Bach by popular demand

Thanks to Herman Miller and Steve Sycamore for providing sequences of
Bach to be tuned. Herman sent:

Fugue7.mid
Fugue2.mid
Wtk1f1.mid

Which are, uhhh... well, one of them is a brass quartet version of the C
major fugue.

Steve sent,

invent13.mid

Which is described by Steve as, "a sequence of Bach's Two Part Invention
#13, a fairly short but beautiful piece that uses most if not all 12
chromatic tones. I like it rendered by an organ, and even a thin
sounding organ voice works well for the piece."

Each of these is represented in four tunings:

12-tET, as provided
es2: 5-limit with "no tuning file"
cs5: 5-limit with tuning file
cs7: 7-limit

I put'm in Bachx4.zip, on my web page, accessible thru

http://www.adaptune.com

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18523.html#18523

Hello John!

Thank you so much for continuing your interesting study of adaptive
tuning.

The Bach Chaconne really sounds MUCH better than before with the
"chorus" effect removed. It is now listenable...

I'm still having trouble with the 7-limit version of this piece. It
must have to do with the particular intervals featured. Even at the
very beginning (I found my score of Brahms' arrangement for the left
hand alone) the sixth chord suspension and the seven 6-5 are
peculiar...

I still can't hear much difference between the 2s "two tuning file"
and the 5-limit version. The 5-limit is my very favorite for this
piece. 12-tET sounds really dull after the resonance of that file...

This is still a very interesting exercise.

I have some "quibble" with the use of the Bach two-part inventions
for this work. You can get our your sledgehammer now, and others are
also welcome to give me a good whack... but I really don't think that
two-part exercises are good examples for harmonic tuning comparisons.

Now, just to make all our "melodic enthusiasts" really mad, so they
will be waiting for me around a dark corner... I have the suspicion
that with "horizontal listening..." counterpoint and such like, the
ear really has a greater tolerance for tuning, er "irregularities."
I would say "errors" but I'm not that mean...

I didn't like the 7-limit version in the Chaconne, but it was fine in
the 2-part exercises. I couldn't much tell the difference... I was
listening "linearly" and, I feel, could accomodate a greater range of
tuning "variation..."

Does anyone else agree with me that two-part exercises are not really
the best examples for John's work??

Well now I'm going to hide under a rock and wait for the bombs to
fall...

_________ _______ ______ _
Joseph Pehrson

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>The Bach Chaconne really sounds MUCH better than before with the
>"chorus" effect removed. It is now listenable...

Good...

>I'm still having trouble with the 7-limit version of this piece. It
>must have to do with the particular intervals featured. Even at the
>very beginning (I found my score of Brahms' arrangement for the left
>hand alone) the sixth chord suspension and the seven 6-5 are
>peculiar...

OK, even I, a huge 7-limit fan, am not that crazy about using it with
this piece.

>I still can't hear much difference between the 2s "two tuning file"
>and the 5-limit version. The 5-limit is my very favorite for this
>piece. 12-tET sounds really dull after the resonance of that file...

I wonder if Paul E finds a noticeable difference - Paul?

>This is still a very interesting exercise.

>I have some "quibble" with the use of the Bach two-part inventions
>for this work. You can get our your sledgehammer now, and others are
>also welcome to give me a good whack... but I really don't think that
>two-part exercises are good examples for harmonic tuning comparisons.

Well, I don't want to "sledgehammer" you, but I'm tuning the Bach that
I'm asked to tune, and the Bach that is provided me for tuning. Left
to my own devices, I'd pretty much skip ahead to Mozart and beyond.
Do YOU have any Bach sequences you'd like to hear tuned?

>Now, just to make all our "melodic enthusiasts" really mad, so they
>will be waiting for me around a dark corner... I have the suspicion
>that with "horizontal listening..." counterpoint and such like, the
>ear really has a greater tolerance for tuning, er "irregularities."
>I would say "errors" but I'm not that mean...

I agree that the tuning work I do is best heard in verticalities.

>Does anyone else agree with me that two-part exercises are not really
>the best examples for John's work??

>Well now I'm going to hide under a rock and wait for the bombs to
>fall...

Not necessary, but if you want something else tuned, send it to me!

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18523.html#18542

> Well, I don't want to "sledgehammer" you, but I'm tuning the Bach
that I'm asked to tune, and the Bach that is provided me for tuning.
Left to my own devices, I'd pretty much skip ahead to Mozart and
beyond. Do YOU have any Bach sequences you'd like to hear tuned?
>

Hi John...

Well, not really and, in fact, agreeing with you, I don't think that
Bach is best for this exercise... too linear.

I would go the other direction... more Brahms, Mahler, etc. I bet
Joe Monzo can get us some stuff to retune.

Anyway, congrats again for the fascinating work, as ever...

_________ ______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> I didn't like the 7-limit version in the Chaconne, but it was fine in
> the 2-part exercises. I couldn't much tell the difference... I was
> listening "linearly" and, I feel, could accomodate a greater range of
> tuning "variation..."

I don't think that's what's going on . . . I suspect that there is _in fact_ very little difference
between the different versions, because isolated dyads will be targeted in pretty much the
same way regardless of whether the program is tuning seventh chords (_tetrads_) to 4:5:6:7 or
not.

And you did say you preferred these to the 12-tET version, right?

> Does anyone else agree with me that two-part exercises are not really
> the best examples for John's work??

They are great examples for showing improvement over 12-tET, unless what you're trying to
do is choose between the various versions, which choice is pretty irrelevant in the context of a
2-voice piece of music.

--- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_18523.html#18547

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I didn't like the 7-limit version in the Chaconne, but it was
fine in the 2-part exercises. I couldn't much tell the difference...
I was listening "linearly" and, I feel, could accomodate a greater
range of tuning "variation..."
>
> I don't think that's what's going on . . . I suspect that there is
_in fact_ very little difference between the different versions,
because isolated dyads will be targeted in pretty much the same way
regardless of whether the program is tuning seventh chords
(_tetrads_) to 4:5:6:7 or not.

Oh... I see. Well, that explains why I'm not hearing much
difference...

>
> And you did say you preferred these to the 12-tET version, right?

Ummm, I have to confess that I really don't even hear that much
difference between the just versions and the 12-tET version in just a
two-part exercise... The difference certainly seems MUCH less
obvious than in several of the other compositions that John has
presented in the past...

>
> > Does anyone else agree with me that two-part exercises are not
really the best examples for John's work??
>
> They are great examples for showing improvement over 12-tET, unless
what you're trying to do is choose between the various versions,
which choice is pretty irrelevant in the context of a 2-voice piece
of music.

But, what if the even the difference from 12-tET isn't that obvious..?

_______ _____ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson