Re: miracle collaboration

Dave Keenan wrote,

<<so far it's only theory. We could use some more collaboration from
composers or performers.>>

Unlike some here on the list, I think scale construction is
interesting in and of itself...

I think it can be quite an artful pursuit.

Others seem to see its ambitions as essentially "competitive" (in the
scale X beats scale Y because __________ sense).

Others seem to see it as fundamentally non-musical.

Well variety's nice, right!

Anyway, if the blank in the above "scale X beats scale Y" sense is
consonance -- in the sense of extending the tonal 4:5:6 paradigm to
include higher harmonics such as Paul Erlich's seven limit 4:5:6:7
decatonic and the current miracle scale's eleven limit 4:5:6:7:9:11 --
then I think a huge chasm exists that could use some attention.

Namely practical hands on strategies that would go about expanding
common tonal practices to actively include these identities.

This is a real no-man's land, especially at the 11-limit.

Other than the occasional tentative takes on the 4:5:6:7 as an
extension of the 4:5:6, none of the composers/musicians work that I
know of on this list comes from this angle (please correct me if I'm
wrong). But this is exactly the angle that the scales of Paul Erlich
and Dave Keenan are designed to theoretically best facilitate.

So how about some shop talk and miscellaneous gossip from the angle of
how to expand tonality. With out this (and that's a pretty big this I
think), these scales are not headed in their intended direction.

I find this approach interesting (expanding simple tonal practice to
structurally include higher harmonics in some symbiotic "raumkunst"
sense), but more or less unrelated to what I do musically. But from
those who see these scales as "miraculous", I would love to hear some
of the structural musical how-to. Because with the theoretical scales
in place, there seems to be a real need for some higher identity music
theory to go along with them.

just some thoughts,

--Dan Stearns

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22433

> ...
>
> Anyway, if the blank in the above "scale X beats scale Y" sense
> is consonance -- in the sense of extending the tonal 4:5:6
> paradigm to include higher harmonics such as Paul Erlich's
> seven limit 4:5:6:7 decatonic and the current miracle scale's
> eleven limit 4:5:6:7:9:11 -- then I think a huge chasm exists
> that could use some attention.
>
> Namely practical hands on strategies that would go about
> expanding common tonal practices to actively include these
> identities.
>
> This is a real no-man's land, especially at the 11-limit.

Wow, Dan, you've made such a perceptive observation in
this post! And I agree.

One of the few good examples of this that I can think of
is Partch's "3 Observations" on "The Question of Resolution".

Expanding Partch's theory to 19-limit, about 11 years ago
I made a book which contained every resolution within the
19-limit tonality diamond, following Partch's observations.
There was a single resolution on each page, giving a
progression of two complete decads. The pitches are lined
up vertically more-or-less according to pitch-height.

(I'm willing to sell copies of this, soon as I can afford
to make some, to anyone who's interested. Paul wanted one
a while back.)

This is something I definitely intend to add into my
JustMusic software. You simply specify the "root" and
o- or u-tonality of each of the two (or more, actually)
chords, and JustMusic would calculate the possible
resolutions according the Partch's observation, and show
them graphically on the screen.

The only other examples of theory like this which I can
think of are the few analyses of Partch's compositions
that exist (like the Hackbarth dissertation mentioned
yesterday), and David Doty's recent Microfest presentation.

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

"D.Stearns" wrote:

> Unlike some here on the list, I think scale construction is
> interesting in and of itself...
>
> I think it can be quite an artful pursuit.
>
> Others seem to see its ambitions as essentially "competitive" (in the
> scale X beats scale Y because __________ sense).
>
> Others seem to see it as fundamentally non-musical.
>
> Well variety's nice, right!
>
> Anyway, if the blank in the above "scale X beats scale Y" sense is
> consonance -- in the sense of extending the tonal 4:5:6 paradigm to
> include higher harmonics such as Paul Erlich's seven limit 4:5:6:7
> decatonic and the current miracle scale's eleven limit 4:5:6:7:9:11 --
> then I think a huge chasm exists that could use some attention.
>
> Namely practical hands on strategies that would go about expanding
> common tonal practices to actively include these identities.
>
> This is a real no-man's land, especially at the 11-limit.
>
> Other than the occasional tentative takes on the 4:5:6:7 as an
> extension of the 4:5:6, none of the composers/musicians work that I
> know of on this list comes from this angle (please correct me if I'm
> wrong). But this is exactly the angle that the scales of Paul Erlich
> and Dave Keenan are designed to theoretically best facilitate.
>
> So how about some shop talk and miscellaneous gossip from the angle of
> how to expand tonality. With out this (and that's a pretty big this I
> think), these scales are not headed in their intended direction.
>
> I find this approach interesting (expanding simple tonal practice to
> structurally include higher harmonics in some symbiotic "raumkunst"
> sense), but more or less unrelated to what I do musically. But from
> those who see these scales as "miraculous", I would love to hear some
> of the structural musical how-to. Because with the theoretical scales
> in place, there seems to be a real need for some higher identity music
> theory to go along with them.
>
> just some thoughts,
>
> --Dan Stearns
>
>
> Very stimulating, Dan. I mentioned this some time ago, namely, that more thought and inevitably,
> writing, of both theory and music, will be needed before we have at least an outline of some of
> the more artful methods of creating lasting higher identity music. Then of course it will be
> suggested that simple tonal practice and its theory are decadent and that an entirely new
> paradigm is to be sought out.

