New member

Hi,

Just joined. I'll watch the list for a while before posting anything.

I've just dabbled in tunings until I started working with SuperCollider. It
lends itself nicely to alternate tunings. (Real time digital synthesis for
the Mac platform--anyone use it?)

--
><><><><><><><><><><><>
David Cottle, computer music, contra, cottle@cerlsoundgroup.org

"Without this complete freedom for the artist to create according to his
impulses, [music will] tend to provide the public with what is understood
with least effort. Under such conditions, music becomes a mere amusement or,
as totalitarian governments seem to wish, a drug." ‹Roger Sessions

--- In tuning@y..., "David Cottle" <cottle@c...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just joined. I'll watch the list for a while before posting
anything.
>
> I've just dabbled in tunings until I started working with
SuperCollider. It
> lends itself nicely to alternate tunings. (Real time digital
synthesis for
> the Mac platform--anyone use it?)

Welcome David,

I haven't heard of SuperCollider. Can you tell us more about it and
what _you are doing with it?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

> --- In tuning@y..., "David Cottle" <cottle@c...> wrote: Hi,
>
>> Just joined. I'll watch the list for a while before posting anything.
>>
>> I've just dabbled in tunings until I started working with SuperCollider. It
>> lends itself nicely to alternate tunings. (Real time digital synthesis for
>> the Mac platform--anyone use it?)
>>
> Welcome David,
>
> I haven't heard of SuperCollider. Can you tell us more about it and what _you
> are doing with it?

You can see more about it on www.audiosynth.com. In a nutshell it is (IMHO)
the latest/greatest incarnation of the MusicN (e.g. Csound) languages and
(IMHO) the next step for electro-acoustics. It is written in smalltalk and
is the first program I've encountered that successfully combines the three
electro-acoustic schools; concrete, analog synthesis, and computer assisted
composition.

What makes it remarkable is that it runs in real time on most macs of 333
htz and higher. That is, I have all the power of a programming language
(such as precise calculations, pseudo random walks, chaos, logical
expressions, midi control, virtually unlimited unit generators), but it
feels and acts like the old analog synthesizers.

When I did my thesis I considered computer assisted microtonal musics, but
my investigation of all available technology discouraged me from continuing.
(I remember looking into MIDI, but abandoned it the minute I found out they
only allowed for 12 keys per octave.) This program is what I wanted back
then. It's actually easier to do microtones than to do equal tempered stuff!
I'm sure you all agree that EQ is a convolution to adapt a complex
phenomenon to our limited instruments and performing abilities.

[And I'm a little shy about continuing. I'm afraid I'm out of my league. I
really haven't studied much of the existing literature. I'm just doing what
interests me. Maybe it's been tried and discarded? Please inform me.]

For example, I've been toying with free-just intonation. This is the term
Heidi Von Gunden (who worked closely with Johnston) used when I described
what I wanted to do. It doesn't rely on a set scale or central pitch with
derivations from it. It just tunes all intervals to the lowest ratio and
disregards any drifting, because with the computer that is not an issue. You
are not tied to a set of strings or keys, you don't ever have to return to a
home base.

When I first approach an instrument (in this case, the computer) I always
ask, what can it do that I can't do on anything else. This kind of
precision, accuracy, and breadth seems to be what it can do. It seems
perfect for microtonal ideas.

It doesn't work as well with tonal systems, because of the shift in pitch.
(Or are we just not used to such "modulations?" Could we say it is the next
piece, which we have not yet learned to like?) But I've done a few things
with wandering intervals. (A random walk through chimes; each chime is a
perfectly tuned interval from the previous. There really isn't a tonality.)
And it works well with non-tonal structures, such as the 12-tone school.

I'd be glad to post examples, when they are polished. But I would need to
poll: how many members of this group use Macs? (Or computers, for that
matter?)

Which brings me to another developing aesthetic: generative music. For the
past two years everything I've written is generative (different every time
it's played). I'm being a little snooty about this idea, insisting that all
of my compositions exist as possibilities, not actual sounds. i.e. there are
no recordings, or written music; just code, and the program that generates
the sounds.

I look forward to reading your comments/reactions.

--
><><><><><><><><><><><>
David Cottle, computer music, contra, cottle@cerlsoundgroup.org

"Country music is three chords and the truth." ‹Harlan Howard

[David Cottle wrote:]
>[And I'm a little shy about continuing. I'm afraid I'm out of my
>league. I really haven't studied much of the existing literature. I'm
>just doing what interests me. Maybe it's been tried and discarded?
>Please inform me.]

Welcome to the list!

I understand your shyness. Not long ago I was new to the list too,
after having worked with tuning for years in isolation, perhaps much
like you. Of course I had, and still have, a lot of learning to do
about the work of others, and about the terminology most accepted for
describing the many aspects of tuning.

I think we're all "just doing what interests" us, and for the most part,
we recognize that tastes vary. There may be a few list members who
enjoy trumpeting their intolerance of practices they don't approve of,
but for the most part, people post freely about the things they enjoy
and skip by posts of things they don't.

