8 semitones, but 11:13 is very close to 3 semitones! As I see it,
applying the 11-limit to 12-tET music requires a little bit of fudging -- as
Dan Stearns would say, you're very close to consistency even if not quite
there -- but applying the 13-limit would seem to involve you in hopeless
inconsistencies . . . ?

[Paul E wrote:]
>How do you specify the tuning files for your 11/13-limit (whatever that
>means) adaptive tunings?

It means that the tuning file can act as a template for either 11-limit
or 13-limit chords. We've gone into the structure of my tuning files
before, but, as far as I can tell, I haven't yet succeeded in making
their nature clear. For example, the fact that by their structure they
always describe self-consistent tunings seems to be a source of
confusion, or am I mistaken?

[Paul:]
>Since the original sequences are in 12-tET, I see possible
>inconsistencies: for example, 8:11 rounds to 6 semitones, 8:13
>rounds to 8 semitones, but 11:13 is very close to 3 semitones! As I see
>it, applying the 11-limit to 12-tET music requires a little bit of
>fudging -- as Dan Stearns would say, you're very close to consistency
>even if not quite there -- but applying the 13-limit would seem to
>involve you in hopeless inconsistencies . . . ?

Well, I don't know if they're "hopeless", but yes, there are ambiguities
("inconsistencies") in mapping between 12-tET and even 7-limit chords,
sharply increasing as the limit goes up.

With the 11/13 file, if you play C,E,G,Bb,D,F#, and G#, the template
will tend to channel them into JI harmonics of 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and
13. The interval between harmonics 11 and 13 will not, of course, be
the most favored for a "major second", but, taken all together, this
will be the most favored tuning.

As the chord becomes reduced from the bottom up (lower harmonics gone),
the template will start steering it into other options.

I'm not completely happy with the 11/13 tuning file, but haven't yet had
a chance to balance it out better.

JdL

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>Well, I don't know if they're "hopeless", but yes, there are ambiguities
>("inconsistencies") in mapping between 12-tET and even 7-limit chords,
>sharply increasing as the limit goes up.

Actually, 12-tET is fully consistent in the 7-limit and even the 9-limit,
though the accuracy is not too great.

>With the 11/13 file, if you play C,E,G,Bb,D,F#, and G#, the template
>will tend to channel them into JI harmonics of 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and
>13. The interval between harmonics 11 and 13 will not, of course, be
>the most favored for a "major second", but, taken all together, this
>will be the most favored tuning.

Hmm . . . I don't know how I feel about a tuning file that takes an interval
of 200 cents and targets an interval of 289 cents. I don't think Herrmann or
any other 12-tET composer would imagine even the most flexible orchestra
doing this (not withstanding Schoenberg's essay justifying 12-tone harmony
in terms of harmonics through the 13th -- which bears no discernable
relation with his actual harmonic practice). But don't listen to me -- if
you like the sound of the music coming out, that's what matters, since
you've stated that faithfulness to the composer's intent is not an issue for
you.

[I wrote:]
>>Well, I don't know if they're "hopeless", but yes, there are
>>ambiguities ("inconsistencies") in mapping between 12-tET and even
>>7-limit chords, sharply increasing as the limit goes up.

[Paul E:]
>Actually, 12-tET is fully consistent in the 7-limit and even the
>9-limit, though the accuracy is not too great.

Then perhaps the word ambiguous is more applicable. Consider G,Bb,D:
shall it be tuned as a "normal" minor chord, or as the top end of
C,E,G,Bb,D? I have to deal with that all the time in 7-limit tuning.

[JdL:]
>>With the 11/13 file, if you play C,E,G,Bb,D,F#, and G#, the template
>>will tend to channel them into JI harmonics of 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and
>>13. The interval between harmonics 11 and 13 will not, of course, be
>>the most favored for a "major second", but, taken all together, this
>>will be the most favored tuning.

[Paul:]
>Hmm . . . I don't know how I feel about a tuning file that takes an
>interval of 200 cents and targets an interval of 289 cents. I don't
>think Herrmann or any other 12-tET composer would imagine even the most
>flexible orchestra doing this (not withstanding Schoenberg's essay
>justifying 12-tone harmony in terms of harmonics through the 13th --
>which bears no discernable relation with his actual harmonic practice).

Understood. On the other side of the coin, if I want to use my 12-note
keyboard with JI Relay to produce 13-limit chords, I'm pretty much
forced to map it that way. I agree that for music that began as 12-tET,
it's a stretch!

>But don't listen to me -- if you like the sound of the music coming
>out, that's what matters, since you've stated that faithfulness to the
>composer's intent is not an issue for you.

Right.

JdL

John deLaubenfels:

>Then perhaps the word ambiguous is more applicable. Consider G,Bb,D:
>shall it be tuned as a "normal" minor chord, or as the top end of
>C,E,G,Bb,D? I have to deal with that all the time in 7-limit tuning.

Yes, this is what is termed "uniqueness" in the tables Manuel and I put
together.

Also, I'd suggest perhaps distinguishing the versions in which you
specifically target 7:9 intervals as 9-limit, rather than 7-limit, though
the terminology is not perfectly precise given your "tuning file"
methodology.

>Understood. On the other side of the coin, if I want to use my 12-note
>keyboard with JI Relay to produce 13-limit chords, I'm pretty much
>forced to map it that way.

Or you might map it C-E-G-Bb-D-F#-A, as some have suggested -- you'd be
increasing the 4:13 error from 41 cents to 59 cents, but decreasing the
11:13 error from 89 cents to 11 cents.

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

/tuning/topicId_17956.html#17988

>
> Hmm . . . I don't know how I feel about a tuning file that takes an
interval of 200 cents and targets an interval of 289 cents. I don't
think Herrmann or any other 12-tET composer would imagine even the
most flexible orchestra doing this (not withstanding Schoenberg's
essay justifying 12-tone harmony in terms of harmonics through the
13th -- which bears no discernable relation with his actual harmonic
practice). But don't listen to me -- if you like the sound of the
music coming out, that's what matters, since you've stated that
faithfulness to the composer's intent is not an issue for you.

I guess the question might be whether there is a way that John could
make his program more accurate for the 11 and 13 limit (??) or if it
is worth his while to do so... I was also wondering how he could have
the program be accurate to the two different limits simultaneously
(??)

Would it be worth while to "tweak" the program to mitigate some
inconsistencies, or wouldn't it make much difference in the "larger"
JI scheme or things (??)

___________ ______ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

[Paul E wrote:]
>>Hmm . . . I don't know how I feel about a tuning file that takes an
>>interval of 200 cents and targets an interval of 289 cents. I don't
>>think Herrmann or any other 12-tET composer would imagine even the
>>most flexible orchestra doing this (not withstanding Schoenberg's
>>essay justifying 12-tone harmony in terms of harmonics through the
>>13th -- which bears no discernable relation with his actual harmonic
>>practice). But don't listen to me -- if you like the sound of the
>>music coming out, that's what matters, since you've stated that
>>faithfulness to the composer's intent is not an issue for you.

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>I guess the question might be whether there is a way that John could
>make his program more accurate for the 11 and 13 limit (??) or if it
>is worth his while to do so... I was also wondering how he could have
>the program be accurate to the two different limits simultaneously
>(??)

>Would it be worth while to "tweak" the program to mitigate some
>inconsistencies, or wouldn't it make much difference in the "larger"
>JI scheme or things (??)

As to your "simultaneously" question, if you understand how I use tuning
files as templates, it's not at all mysterious. Each limit, after all,
includes lower limits plus more: 5 includes 3, 7 includes 5 and 3, 11
includes 7, 5, and 3, etc. It gets to be more and more of a stretch to
map 12-tET to higher and higher limits, but on the other hand, my guess
is that little will be mapped all the way to 13 in any case, even when
the file allows for that possibility.

JdL