Miracle Munitions

You've heard a lot about the Miracle tuning (I've put the lattices on the
web at <http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>) so now you'll
want some way of hearing it. I've varied the keyboard mappings I
suggested before to be like this:

high version:

0^--1^--2^--3^--4^--5^--6^--7^--8^--9^--0

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---0v

0v 2v 5v 7v

low version:

1^ 4^ 6^ 9^--0

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---0v

0v--1v--2v--3v--4v--5v--6v--7v--8v--9v

So both include a Blackjack scale, and pairs of white notes are constant
between the two tunings. I prefer the high version because it gives a 5:4
above 0.

First off, some Scala files to cut and past into your favourite text
editor.

------------miracle_24hi.scl----------------
24 note mapping for Erlich/Keenan Miracle scale
!
! high version, tuned to 72-equal
!
24
!
33.3333333333333333
66.6666666666666667
150.0
183.333333333333333
233.333333333333333
266.666666666666667
300.0
383.333333333333333
416.666666666666667
500.0
533.333333333333333
583.333333333333333
616.666666666666667
650.0
733.333333333333333
766.666666666666667
816.666666666666667
850.0
883.333333333333333
966.666666666666667
1000.0
1083.33333333333333
1116.66666666666667
1200.0
----------------end file--------------------

------------miracle_24lo.scl----------------
24 note mapping for Erlich/Keenan Miracle scale
!
! low version, tuned to 72-equal
!
24
!
33.3333333333333333
116.666666666666667
150.0
183.333333333333333
233.333333333333333
266.666666666666667
350.0
383.333333333333333
466.666666666666667
500.0
533.333333333333333
583.333333333333333
616.666666666666667
700.0
733.333333333333333
766.666666666666667
816.666666666666667
850.0
933.333333333333333
966.666666666666667
1050.0
1083.33333333333333
1116.66666666666667
1200.0
----------------end file--------------------

Here are MIDI Relay tuning files for the scales. Cut and paste into a
text editor, and make sure you don't leave any trailing line feeds.

------------miracle_24hi.tun----------------
!high version of 24 note Miracle tuning
!tuning to 72-equal
coords 2
s 0.09722222
q 0.02777778
notes 24
0 0 -1
1 0 0
2 0 1
3 1 0
4 1 1
5 2 -1
6 2 0
7 2 1
8 3 0
9 3 1
10 4 0
11 4 1
12 5 -1
13 5 0
14 5 1
15 6 0
16 6 1
17 7 -1
18 7 0
19 7 1
20 8 0
21 8 1
22 9 0
23 9 1
24 10 1
----------------end file--------------------

------------miracle_24lo.tun----------------
!low version of 24 note Miracle tuning
!tuning to 72-equal
coords 2
s 0.09722222
q 0.02777778
notes 24
0 0 -1
1 0 0
2 1 -1
3 1 0
4 1 1
5 2 -1
6 2 0
7 3 -1
8 3 0
9 4 -1
10 4 0
11 4 1
12 5 -1
13 5 0
14 6 -1
15 6 0
16 6 1
17 7 -1
18 7 0
19 8 -1
20 8 0
21 9 -1
22 9 0
23 9 1
24 10 1
----------------end file--------------------

Those of you with Kyma can set up the two tunings to be switchable with a
MIDI pedal. Copy this into a MIDI Mapper:

-----------------cut here--------------------
"24 note miracle tuning on the sharp side"
!Pitch is: (
`MIDIKeyNumber -60 //12 * 35
+ (
(`MIDIKeyNumber - 60 mod: 12)
of: { Array
with: -2 with: 0 with: 2 with: 7 with: 9 with: 12 with: 14
with: 16 with: 21 with: 23 with: 28 with: 30
}
)
"corrected to give pure 24-note octaves"
+ (`MIDIKeyNumber -60 //24 * 2)
* 12/72) nn + 4c nn + (!PitchBend*2) nn.

"24 note miracle tuning on the flat side"
!SwapPitch is: (
`MIDIKeyNumber -60 //12 * 35
+
(
(`MIDIKeyNumber - 60 mod: 12)
of: { Array
with: -2 with: 0 with: 5 with: 7 with: 9 with: 12 with: 14
with: 19 with: 21 with: 26 with: 28 with: 30
}
)
"correct to give pure 24-note octaves"
+ (`MIDIKeyNumber -60 //24 * 2)
* 12/72) nn + 4c nn + (!PitchBend*2) nn.
-----------------cut here--------------------

Then, in any Frequency fields, put

!Swapper*(!Pitch-!SwapPitch) + !Pitch

and you can set up !Swapper to be a toggle and map it to a MIDI switch in
the VCS editor.

