Hot new Chopin sequence retuned

I've just posted some General MIDI tunings of Chopin's "Fantaisie-
Impromptu", Op. 66, sequenced by Larry Ellis, on my web page. Go to:

http://www.adaptune.com

Change into Studio J, and download lechi4j.zip. Included are 5-limit
COFT (fixed tuning), 5-limit adaptive, and 7-limit adaptive tunings.
I'm not usually a Chopin fan, but I love this piece!

I've also restored a few sequences that had been missing recently:

b-b-bj.zip: Bach/Busoni Chaconne in D minor
wamk280.zip: Mozart piano sonata, K280.

Enjoy!

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> I've just posted some General MIDI tunings of Chopin's "Fantaisie-
> Impromptu", Op. 66, sequenced by Larry Ellis, on my web page. Go
to:
>
> http://www.adaptune.com
>
> Change into Studio J, and download lechi4j.zip. Included are 5-
limit
> COFT (fixed tuning), 5-limit adaptive, and 7-limit adaptive tunings.
> I'm not usually a Chopin fan, but I love this piece!
>
> I've also restored a few sequences that had been missing recently:
>
> b-b-bj.zip: Bach/Busoni Chaconne in D minor
> wamk280.zip: Mozart piano sonata, K280.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> JdL

I'm enjoying the Chopin greatly right now, though I have to say that
in Chopin's music, that smooth, even chromatic scale is so important
that some passages kind of suffer when given two or more sizes of
semitone . . . the dynamics are, again pretty extreme, while the
rubato could be a little more expressive . . . and finally, a plea
for _true_ 5-limit adaptive tuning (i.e., no 16/9 target).

Thanks, John, for indulging my quibbles and for making so many
enjoyable listening experiences possible!

John deLaubenfels wrote:

> I've also restored a few sequences that had been missing recently:
>
> b-b-bj.zip: Bach/Busoni Chaconne in D minor
> wamk280.zip: Mozart piano sonata, K280.

Somehow I missed this "j" version of the Bach before. It's beautiful! The 7-limit one is perfect,
tuning-wise. Brought tears to my eyes. It sounds strictly quantized, though. What's that about?

After listening to it on piano, I imported it into my sequencer, compressed the velocities, changed
the sound to harpsichord, and added reverb. Nice!

The Chopin is nice, too. It has its moments. I think Paul is right about the step sizes in the
chromatic passages. This music was really made for a nearly equal tuning, IMO. The Bach is more
adaptable.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

[Paul E wrote:]
>I'm enjoying the Chopin greatly right now, though I have to say that
>in Chopin's music, that smooth, even chromatic scale is so important
>that some passages kind of suffer when given two or more sizes of
>semitone . . . the dynamics are, again pretty extreme, while the
>rubato could be a little more expressive . . . and finally, a plea
>for _true_ 5-limit adaptive tuning (i.e., no 16/9 target).

Thanks for the feedback! See below for chromatic thoughts. I agree
that the dynamics are a bit extreme in this sequence. I thought the
rubato was pretty good, but of course Chopin can tolerate quite a lot.

"True" 5-limit, huh? I didn't include that just to keep there from
being too many choices to contemplate listening to. See below for
offer.

>Thanks, John, for indulging my quibbles and for making so many
>enjoyable listening experiences possible!

My pleasure! Again I invite you to send me sequences (and/or, their
URL on the web) you'd like to hear retuned. I just did a bunch for
Monz.

[David Finnamore wrote:]
>Somehow I missed this "j" version of the Bach before. It's beautiful!
>The 7-limit one is perfect, tuning-wise. Brought tears to my eyes. It
>sounds strictly quantized, though. What's that about?

Glad you like it! The 'j' version has the MIDI chorus commands removed,
giving a sweeter piano sound. Alas, Bunji, the sequencer, does heavily
quantize his music; I too would prefer more breathing in the timing.
You realize, of course, that by liking 7-limit tunings of music this
old, you are officially a "bad boy" ;->

>After listening to it on piano, I imported it into my sequencer,
>compressed the velocities, changed the sound to harpsichord, and added
>reverb. Nice!

I've been meaning to add velocity compression (and other mapping
options) to my software. But I also need a "real" sequencing program
and don't want to re-invent that wheel. What do you use and recommend?

>The Chopin is nice, too. It has its moments. I think Paul is right
>about the step sizes in the chromatic passages. This music was really
>made for a nearly equal tuning, IMO. The Bach is more adaptable.