My own view is that there are invariables in good music, even in good noise/music, and that these
are structural pertaining to form. Pitch selection is only one of these variables, albeit an
important one. Having said that there is a psychoacoustic consideration to take into account with
the use of higher identities. This concerns the speed or rather the tempo at which we can take in
and process harmonic information. A lot of Western tonal music that I know of chunders along at
fast tempos and modulates as it goes, hinting at the 5 limit most of the time for both melody and
harmony and the 7 limit at cadential points for harmony only. No problems for the listener, the
more exotic cadences adding more tension before release. 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. Or do we vote democrat and liberate 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.

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.) 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.

On a lighter note, lots of university ne'er- do -wells would either have to re-train or work for a
living : - ) and orchestras and audiences wouldn't have to dress up in silly 19th century clothes
and put on affectations. Hopefully opera as we know it would wither and die releasing millions for
meaningful music making.

Some more thoughts...

Best Wishes

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
>
> So how about some shop talk and miscellaneous gossip from the angle
of
> how to expand tonality. With out this (and that's a pretty big this
I
> think), these scales are not headed in their intended direction.

Though I'm in favor of what you're suggesting, I don't see this as
necessary. One can simply write beautiful non-functional
progressions, riding along the tetrads and hexanies, or harmonizing
the various scalar subsets, without any particular goal. Think of the
state of 5-limit music in the pre-tonal era. As time goes on,
composers may find functionality and tonality emerging, whether it be
in ways anticipated by theorists or not.

Anyway, I'll look in more detail at the Blackjack scale soon.

Paul!
Even with Hexanies it is possible to set up a tonality by repeated stress and point of rest on
a particular pitch or triad. Analogous to what Prokofiev did with tonality bringing distant
relations to the forefront.

PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM wrote:

> Though I'm in favor of what you're suggesting, I don't see this as
> necessary. One can simply write beautiful non-functional
> progressions, riding along the tetrads and hexanies, or harmonizing
> the various scalar subsets, without any particular goal.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22433

>
> So how about some shop talk and miscellaneous gossip from the angle
of how to expand tonality. With out this (and that's a pretty big
this I think), these scales are not headed in their intended
direction.
>
> I find this approach interesting (expanding simple tonal practice to
> structurally include higher harmonics in some symbiotic "raumkunst"
> sense), but more or less unrelated to what I do musically. But from
> those who see these scales as "miraculous", I would love to hear
some of the structural musical how-to. Because with the theoretical
scales in place, there seems to be a real need for some higher
identity music theory to go along with them.
>
> just some thoughts,
>
> --Dan Stearns

OK... then how about some rudimentary chord progressions for
miracle21 in "72-tET ese..." from somebody...

That WOULD be interesting...

_______ _______ ____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22443

>
> The only other examples of theory like this which I can
> think of are the few analyses of Partch's compositions
> that exist (like the Hackbarth dissertation mentioned
> yesterday), and David Doty's recent Microfest presentation.
>

Well, this kind of theory is, of course, VERY important. Just as
many of us have studied traditional harmony thoroughly
before "progressing" (ha, ha) to extended chromaticism in 12-tET, so
should be thoroughly study "traditional" chord progressions
emphasizing the 7-limit (and 11-limit?) possibilities of miracle21...

It would be an essential part of "ear training" and coupled with the
already proven system of 72-tET could be a new path.

After all, wasn't 12-tET "discovered" by many such collaborations and
experiments in the same way as we are now investigating NEW
possibilities.

Does anyone know the exact HISTORY of the discovery process of 12-
tET?? History is at least something that we should EVENTUALLY be
able to trace something about.... )??)

_________ _______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22445

>
> 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.

But, by there nature, 7 and 11 *ARE* extensions of existing
structures through the overtone series, right (??)

So we really don't have to throw "traditional theory" entirely out
the window, but could build on it... since it has evolved to delimit
the 3-limit (Medieval, Renaissance) and 5-limit (Baroque,
Classical)...