The next stage will be to have four tunings -- each kind for 31- and
41-equal. Then use a MIDI fader to move between them so you can control
the beating and whatever else.

Now, guitarists!! Blackjack should make a good fretting. In 31-equal
it'll have the same large and small steps as I currently use but with a
couple more small steps. In fact, it can be set up so that the frets near
the nut are mostly the same. So, measuring from the nut

0 1v 1 2v 2 3v 3 3^ 4 4^ 5 5^ 6 6^ 7 7^ 8 8^ 9 9^ 0v 0

It's designed so you don't start with a small step, as the tension from
fretting near the nut would be a problem, and there are frets for 5:4 and
4:3. You really want the 4:3 on a guitar, don't you?

If you want to play music that needs meantone, you can retune to get close
enough to 19 from 31. Conversely, as I almost have these frets, I need a
way of tuning the strings to make use of them.

Any suggestions?

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> You've heard a lot about the Miracle tuning (I've put the lattices
on the
> web at <http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>)

That's great!

Two suggestions:

1.

"around 16:15 or 15:14" is way too broad as a description of the
generator. How about
"between 16:15 and 15:4 in the range 116.1c to 117.8c (11-limit) or
114.3c to 117.8c (7-limit)"

Above 117.8c (~4/41 oct) the best approcimation to 4:5 goes from -7
generators to -17. This changeover point is 0.7c higher than 4/41 oct.
It is in fact (128/25)^(1/24).

Below 116.1c (3/31 oct) the best approximation to 4:11 goes from 15
generators to -16.

Below 114.3c (2/21 oct) the best 2:3 goes from 6 generators to -15.

2. Doesn't your usedecatonic use of ^ and v clash with their use in
Monzo's ASCIIfied Boston 72-tET notation. Would > and < be consistent?

>Conversely, as I almost have these frets, I need a
> way of tuning the strings to make use of them.
>
> Any suggestions?

Make the steps between strings go
perfect fourth, neutral third, neutral third, perfect fourth, neutral
third, neutral third?

Dave Keenan wrote:

> "around 16:15 or 15:14" is way too broad as a description of the
> generator. How about
> "between 16:15 and 15:4 in the range 116.1c to 117.8c (11-limit) or
> 114.3c to 117.8c (7-limit)"

That's a lot longer though. I meant it to be a quick introduction to the
temperament so as not to steal your thunder whenever you write it up
yourself.

Probably the "sixth part of a fifth" definition is the best quick one.

> 2. Doesn't your usedecatonic use of ^ and v clash with their use in
> Monzo's ASCIIfied Boston 72-tET notation. Would > and < be consistent?

Looks like they do clash, but I'm sticking with them. ^ and v are the
most obvious symbols for "a bit higher" or "a bit lower" so they should be
given to the most useful small shift. My usage is also consistent with
the same symbols for a step of 31-equal, as used by Paul Erlich and I
think on the Huygens-Fokker website.

> and < look like dynamic indications to me. And I can't remember which
way round they're supposed to be.

There may be some advantages to consistency between notations, but
there'll always be some retraining needed to move between them. Ideally,
we would agree on symbols, but that would have to mean everybody else
coming round to my way of thinking. A \ makes sense as half a v, and
there are already symbols for half sharps and flats that could be used
for 3 steps from 72 on the staff.

With # and b symbols, we'll have to be inconsistent with either meantone
or 12-equal. And it would be useful to bring them in.

> >Conversely, as I almost have these frets, I need a
> > way of tuning the strings to make use of them.
> >
> > Any suggestions?
>
>
> Make the steps between strings go
> perfect fourth, neutral third, neutral third, perfect fourth, neutral
> third, neutral third?

It's worth a try, but it's more of a neutral-third than Miracle tuning.

Kyma users: the expression for the frequency window I gave before should
have been

!Swapper*(!SwapPitch-!Pitch) + !Pitch

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

>My usage is also consistent with
>the same symbols for a step of 31-equal, as used by Paul Erlich

Who, me?