I would guess that no more than about 20% of list members have Macs,
and many of those may not be 333 MHz or faster. Would it be possible
to transcribe your work into General MIDI? Even more universally
readable, though much slower to download, would be MP3's. Of course,
this would not be consistent with "generative music", different every
time it is played.

>It doesn't work as well with tonal systems, because of the shift in
>pitch. (Or are we just not used to such "modulations?" Could we say it
>is the next piece, which we have not yet learned to like?)

Good question! My ear so far is not terribly happy with great amounts
of drift, but perhaps that's just because I'm not accustomed to it.
When confronted with sequences like C->A->D->G->C, which tend to "pump"
the pitch (downward in this case) my tendency is to distribute the drift
away. I'd love to hear your work, and maybe get some new ideas!

JdL

on 2/14/01 5:39 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

David,

> You can see more about it on www.audiosynth.com. In a nutshell it is (IMHO)
> the latest/greatest incarnation of the MusicN (e.g. Csound) languages and
> (IMHO) the next step for electro-acoustics. It is written in smalltalk and
> is the first program I've encountered that successfully combines the three
> electro-acoustic schools; concrete, analog synthesis, and computer assisted
> composition.
>
> What makes it remarkable is that it runs in real time on most macs of 333
> htz and higher.

Darn, so close. I'm a Mac person, but only running at 300mHz. I wonder if
it'd work anyway.

> I'd be glad to post examples, when they are polished. But I would need to
> poll: how many members of this group use Macs? (Or computers, for that
> matter?)

I'd definitely like to hear examples, provided that I can listen with the
aforementioned system.

> "Country music is three chords and the truth." ‹Harlan Howard

Great quote,

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause
and reflect."
-Mark Twain

Hi,

> I understand your shyness. Not long ago I was new to the list too,
> after having worked with tuning for years in isolation, perhaps much
> like you. Of course I had, and still have, a lot of learning to do

A closet alternative tuner? :)

> about the work of others, and about the terminology most accepted for
> describing the many aspects of tuning.

Yeah, it's the terminology I lack.

> I would guess that no more than about 20% of list members have Macs,
> and many of those may not be 333 MHz or faster. Would it be possible

I spoke too soon. I think any PPC will do, but I run at 333 and I sometimes
gauge my patches based on my performance, so another machine might not
handle the cpu. But you could try. (Actually I think the author uses a
1400.)

> to transcribe your work into General MIDI? Even more universally

But how does one deal with microtones in MIDI files? Pitch bend? Which
brings up another question. What, if any, notation tools (computer assisted,
I mean) are people using? I ask because I'm involved with package developed
at UIUC that has some nice microtonal tools.

>> It doesn't work as well with tonal systems, because of the shift in
>> pitch. (Or are we just not used to such "modulations?" Could we say it
>> is the next piece, which we have not yet learned to like?)
>
> Good question! My ear so far is not terribly happy with great amounts
> of drift, but perhaps that's just because I'm not accustomed to it.

At U of I we used to say "my next piece, which I have not yet learned to
like." I preach this notion that "offensive" music is often just something
that we haven't yet learned to perceive. But I was caught in my own trap
when a student tried pythagorean tunings with traditional music I asked if
he wasn't offended by the pitch drift. He said "it can't be offensive
because it's true to the system."

I have a short example of Bach in free-just tuning that isn't generative.
Maybe I could post it. But it's really just designed to demonstrate the
capacity for precision in SC and the tendency for just tunings to drift. It
moves up nearly a whole step by the end of the (20 second) example.

--
><><><><><><><><><><><>
David Cottle, computer music, contra, cottle@cerlsoundgroup.org

"Šmechanical reproduction [of music], which after all is imperfect simply
through the fact of being mechanical." ‹Roger Sessions

> on 2/14/01 5:39 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> David,
>
>> What makes it remarkable is that it runs in real time on most macs of 333
>> htz and higher.
>
> Darn, so close. I'm a Mac person, but only running at 300mHz. I wonder if
> it'd work anyway.

Actually, I think any PPC will do. It's just that all my patches are done at
333 and I sometimes push pretty close to 80% cpu. But a lot of patches
should work on slower machines.

>> I'd be glad to post examples, when they are polished. But I would need to
>> poll: how many members of this group use Macs? (Or computers, for that
>> matter?)
>
> I'd definitely like to hear examples, provided that I can listen with the
> aforementioned system.

I'm just polishing them now.

>> "Country music is three chords and the truth." ‹Harlan Howard
>
> Great quote,

In addition to a closet alternate tuner, I'm a closet Country fan (real
country). After finishing my DMA I had earned the right to like anything I
wanted.

--
><><><><><><><><><><><>
David Cottle, computer music, contra, cottle@cerlsoundgroup.org

"Work as though no one is watching. Love as though you don't need the money.
Dance as though you've never been hurt" ‹Overheard at Santa Barbara Weekend

[I wrote:]
>>I understand your shyness. Not long ago I was new to the list too,
>>after having worked with tuning for years in isolation, perhaps much
>>like you. Of course I had, and still have, a lot of learning to do

[David Cottle wrote:]
>A closet alternative tuner? :)

Not long ago I was, but I'm out of the closet now! ;-)

>>about the work of others, and about the terminology most accepted for
>>describing the many aspects of tuning.