So we go further with more "extended" chordal structures, right, and
different practices, just as Pythagorean evolved into Meantone ??)

We didn't get rid of the "perfect fifth" as a fundamental in THAT
process, did we?? It just became used differently... as I understand
it...

yes/no/screwey?

____________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22466

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> >
> > So how about some shop talk and miscellaneous gossip from the
angle
> of
> > how to expand tonality. With out this (and that's a pretty big
this
> I
> > think), these scales are not headed in their intended direction.
>
> Though I'm in favor of what you're suggesting, I don't see this as
> necessary. One can simply write beautiful non-functional
> progressions, riding along the tetrads and hexanies, or harmonizing
> the various scalar subsets, without any particular goal. Think of
the
> state of 5-limit music in the pre-tonal era. As time goes on,
> composers may find functionality and tonality emerging, whether it
be
> in ways anticipated by theorists or not.
>
> Anyway, I'll look in more detail at the Blackjack scale soon.

Hmmmm. Paul makes an excellent point here. Maybe we should "forget"
about theoretical progressions and just DO IT.

_________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22445
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> But, by there nature, 7 and 11 *ARE* extensions of existing
> structures through the overtone series, right (??)

Only if you subordinate them to 3 and 5 against a tonic or drone. Why not have a whole piece that
doesn't go near the 3 and 5 but uses minimalistic and other techniques to bring out the absolute
beauties of 7 and 11? As I said though you might be thinking homophonically a lot of the time but
I seem to remember that you have a penchant for solo instrument compositions.

>
> So we really don't have to throw "traditional theory" entirely out
> the window, but could build on it... since it has evolved to delimit
> the 3-limit (Medieval, Renaissance) and 5-limit (Baroque,
> Classical)...

Yes, if that's what butters your scone. Personally I would like to take this approach with singers
and possibly instrumentalists of non fixed pitch instruments who would need a reasonably familiar
grounding, gradually letting them find the 7 and 11 tones and harmonies as a composition develops,
a sort of training compositional approach.

>
> So we go further with more "extended" chordal structures, right, and
> different practices, just as Pythagorean evolved into Meantone ??)

Taking the broader picture, yes, I agree that historically 7 and 11 are next in line. Partch
believed this. It just seems to be taking a heck of a long time. It's up to us I suppose.

>
>
> We didn't get rid of the "perfect fifth" as a fundamental in THAT
> process, did we?? It just became used differently... as I understand
> it...

I wonder how serialism fits in here. A major group of composers doing everything inder the sun to
come up with 12 and other tone rows that avoided triadic structures like the plague.

>
>
> yes/no/screwey?
>

I'm thinking radically here Joe, in the sense of the hexany and eikosany compositions from
Anaphoria and from Erv Wilson's work, which as I understand, seem to allow a revolutionary break
with common practice tonal structures yet allow consonant architecture. I'm also thinking of the
LaMonte Young pieces and installations which have continuously sounding higher prime structures
with no reference to our comfortable rest points such as fifths and cadences. Dave Beardsley also
had a beautiful electronic ambient piece that seemed to me to exist in its own '17th harmonic'
space without much external familiar reference points.

I don't necessarily attach a value judgement to any of this, meaning I don't think that the new
stuff will be better than the old but personally I prefer to explore the infinite unexplored
possiblities of the new.

I was pleased to here that you are talking in terms of devoting a lot of time to one or two
tunings. I think that this approach suits certain artistic temperaments ( no pun intended) but I
also think that it would allow for deeper exploration of the chosen tonal resources which is
really the only way to develop a meaningful style of composition. Do one thing well and the next
gets better sort of approach.

After I've got some music and scores up on my allocated webpages which I've been trying to do for
months I'm going to have to unsubscribe for a bit soon (heartbroken shall I be) to get on with
understanding the resources of the new 72 subsets and related ideas such as notation. Then I have
to build some instruments and write for them and train and conduct the players. Like somebody
said, there's enough sh*t on the list already to last a lifetime's composition.

Best Wishes

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22443
>
> >
> > The only other examples of theory like this which I can
> > think of are the few analyses of Partch's compositions
> > that exist (like the Hackbarth dissertation mentioned
> > yesterday), and David Doty's recent Microfest presentation.

What about my decatonic theory in 22-tET?

> After all, wasn't 12-tET "discovered" by many such collaborations
and
> experiments in the same way as we are now investigating NEW
> possibilities.

I don't know . . . 12-tET was always very close to the scales
actually being used . . . this is quite different.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22445
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> But, by there nature, 7 and 11 *ARE* extensions of existing
> structures through the overtone series, right (??)
>
> So we really don't have to throw "traditional theory" entirely out
> the window, but could build on it... since it has evolved to
delimit
> the 3-limit (Medieval, Renaissance) and 5-limit (Baroque,
> Classical)...