BTW, I just got a 31-tone guitar that Neil sold me, and I'm very
excited to play with it next month, when it comes back from the shop.

graham@microtonal.co.uk wrote:

> You've heard a lot about the Miracle tuning (I've put the lattices on the
> web at <http://x31eq.com/decimal_lattice.htm>) so now you'll
> want some way of hearing it. I've varied the keyboard mappings I
> suggested before to be like this:
>
> high version:
>
> 0^--1^--2^--3^--4^--5^--6^--7^--8^--9^--0
>
> 0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---0v
>
> 0v 2v 5v 7v
>
> low version:
>
> 1^ 4^ 6^ 9^--0
>
> 0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---0v
>
> 0v--1v--2v--3v--4v--5v--6v--7v--8v--9v

I normally let things I don't understand pass till later but I'd be grateful if somebody could
clarify how this is read as a keyboard mapping. Apologies in advance if I've missed an important
earlier post. I understand the ^ and v to mean higher and lower. By how much specifically?

>
>
> So both include a Blackjack scale, and pairs of white notes are constant
> between the two tunings. I prefer the high version because it gives a 5:4
> above 0.
>
> The next stage will be to have four tunings -- each kind for 31- and
> 41-equal. Then use a MIDI fader to move between them so you can control
> the beating and whatever else.
>
> Now, guitarists!! Blackjack should make a good fretting. In 31-equal
> it'll have the same large and small steps as I currently use but with a
> couple more small steps. In fact, it can be set up so that the frets near
> the nut are mostly the same. So, measuring from the nut
>
> 0 1v 1 2v 2 3v 3 3^ 4 4^ 5 5^ 6 6^ 7 7^ 8 8^ 9 9^ 0v 0

I don't get this either. Any help?

>
>
> It's designed so you don't start with a small step, as the tension from
> fretting near the nut would be a problem, and there are frets for 5:4 and
> 4:3. You really want the 4:3 on a guitar, don't you?
>
> If you want to play music that needs meantone, you can retune to get close
> enough to 19 from 31. Conversely, as I almost have these frets, I need a
> way of tuning the strings to make use of them.
>

Thanks in anticipation.

BTW I've been thinking (always dangerous I know). As I write music I hope that it will be played
by living instrumentalists at some point. So I try to specify instruments that can be tuned to the
ratios or temperaments I want. I'd also hope that the music will be played live, to an audience. I
just can't get round to the notion that midi keyboards and samplers playing a modelled version of
a real instrument will ever have the same magic as the instrument itself. I say this as I struggle
to put up an mp3 of a midi JI version and a guitar (22 tet) version of a piece I wrote a while
back with the aim of letting people compare. Patience needed. I asked myself who would ever in the
fulness of time take more than a passing interest in a piece realised on a sampler without a score
or the availability of instruments? This led me to making a start at constructing the instruments
I need. Which is why Partch is such an awesome figure, whether you like his music or not, for
having created a universe from the needle to the thread.

If he (Partch) and others can do everything from scratch I wonder why microtonalists have this
problem with keyboard design after years of R&D and the availability of tools, expertise and free
time. Let's say we are going to stick with keyboards as such. As a non keyboard specialist I
looked at the issue objectively. Some people like to play keyboards and some even do it well. And
we have a wonderful range of timbres from harpsichord to organ all actualised by the striking of a
key. What happens after the key is struck doesn't concern me here. It's the mapping problem that
needs solving. The key simply makes something else happen. I'm interested in the layout of the
keys. So what is needed is a removable bit, a tray or panel, that holds the keys so that any
combination of white and black can be arranged. And with every piano or organ or clavichord you
get a free bag of extras should you need an unusually large number of black or white keys. So,
that's great idea number 1. I await all the objections to this idea.

Great idea No 2 concerns guitars. I know that Wim Hoogewerf has a guitar with movable individual
frets. This needs to be the model for the "only guitar you'll ever need". It will become useful
one day to be able to give a guitar recital in JI, 19, 22, 31 and n out of m without having to lug
around 5 guitars. The main problems are I imagine the ease with which the frets move to new
positions and the certainty that they will stay put once you've tuned up and also some method of
marking the fretboard for the most used ratios/temperaments a la hobnailed thingy post that the
late great Ivor Darreg made.

So, get on with it somebody, I just don't have the time.

In the spirit of good music making

Best Wishes

Alison Monteith wrote:

> > high version:
> >
> > 0^--1^--2^--3^--4^--5^--6^--7^--8^--9^--0
> >
> > 0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---0v
> >
> > 0v 2v 5v 7v
> >
> > low version:
> >
> > 1^ 4^ 6^ 9^--0
> >
> > 0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---0v
> >
> > 0v--1v--2v--3v--4v--5v--6v--7v--8v--9v
>
> I normally let things I don't understand pass till later but I'd be
> grateful if somebody could
> clarify how this is read as a keyboard mapping. Apologies in advance if
> I've missed an important
> earlier post. I understand the ^ and v to mean higher and lower. By how
> much specifically?