>Yeah, it's the terminology I lack.

A good source of useful terminology is "The Just Intonation Primer", by
David Doty, available from the Just Intonation Network at:

http://www.dnai.com/~jinetwk/

I had been doing 7-limit adaptive JI for years when I joined the list,
but didn't know the term "7-limit". Etc.

>>I would guess that no more than about 20% of list members have Macs,
>>and many of those may not be 333 MHz or faster. Would it be possible

>I spoke too soon. I think any PPC will do, but I run at 333 and I
>sometimes gauge my patches based on my performance, so another machine
>might not handle the cpu. But you could try. (Actually I think the
>author uses a 1400.)

I didn't say this before, but I don't have a Mac of any sort; I'm one
of those irritating PC'ers.

>>to transcribe your work into General MIDI? Even more universally

>But how does one deal with microtones in MIDI files? Pitch bend?

That's what I use. It's channel-intensive, but conveniently
GM-compatible.

>Which brings up another question. What, if any, notation tools
>(computer assisted, I mean) are people using? I ask because I'm
>involved with package developed at UIUC that has some nice microtonal
>tools.

As it happens, I'm a programmer by profession, and I've written my own
tools. Examples of my work can be found (in General MIDI format) at

http://www.adaptune.com

(change into Studio J).

>>>It doesn't work as well with tonal systems, because of the shift in
>>>pitch. (Or are we just not used to such "modulations?" Could we say it
>>>is the next piece, which we have not yet learned to like?)
>
>>Good question! My ear so far is not terribly happy with great amounts
>>of drift, but perhaps that's just because I'm not accustomed to it.

>At U of I we used to say "my next piece, which I have not yet learned
>to like." I preach this notion that "offensive" music is often just
>something that we haven't yet learned to perceive. But I was caught in
>my own trap when a student tried pythagorean tunings with traditional
>music I asked if he wasn't offended by the pitch drift. He said "it
>can't be offensive because it's true to the system."

>I have a short example of Bach in free-just tuning that isn't
>generative. Maybe I could post it. But it's really just designed to
>demonstrate the capacity for precision in SC and the tendency for just
>tunings to drift. It moves up nearly a whole step by the end of the (20
>second) example.

Please post as much as possible! For your generative works, would it
be possible, and acceptable, to extract several passes, to be listened
to in series, for those of us who can't run the actual generative
program?

JdL

Hi,

So do any of you use a notation application? I edit the manual for a package
developed in Illinois and they spent several months working on microtonal
notation and playback. They worked with a guy in Canada, and I used Kurt
Stone's text for the symbols. I'd be curious to see if it comes close to the
needs of this group.

--
><><><><><><><><><><><>
David Cottle, computer music, contra, cottle@cerlsoundgroup.org

"What America needs is 10 years of silence." ‹Stravinsky

David Cottle wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So do any of you use a notation application? I edit the manual for a package
> developed in Illinois and they spent several months working on microtonal
> notation and playback. They worked with a guy in Canada, and I used Kurt
> Stone's text for the symbols. I'd be curious to see if it comes close to the
> needs of this group.
>

Yes, I use Sibelius which is quite extensive and expensive but you have to do a lot of
fiddling about if you want anything unconventional. I would certainly welcome a dedicated
microtonal package.

>
>
> David Cottle wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So do any of you use a notation application? I edit the manual for a package
>> developed in Illinois and they spent several months working on microtonal
>> notation and playback. They worked with a guy in Canada, and I used Kurt
>> Stone's text for the symbols. I'd be curious to see if it comes close to the
>> needs of this group.
>>
>
> Yes, I use Sibelius which is quite extensive and expensive but you have to do
> a lot of fiddling about if you want anything unconventional. I would certainly
> welcome a dedicated microtonal package.
>

Well, I ask, as I said, because I know of one that is cheap and they did a
lot of work on the microtonal features. (It's developed by a handful of
individuals who aren't very interested in making money, mostly just making a
good program. They take on projects that are interesting, and microtonal
capability was proposed by an individual working with it, so the author
spent a lot of time getting it right.)

It's not that useful for the style of microtonal stuff I do, but some of you
might find it is just the ticket. A demo (Mac and Windows) is available at:

www.cerlsoundgroup.org

It uses pitchbend to playback microtonal notes and chords over MIDI. You
have to make sure each voice is using as many channels are the maximum
number of notes in one chord. It also has user definable symbols and
tunings.

--
><><><><><><><><><><><>
David Cottle, computer music, contra, cottle@cerlsoundgroup.org

"What America needs is 10 years of silence." ‹Stravinsky

Mathematician/Physicist and musician

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "s_donval" <s_donval@...> wrote:
>
> Mathematician/Physicist and musician

You might want to take a look at the tuning-math group. It's not very
active at the moment, but has been in the past rather often.