Interesting; I'm not hearing that in this piece, but I'm sure you both
are. Perhaps this music would best be grounded to 12-tET rather than to
COFT.

David, Paul, I'll do up another zip if either of you are not burned
out on this piece. It could include

. Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to COFT
. Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to 12-tET
. 5-limit (16/9 target), grounded to 12-tET
. 7-limit, grounded to 12-tET

or some subset. I'm assuming no one is objecting to the use of fairly
soft vertical springs? Rigidifying them would exacerbate the uneven
step sizes.

JdL

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

> David, Paul, I'll do up another zip if either of you are not burned
> out on this piece.

Not yet -- after many repeats.

> It could include
>
> . Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to COFT
> . Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to 12-tET

COOL!

[I wrote:]
>>David, Paul, I'll do up another zip if either of you are not burned
>>out on this piece. It could include
>>
>> . Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to COFT
>> . Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to 12-tET
>> . 5-limit (16/9 target), grounded to 12-tET
>> . 7-limit, grounded to 12-tET

[Paul E wrote:]
>COOL

They're up. You'll see the new lechi4jx.zip below the original. I
included all of the above (OK, you didn't ask for the last two, but I
put'm in anyway...).

Paul, I've been meaning to raise the issue of horizontal non-unison
springs again for some time. Do you remember discussing them last
October? They would help even out melodic steps without completely
negating the benefits of COFT grounding. You seemed very opposed (your
exact words were, "I'm failing to see any possible justification").
Yet I've heard you say many times since then that you value even melodic
steps in a scale. I can't seem to reconcile these two halves.

JdL

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

> Paul, I've been meaning to raise the issue of horizontal non-unison
> springs again for some time. Do you remember discussing them last
> October? They would help even out melodic steps

How would they do that?

without completely
> negating the benefits of COFT grounding. You seemed very opposed
(your
> exact words were, "I'm failing to see any possible justification").

Boy I'm a real schmuck.

> Yet I've heard you say many times since then that you value even
melodic
> steps in a scale. I can't seem to reconcile these two halves.

Please help me understand how horizontal non-unison springs will help
even out the melodic steps.

[I wrote:]
>>Paul, I've been meaning to raise the issue of horizontal non-unison
>>springs again for some time. Do you remember discussing them last
>>October? They would help even out melodic steps

[Paul E:]
>How would they do that?

They would be sprung between successive notes of a melody, probably
with 12-tET ideal values. They'd be weak, so that if there are strong
harmonic considerations to the contrary, they'd be largely overridden,
but in a chromatic glissando, for example, they'd largely even things
out.

[JdL:]
>>without completely negating the benefits of COFT grounding. You
>>seemed very opposed (your exact words were, "I'm failing to see any
>>possible justification").

[Paul:]
>Boy I'm a real schmuck.

? Not what I meant to imply, or was there an implicit smiley after
that?

[JdL:]
>>Yet I've heard you say many times since then that you value even
>>melodic steps in a scale. I can't seem to reconcile these two halves.

[Paul:]
>Please help me understand how horizontal non-unison springs will help
even out the melodic steps.

Not for the first time, one of us is saying something that seems _so_
clear (to him), yet is not coming across. Dang, we all need come kind
of direct brain connection; communication is just too difficult as it
stands! I hear uneven steps most strongly in the Gershwin 7-limit, and
others have commented about it as well. If a melodic step is a whole
tone, it makes sense to me to put a weak spring across it at 200 cents.
Etc.

Am I being clearer?

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> >>Paul, I've been meaning to raise the issue of horizontal non-
unison
> >>springs again for some time. Do you remember discussing them last
> >>October? They would help even out melodic steps
>
> [Paul E:]
> >How would they do that?
>
> They would be sprung between successive notes of a melody, probably
> with 12-tET ideal values.

Oh -- I had recalled JI values. Now it's making sense. I'd turn this
off for music before Mozart, though.
>
> [Paul:]
> >Boy I'm a real schmuck.
>
> ? Not what I meant to imply, or was there an implicit smiley after
> that?

No, it's true, I'm a schmuck.

John deLaubenfels wrote:

> You realize, of course, that by liking 7-limit tunings of music this
> old, you are officially a "bad boy" ;->

Oh, boy! It's official! No more Opie Taylor epithets thrown at me.

Actually, I think Baroque music uses a lot of intervals that were intended by the composers to be
7-limit consonances. Bach and Handel, particularly. There are a few in late Renaissance and
Classical (strictly speaking) period music , too. But Baroque seems more replete with them, to
me. I think it's always been agreed that Romantic music has many of them, right?