Those are actually the tables I used to work it out. I thought I'd leave
them in in case they brought enlightenment. They show a chain of
generators for a Miracle tuning, and so are equivalent to chain of fifths
for meantone. In this case, the chain has to be broken to fit the
keyboard right.

The notation uses these intervals to form and octave:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
s s s s s s s s s s+q

Where s is the generator again, and q is the difference between 10
generators and an octave.

It's actually very easy to work out how big s and q are in any
temperament. An octave is 10s+q. Look at the number of steps in the
octave:

72

That's 7*10 + 2. So s=7 and q=2. Or

41

Is 4*10 + 1. So s=4 and q=1. Or

31

can you guess?

The ^ and v mean to raise and lower by the interval "q".

> > Now, guitarists!! Blackjack should make a good fretting. In 31-equal
> > it'll have the same large and small steps as I currently use but with
> > a
> > couple more small steps. In fact, it can be set up so that the frets

> > near
> > the nut are mostly the same. So, measuring from the nut
> >
> > 0 1v 1 2v 2 3v 3 3^ 4 4^ 5 5^ 6 6^ 7 7^ 8 8^ 9 9^ 0v 0
>
> I don't get this either. Any help?

That's a Blackjack scale shown in decimal notation. The intervals are
like:

0 1v 1 2v 2 3v 3 3^ 4 4^ 5 5^ 6 6^ 7 7^ 8 8^ 9 9^ 0v 0
r q r q r q q r q r q r q r q r q r q r q

where r and q together form the generator used above. As I'm targeting
31-equal, r is 2 steps and q is 1.

> BTW I've been thinking (always dangerous I know). As I write music I
> hope that it will be played
> by living instrumentalists at some point. So I try to specify
> instruments that can be tuned to the
> ratios or temperaments I want. I'd also hope that the music will be
> played live, to an audience. I
> just can't get round to the notion that midi keyboards and samplers
> playing a modelled version of
> a real instrument will ever have the same magic as the instrument
> itself.

I don't know about "never" but they haven't yet. That's why I ignore
acoustic instruments.

> I say this as I struggle
> to put up an mp3 of a midi JI version and a guitar (22 tet) version of
> a piece I wrote a while
> back with the aim of letting people compare. Patience needed. I asked
> myself who would ever in the
> fulness of time take more than a passing interest in a piece realised
> on a sampler without a score
> or the availability of instruments? This led me to making a start at
> constructing the instruments
> I need. Which is why Partch is such an awesome figure, whether you like
> his music or not, for
> having created a universe from the needle to the thread.

See if you can work out this Miracle scale and the decimal notation. I
think it'd work well as a basis for constructing instruments, substituting
it for wherever 7 or 12 are currently assumed.

> If he (Partch) and others can do everything from scratch I wonder why
> microtonalists have this
> problem with keyboard design after years of R&D and the availability of
> tools, expertise and free
> time. Let's say we are going to stick with keyboards as such. As a non
> keyboard specialist I
> looked at the issue objectively. Some people like to play keyboards and
> some even do it well. And
> we have a wonderful range of timbres from harpsichord to organ all
> actualised by the striking of a
> key. What happens after the key is struck doesn't concern me here. It's
> the mapping problem that
> needs solving. The key simply makes something else happen. I'm
> interested in the layout of the
> keys. So what is needed is a removable bit, a tray or panel, that holds
> the keys so that any
> combination of white and black can be arranged. And with every piano or
> organ or clavichord you
> get a free bag of extras should you need an unusually large number of
> black or white keys. So,
> that's great idea number 1. I await all the objections to this idea.

This is kind of what I did with my DX21. I discovered the keys could be
moved around, then rang up Yamaha spares and asked them to send me a load
of spare D and black keys.

Some generalised keyboards have been suggested with swappable key tops. I
don't know if the MicroZone has them. It may be a question of economics:
better something less flexible that exists then a wonderful machine that
doesn't.

Now we have a mole in the factory, perhaps we could find out these
tidbits.

I think somebody worked out a design that allowed you to change the
orientation of the keys as well, but that's likely to cost an even larger
fortune than the MicroZone currently does.

> Great idea No 2 concerns guitars. I know that Wim Hoogewerf has a
> guitar with movable individual
> frets. This needs to be the model for the "only guitar you'll ever
> need". It will become useful
> one day to be able to give a guitar recital in JI, 19, 22, 31 and n out
> of m without having to lug
> around 5 guitars. The main problems are I imagine the ease with which
> the frets move to new
> positions and the certainty that they will stay put once you've tuned
> up and also some method of
> marking the fretboard for the most used ratios/temperaments a la
> hobnailed thingy post that the
> late great Ivor Darreg made.

There are also interchangeable magnetic fingerboards, which sound like an
excellent idea. I'm not sure where you get them from. There may be
instructions for making them somewhere.

> So, get on with it somebody, I just don't have the time.

Hmm. Further up you were going to start constructing the instruments you
need, now you're joining the rest of us waiting for somebody else to do
it.

And you ask why nothing gets done ...

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22183.html#22415

> If he (Partch) and others can do everything from scratch I
> wonder why microtonalists have this problem with keyboard
> design after years of R&D and the availability of tools,
> expertise and free time.

Alison, a name you should remember for future reference
in this regard is Bill Wesley. He has no web presence yet,
and has published no books or scores yet, but all this
will eventually be forthcoming.

Bill has built a whole ensemble of his own instruments,
I believe there are 10 different ones: fretted, keyboard,
levers, etc. Each one has the same arrangement of the
playing surface into a 2-dimensional lattice (which Bill
calls an "array"), with the vertical axis giving "octaves"
(representing prime-factor 2) and the horizontal axis
giving "perfect 5ths" and "4ths" (representing prime-
factor 3).

He usually tunes the instruments in Pythagorean (3-limit),
and since the array extends far enough to cover a couple
of Pythagorean commas, he gets pitches at either horizontal
end that emulate the 5-limit ones (only a skhisma off,
about 2 cents).

The instruments can also be easily tuned to any EDO, and
Bill has used both 12- and 19-EDO.

He also has an entire comprehensive theory about how emotions
can be correlated with ratio-points on the array, and has
also done quite a bit of investigation into the ancient
writings we've discussed here recently, and how his theory
stems from them. (Bill is the person who turned me on
to McClain's books.)

Bill has one CD available _For A Few Tones More_, with him
performing his own compositions and also with Brian McLaren
and Jeff Stayton on some tracks doing improvisations. It's
available from the Microtonal Record Shelf - contact McLaren
about it.

Brian McLaren
2462 SE Micah Pl
Corvallis, OR 97333-1966

Bill also does fantastic light-shows the old-fashioned way,
with a projector and colored gels. Visitors to Microfest
got a chance to see two of them. He and McLaren made a
whole set of terrific new ones last month.

> Let's say we are going to stick with keyboards as such. As a
> non keyboard specialist I looked at the issue objectively.
> Some people like to play keyboards and some even do it well.
> And we have a wonderful range of timbres from harpsichord to
> organ all actualised by the striking of a key. What happens
> after the key is struck doesn't concern me here. It's the
> mapping problem that needs solving. The key simply makes
> something else happen. I'm interested in the layout of the
> keys. So what is needed is a removable bit, a tray or panel,
> that holds the keys so that any combination of white and black
> can be arranged. And with every piano or organ or clavichord
> you get a free bag of extras should you need an unusually
> large number of black or white keys. So, that's great idea
> number 1. I await all the objections to this idea.

Instead of an objection, how about a link to a webpage
describing the keyboard you're talking about (the same
one I've been talking about, the MicroZone):
http://www.starrlabs.com

(click on the word "keyboards" on the left side)

Note that any of these hexagonal keys, which nest just like
a honeycomb, can be removed and replaced with one of another
color. So in addition to the black/white pattern shown
on the website, you could have different colors to represent
various prime-axes and map a lattice directly onto the
keyboard, which is how I plan to use it. Another one
being finished now will be using all white keys, so that
the user can keep the keyboard generalized at his wish.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

graham@microtonal.co.uk wrote:

>
>
> Those are actually the tables I used to work it out. I thought I'd leave
> them in in case they brought enlightenment. They show a chain of
> generators for a Miracle tuning, and so are equivalent to chain of fifths
> for meantone. In this case, the chain has to be broken to fit the
> keyboard right.
>
> The notation uses these intervals to form and octave:
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
> s s s s s s s s s s+q
>
> Where s is the generator again, and q is the difference between 10
> generators and an octave.
>
> It's actually very easy to work out how big s and q are in any
> temperament. An octave is 10s+q. Look at the number of steps in the
> octave:
>
> 72
>
> That's 7*10 + 2. So s=7 and q=2. Or
>
> 41
>
> Is 4*10 + 1. So s=4 and q=1. Or
>
> 31
>
> can you guess?
>
> The ^ and v mean to raise and lower by the interval "q".
>
> > > Now, guitarists!! Blackjack should make a good fretting. In 31-equal
> > > it'll have the same large and small steps as I currently use but with
> > > a
> > > couple more small steps. In fact, it can be set up so that the frets
>
> > > near
> > > the nut are mostly the same. So, measuring from the nut
> > >
> > > 0 1v 1 2v 2 3v 3 3^ 4 4^ 5 5^ 6 6^ 7 7^ 8 8^ 9 9^ 0v 0
> >
> > I don't get this either. Any help?
>
> That's a Blackjack scale shown in decimal notation. The intervals are
> like:
>
> 0 1v 1 2v 2 3v 3 3^ 4 4^ 5 5^ 6 6^ 7 7^ 8 8^ 9 9^ 0v 0
> r q r q r q q r q r q r q r q r q r q r q
>
> where r and q together form the generator used above. As I'm targeting
> 31-equal, r is 2 steps and q is 1.