> I've been meaning to add velocity compression (and other mapping
> options) to my software. But I also need a "real" sequencing program
> and don't want to re-invent that wheel. What do you use and recommend?

I don't have experience with too many of them. In Windows and DOS I'm currently using the
extremely inexpensive, but somewhat clunky, Power Tracks Pro. Logic and Cakewalk both have very
good reputations and large market share.

Most any commercial one will offer some way to compress velocities. It's usually done by a two
step process: 1) reduce the velocities by a *percentage*, 2) increase them by a correspondingly
appropriate *amount*. People who use audio gear will recognize those as the Ratio and Gain knobs,
respectively, on an audio compressor. For instance, if your highest velocity is 127 (the max) and
you want to compress 2:1, reduce them all by 50% then add back 64. That returns your highest one
to 127 and raises the others half way between where they were and 127. I found that 33% + 42
worked well for the Bach with my particular synth. Different units respond differently.

> >The Chopin is nice, too. It has its moments. I think Paul is right
> >about the step sizes in the chromatic passages. This music was really
> >made for a nearly equal tuning, IMO. The Bach is more adaptable.
>
> Interesting; I'm not hearing that in this piece, but I'm sure you both
> are. Perhaps this music would best be grounded to 12-tET rather than to
> COFT.
>
> David, Paul, I'll do up another zip if either of you are not burned
> out on this piece. It could include
>
> . Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to COFT
> . Tuning file free ("true" 5-limit), grounded to 12-tET
> . 5-limit (16/9 target), grounded to 12-tET
> . 7-limit, grounded to 12-tET
>
> or some subset. I'm assuming no one is objecting to the use of fairly
> soft vertical springs? Rigidifying them would exacerbate the uneven
> step sizes.

Softer is probably going to be better for me. I don't know about 12t-ET vs. COFT. I have a
feeling I'd like it best in a mild, Victorian type temperament. Wouldn't that be nearly
accomplished by using a COFT with extremely soft springs?

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

[I wrote:]
>>>>Paul, I've been meaning to raise the issue of horizontal non-unison
>>>>springs again for some time. Do you remember discussing them last
>>>>October? They would help even out melodic steps

[Paul E:]
>>>How would they do that?

[JdL:]
>>They would be sprung between successive notes of a melody, probably
>>with 12-tET ideal values.

[Paul E:]
>Oh -- I had recalled JI values. Now it's making sense.

My fault, as it turns out: I went back and read my original posts on
the subject, and I brain-farted and said "JI" when I meant "even".

>I'd turn this off for music before Mozart, though.

Well... I'll give it an input coefficient that can be set to zero, but
Mozart has melodic runs, even if not chromatic; I think a bit of
pressure to even out the steps would be a good thing. We'll see! Oops,
you said _before_ Mozart - maybe makes sense.

JdL

[I wrote:]
>>I'm assuming no one is objecting to the use of fairly soft vertical
>>springs? Rigidifying them would exacerbate the uneven step sizes.

[David Finnamore:]
>Softer is probably going to be better for me. I don't know about
>12t-ET vs. COFT. I have a feeling I'd like it best in a mild,
>Victorian type temperament. Wouldn't that be nearly accomplished by
>using a COFT with extremely soft springs?

No, the tunings calculated by COFT are independent of the vertical
spring coefficient, because there are no factors BUT vertical used in
the calculation - am I saying this clearly? This particular piece
happens to have quite extreme COFT values (meaning, lots of deviation
from 12-tET and good pain recovery on paper) for 19th century music,
but at a real price when the piece goes into chromatic runs.

Thanks, David, for the sequencer software recommendations!

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> My fault, as it turns out: I went back and read my original posts on
> the subject, and I brain-farted and said "JI" when I meant "even".

No wonder I was being such a schmuck!
>
> >I'd turn this off for music before Mozart, though.
>
> Well... I'll give it an input coefficient that can be set to zero,
but
> Mozart has melodic runs, even if not chromatic; I think a bit of
> pressure to even out the steps would be a good thing.

Yes . . . but should they be evened out toward 12-tET, or toward some
form of meantone?

--- In tuning@y..., "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22324.html#22355
>
> The Chopin is nice, too. It has its moments. I think Paul is
right about the step sizes in the
> chromatic passages. This music was really made for a nearly equal
tuning, IMO. The Bach is more
> adaptable.

There was an interesting article that appeared on this list probably
a year ago or so about how "modern" Chopin was in it's use of 12-tET,
and the "beauty" of equal steps in chromatic passages...