Many thanks for taking the time to help me out Graham, I'll get on the case and make sense of this
and the rest of your explanations.

>
>
> > BTW I've been thinking (always dangerous I know). As I write music I
> > hope that it will be played
> > by living instrumentalists at some point. So I try to specify
> > instruments that can be tuned to the
> > ratios or temperaments I want. I'd also hope that the music will be
> > played live, to an audience. I
> > just can't get round to the notion that midi keyboards and samplers
> > playing a modelled version of
> > a real instrument will ever have the same magic as the instrument
> > itself.
>
> I don't know about "never" but they haven't yet. That's why I ignore
> acoustic instruments.

You ignore acoustic instruments because of their magic or because you want to spend your time
bringing magic to digital ones? The latter I think and an honourable objective.

>
>
> See if you can work out this Miracle scale and the decimal notation. I
> think it'd work well as a basis for constructing instruments, substituting
> it for wherever 7 or 12 are currently assumed.
>
> > If he (Partch) and others can do everything from scratch I wonder why
> > microtonalists have this
> > problem with keyboard design after years of R&D and the availability of
> > tools, expertise and free
> > time. Let's say we are going to stick with keyboards as such. As a non
> > keyboard specialist I
> > looked at the issue objectively. Some people like to play keyboards and
> > some even do it well. And
> > we have a wonderful range of timbres from harpsichord to organ all
> > actualised by the striking of a
> > key. What happens after the key is struck doesn't concern me here. It's
> > the mapping problem that
> > needs solving. The key simply makes something else happen. I'm
> > interested in the layout of the
> > keys. So what is needed is a removable bit, a tray or panel, that holds
> > the keys so that any
> > combination of white and black can be arranged. And with every piano or
> > organ or clavichord you
> > get a free bag of extras should you need an unusually large number of
> > black or white keys. So,
> > that's great idea number 1. I await all the objections to this idea.
>
> This is kind of what I did with my DX21. I discovered the keys could be
> moved around, then rang up Yamaha spares and asked them to send me a load
> of spare D and black keys.
>
> Some generalised keyboards have been suggested with swappable key tops. I
> don't know if the MicroZone has them. It may be a question of economics:
> better something less flexible that exists then a wonderful machine that
> doesn't.
>
> Now we have a mole in the factory, perhaps we could find out these
> tidbits.
>
> I think somebody worked out a design that allowed you to change the
> orientation of the keys as well, but that's likely to cost an even larger
> fortune than the MicroZone currently does.
>
> > Great idea No 2 concerns guitars. I know that Wim Hoogewerf has a
> > guitar with movable individual
> > frets. This needs to be the model for the "only guitar you'll ever
> > need". It will become useful
> > one day to be able to give a guitar recital in JI, 19, 22, 31 and n out
> > of m without having to lug
> > around 5 guitars. The main problems are I imagine the ease with which
> > the frets move to new
> > positions and the certainty that they will stay put once you've tuned
> > up and also some method of
> > marking the fretboard for the most used ratios/temperaments a la
> > hobnailed thingy post that the
> > late great Ivor Darreg made.
>
> There are also interchangeable magnetic fingerboards, which sound like an
> excellent idea. I'm not sure where you get them from. There may be
> instructions for making them somewhere.
>
> > So, get on with it somebody, I just don't have the time.
>
> Hmm. Further up you were going to start constructing the instruments you
> need, now you're joining the rest of us waiting for somebody else to do
> it.
>
> And you ask why nothing gets done ...
>
> Graham

That's actually supposed to be a humorous bit. ; - ) Give me 48 hours in a day and I'll do it
myself for sure.

Best Wishes

monz wrote:

>
>
>
> Alison, a name you should remember for future reference
> in this regard is Bill Wesley. He has no web presence yet,
> and has published no books or scores yet, but all this
> will eventually be forthcoming.
>
>
> He also has an entire comprehensive theory about how emotions
> can be correlated with ratio-points on the array, and has
> also done quite a bit of investigation into the ancient
> writings we've discussed here recently, and how his theory
> stems from them. (Bill is the person who turned me on
> to McClain's books.)

> Bill has one CD available _For A Few Tones More_, with him
> performing his own compositions and also with Brian McLaren
> and Jeff Stayton on some tracks doing improvisations. It's
> available from the Microtonal Record Shelf - contact McLaren
> about it.
>
> Brian McLaren
> 2462 SE Micah Pl
> Corvallis, OR 97333-1966

Thanks, Bill sounds like a man after my own heart as it were. He's obviously American or I'd have
heard of him before.

>
>
> So what is needed is a removable bit, a tray or panel,
> > that holds the keys so that any combination of white and black
> > can be arranged. And with every piano or organ or clavichord
> > you get a free bag of extras should you need an unusually
> > large number of black or white keys. So, that's great idea
> > number 1. I await all the objections to this idea.
>
> Instead of an objection, how about a link to a webpage
> describing the keyboard you're talking about (the same
> one I've been talking about, the MicroZone):
> http://www.starrlabs.com
>
> (click on the word "keyboards" on the left side)
>
> Note that any of these hexagonal keys, which nest just like
> a honeycomb, can be removed and replaced with one of another
> color. So in addition to the black/white pattern shown
> on the website, you could have different colors to represent
> various prime-axes and map a lattice directly onto the
> keyboard, which is how I plan to use it. Another one
> being finished now will be using all white keys, so that
> the user can keep the keyboard generalized at his wish.

I thought someone would mention the Microzone. It sounds fabulous and I'd like to have one one day
but I reckon that for the next few decades keyboard players are going to want to play something as
close as possible to what they are used to, hence my Great Idea no 1.

Thanks and Best Wishes

>
>
> -
>

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22183.html#22426

>
>
> monz wrote:
>
> > Alison, a name you should remember for future reference
> > in this regard is Bill Wesley. <snip>
>
> Thanks, Bill sounds like a man after my own heart as it were.
> He's obviously American or I'd have heard of him before.

Lives about 2 kilometres from me. He's another one of the
"microtonal crazies" here in San Diego.

>
> I thought someone would mention the Microzone. It sounds
> fabulous and I'd like to have one one day

You and a *lot* of other microtonalists...

> but I reckon that for the next few decades keyboard players
> are going to want to play something as close as possible to
> what they are used to, hence my Great Idea no 1.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm a keyboard player (sort of
... no claims of virtuosity here), and I find it surprisingly
easy to get used to new patterns.

I haven't done much "hands on" with the MicroZone yet...
it's not ready. But I *have* played around a bit with
Bill Wesley's "keyboard array", and it's a wonderful design.
It employs the front-to-back dimension of the keyboard for
the "octaves", which compresses the pitch-height aspect
tremendously. In other words, it's not at all linear like
a regular Halberstadt keyboard, but one gets used to its
capabilities quite quickly.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

BTW, since Alison's original post on this thread had to
do with the inavailability of instruments suitable for
microtonal music, and I went on so much about Bill Wesley,
I should have added that Bill has commercial intentions
for his ensemble of instruments. I just recently helped
him finish his patent application, which amounts to a book
explaining the instruments and his theories. So "stay tuned"
... you may be seeing them at a music industry show soon!

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

Alison wrote:

> > > BTW I've been thinking (always dangerous I know). As I write music I
> > > hope that it will be played
> > > by living instrumentalists at some point. So I try to specify
> > > instruments that can be tuned to the
> > > ratios or temperaments I want. I'd also hope that the music will be
> > > played live, to an audience. I
> > > just can't get round to the notion that midi keyboards and samplers
> > > playing a modelled version of
> > > a real instrument will ever have the same magic as the instrument
> > > itself.
> >
> > I don't know about "never" but they haven't yet. That's why I ignore
> > acoustic instruments.
>
> You ignore acoustic instruments because of their magic or because you
> want to spend your time
> bringing magic to digital ones? The latter I think and an honourable
> objective.

Because I'm not likely to get performances on acoustic instruments, so I
make do with what I've got. Okay, I do have a few of them around the
house, but I don't pay them much attention.

I do use digital technology to imitate analog. That works better, and I'm
not worried about it being accurate so long as it's as good.

Is that it for this message? I think I'll paste from another, to pretend
to be on topic.