One wouldn't necessarily think of Chopin as *modern* but surely he
was, as most composers are ( :)) at the time...

Paul Erlich... do you remember what this article was about again??

Thanks!

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

[Paul E wrote:]
>>>I'd turn this [horizontal non-unison springs] off for music before
>>>Mozart, though.

[I wrote:]
>>Well... I'll give it an input coefficient that can be set to zero, but
>>Mozart has melodic runs, even if not chromatic; I think a bit of
>>pressure to even out the steps would be a good thing.

[Paul:]
>Yes . . . but should they be evened out toward 12-tET, or toward some
>form of meantone?

I've got it! I'll let the size of each melodic step (half step and
whole step done independently) adjust itself for the sequence, as long
as each target value is constant throughout the piece. From the
standpoint of relaxing the matrix, it'll be no more difficult than
letting the grounding points move, which I'm already doing. Let's call
these "melodic springs", letting the term "horizontal springs" refer, as
before, only to horizontal unison springs. There'll still be vertical
and grounding springs, of course.

For the moment, I do not plan to wire up melodic springs for steps other
than a semitone or wholetone; larger intervals, to my ear, have less
urgency about consistent melodic step. Others could be added later, if
it seemed desirable.

Melodic springs will be involved in the COFT calculation, along with
vertical springs.

Figuring out the placement and strength of melodic springs is going to
be a bit tricky. Suppose note C sounds, then D, but C remains sounding.
Is that melodic motion? Perhaps weakly, but if C stops as D starts,
there is more of a melodic sensation, I believe.

This might take a while: I've got a big deadline coming up in my "real"
job...

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> I've got it! . . .

Sounds good! You should leave these new "melodic springs" as an option . . . since the results
without them are already so wonderful in their own way. In fact, I would think of a different name,
since the potential for confusion with horizontal springs is going to come back and haunt us . . . I
guarantee.

[Paul E:]
>Sounds good! You should leave these new "melodic springs" as an
>option . . . since the results without them are already so wonderful
>in their own way.

Thanks much. It'll always be an option, don't worry. The program as
it stands has 16 input strength coefficients plus at least half a dozen
on/off flags. Most of those I always default nowadays, or else I'd be
lost in an impossible array of possibilities, if that makes sense.

>In fact, I would think of a different name, since the potential for
>confusion with horizontal springs is going to come back and haunt
>us . . . I guarantee.

Mmmm, I'm not real happy either. The name melody spring seems clear
enough, but the original so-called "horizontal" springs might be better
labeled "unison" springs, perhaps. Any thoughts? I'd like to have
names with one word each, if feasible.

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_22324.html#22598

>
> Mmmm, I'm not real happy either. The name melody spring seems
clear enough, but the original so-called "horizontal" springs might
be better labeled "unison" springs, perhaps. Any thoughts? I'd like
to have names with one word each, if feasible.
>
> JdL

Could you call the horizontal melody ones "elastics??"

________ _____ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

[I wrote:]
>>Mmmm, I'm not real happy either. The name melody spring seems
>>clear enough, but the original so-called "horizontal" springs might
>>be better labeled "unison" springs, perhaps. Any thoughts? I'd like
>>to have names with one word each, if feasible.

[Joseph Pehrson wrote:]
>Could you call the horizontal melody ones "elastics??"

Yes, but that term could be applied to _all_ springs of all types. Any
other ideas? The full set as it now stands:

. vertical (pairs of non-unison notes sounding simultaneously).

. horizontal (actually, horizontal unison: successive instances of
the same pitch class).

. grounding (pull toward consistent tuning for each note of a given
pitch class).

. melody (actually, horizontal non-unison: successive instances of
different pitch classes).

Or, if the old "horizontal" becomes "unison", they'd be vertical,
unison, grounding, and melody.

JdL

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
>
> Or, if the old "horizontal" becomes "unison", they'd be vertical,
> unison, grounding, and melody.
>
How about "vertical", "horizontal unison", "grounding", and "step-
regularizing"?

[I wrote:]
>>Or, if the old "horizontal" becomes "unison", they'd be vertical,
>>unison, grounding, and melody.

[Paul E:]
>How about "vertical", "horizontal unison", "grounding", and "step-
>regularizing"?

Yeah, if suitable one-word descriptions can't be found. Do you think
that "step-regularizing" is clearer than "melodic"?

JdL

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

> Yeah, if suitable one-word descriptions can't be found. Do you
think
> that "step-regularizing" is clearer than "melodic"?
>
Of course . . . melodic really means horizontal.