> If we introduce pitch sets that clearly
> outline the 7 and 11 identities we then have a choice of new harmonic
> AND melodic resources. Does a
> composer then treat 7 and 11 as exotic additions to familiar melodic and
> harmonic structures? If
> so then melodies become more interesting and harmonies more crunchy
> but the framework remains the
> same.

This sounds like the "neo-tonal" approach to me. Use meantone notation,
and add subminor thirds or supermajor thirds. The tonal motivation is to
narrow semitones. I have looked at this, it seems to work. You can
really take all chromatic harmony the wrong way round.

> Or do we vote democrat and liberate

Now Alison, this really isn't appropriate during an election campaign.
There's an obvious subliminal message there. You wouldn't catch me doing
anything like that.

> 7 and 11, granting them parity, in which case I would
>have a problem with processing faster music. But I would be challenged by
>the vast increase in
>resources.

This is the perspective Erlich/Keenan temperament give us. The easiest
intervals happen to include a wide selection from the 11-limit. In fact,
it's the 7-limit plus neutral thirds that are easiest.

I plan to use both systems, and others besides, but as it's a new idea my
vote would go with this new scale. Ideally we'd grab new musicians still
green and free of the indoctrinations the conservatories provide, not
party to the equal-temperament establishment.

>I would suggest that the more radical and pioneering approach would
>be to look at 7 and 11 as much
>more than extensions of existing structures. (It would help also
>to demystify the higher
>identities, especially 11, by exposing control groups to pronounced
>11 limit melodies and long
>sustained 7 and 11 limit chords just to prove that you will not in
>fact convert to Satanism.)

I think there's something to the 11-limit, but I still wouldn't call it
"consonance". Still, it's nice to have those dissonances around, and
neutral thirds are good for melody. And the Erlich-Keenan temperament is
optimal for the 7-limit anyway.

> In
>the mid term the sort of music that would appeal to me would be at
>slower tempos with more
>sustained vertical structures. The art would lie in the formal
>engineering of the piece. The door
>would open to more homophonic music and to modal and dronal
>techniques which would allow composers
>to plunder the riches of pre-tonal theorists.

That's one approach, but hardly the only one. The 11-limit does lead away
from tonal modulation, because there are all these intervals to
investigate you don't need to move the same scales up and down. But it
doesn't have to be slow!

Graham

on 5/11/01 1:44 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: graham@microtonal.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Miracle Munitions
>
> Alison Monteith wrote:

>> Great idea No 2 concerns guitars. I know that Wim Hoogewerf has a
>> guitar with movable individual
>> frets. This needs to be the model for the "only guitar you'll ever
>> need". It will become useful
>> one day to be able to give a guitar recital in JI, 19, 22, 31 and n out
>> of m without having to lug
>> around 5 guitars.
>
> There are also interchangeable magnetic fingerboards, which sound like an
> excellent idea. I'm not sure where you get them from. There may be
> instructions for making them somewhere.

Alison, Graham,

I have the interchangeable fretboard kit, it took me quite a while (years)
to hunt one down from my first reading about it. Mark Rankin, the current
(?) maker of this system, lives in an Oldsmobile or something, checks his
post office box once a year or some such. My mail inquiries never made it to
him. Last year I found out that a complete kit was collecting dust in the
basement of a music store where I teach! I bought it, but still have to find
a guitar to install it on, and figure out what frettings I'd like.

A bit after I found mine, during some correspondence I had with Jon Catler
regarding G&L refretted and fretless guitars, he mentioned having some of
the kits available, has used them on a few guitars in the past. You might
wish to write him.

>> So, get on with it somebody, I just don't have the time.
>
> Hmm. Further up you were going to start constructing the instruments you
> need, now you're joining the rest of us waiting for somebody else to do
> it.

I sometimes envy the ability of composers with synths and MIDI to press a
button, and have tuning of choice show up. 22 tET one day, 31 the next, and
so on. Not that I'm saying you all have it easy, you DO have to program
CSound... However, like Alison, and some others on the list, I much prefer
using acoustic instruments, it's just what resonates with me. It just means
that I sometimes have a long wait to procure the instrument that fits my
musical dreams, especially since I'm not an instrument builder.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

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

In a message dated 5/11/01 5:57:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
graham@microtonal.co.uk writes:

> Because I'm not likely to get performances on acoustic instruments, so I
> make do with what I've got. Okay, I do have a few of them around the
> house, but I don't pay them much attention.
>
>

What do you have already composed for acoustic instruments, Graham?

Johnny Reinhard