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree . . . see my paper _Tuning,
Tonality, and Twenty-Two-Tone Temperament_.
>
> So we go further with more "extended" chordal structures, right,
and
> different practices, just as Pythagorean evolved into Meantone ??)
>
> We didn't get rid of the "perfect fifth" as a fundamental in THAT
> process, did we?? It just became used differently... as I
understand
> it...
>
> yes/no/screwey?

Well, what happened there, Joseph, is the fortunate coincidence that
the diatonic scale of the Pythagorean era _already had within it_ the
structures for lots of 5-limit triads, that just needed to
be "tweaked" tuning-wise. Unfortunately, the diatonic scale does not
lend itself to 7-limit tetrads, etc. That's why I created the
decatonic scales -- they're very diatonic-like in structure and the
ability to support "tonal" function, but the 7-limit tetrads can act
as the basic consonant structures. Hopefully you'll all get to hear
that in action on the broadcast on the 18th . . .

In any case, I don't want to dissuade you from such an "extensional"
approach . . . in 31-tET, for example, that may be the only
compelling way to get ratios of 7 and 11 into the picture . . . it's
up to the next century of composers to work through all this and see
where it leads.

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22654

> OK... then how about some rudimentary chord progressions
> for miracle21 in "72-tET ese..." from somebody...
>
> That WOULD be interesting...

Here ya go, Joe...

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

/tuning/topicId_22135.html#22552

In Graham's "decimal" notation:

> 4-7^-0v-2
> 2-5^-8-0
> 0-3^-6-8^
> 8^-1^-4-6^
> 6^-9-2-4
> 3-6^-9-1
> 7^-0v-3-5
> 4-7^-0v-2
>
> All 7-limit tetrads, all sharing a note with adjacent chords,
> ends up where it started. I think it involves a 2400:2401 pump,
> but the lattice doesn't make that obvious. All the consonances
> are there. On your lattice,
>
> F<-Av-C<-D>
> D>-Gb}-A>-C
> C-E{-G-Bb<
> Bb<-Db-F<-G>
> G>-Bv-D>-F<
> Ev-G>-Bb-Db}
> Av-C<-Ev-F#{
> F<-Av-C<-D>

(The second note in the fourth chord, Db, and the third note
in the sixth chord, Bb, are errors. They should be Dv and Bv,
respectively. Compare the decimal and 72-EDO lattices Graham
posted.)

Here's the simple translation from Paul's notation to mine,
in Monzo ASCII 72-EDO, reformatted for easier reading:

1. F< : Av : C< : D>

2. D> : Gb+ : A> : C

3. C : E- : G : Bb<

4. Bb< : Dv : F< : G>

5. G> : Bv : D> : F<

6. Ev : G> : Bv : Db+

7. Av : C< : Ev : F#-

8. F< : Av : C< : D>

Here is a pitch-height graph of it, reduced to one "octave",
as is the MIDI-file:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpump.jpg

And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3

I used good voice-leading, just as I was taught in school. :)

Here it is with "midipu's" (MIDI pitch-bend units):

1. F -1365 : A -2048 : C -1365 : D +1365
2. D +1365 : F# +683 : A +1365 : C 0
3. C 0 : E -683 : G 0 : Bb-1365
4. Bb-1365 : D -2048 : F -1365 : G +1365
5. G +1365 : B -2048 : D +1365 : F -1365
6. E -2048 : G +1365 : B -2048 : Db +683
7. A -2048 : C -1365 : E -2048 : F# -683
8. F -1365 : A -2048 : C -1365 : D +1365

In Semitones (to relate it to my graph), that's:

1. 4&2/3 : 8&1/2 : 11&2/3 : 2&1/3
2. 2&1/3 : 6&1/6 : 9&1/3 : 0
3. 0 : 3&5/6 : 7 : 9&2/3
4. 9&2/3 : 1&1/2 : 4&2/3 : 7&1/3
5. 7&1/3 : 10&1/2 : 2&1/3 : 4&2/3
6. 3&1/2 : 7&1/3 : 10&1/2 : 1&1/6
7. 8&1/2 : 11&2/3 : 3&1/2 : 5&5/6
8. 4&2/3 : 8&1/2 : 11&2/3 : 2&1/3

If you're having a hard time seeing what's happening
here on the lattice, a tabulation of the intervals
between chord-members (mod 12) shows right away that
chords 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are otonal ("major") and
chords 5 and 7 are "minor", with the in-between intervals
inverted just as in regular triadic harmony.
This is plainly audible.

(And of course the 8th is simply the 1st again.
I looped the audio file a few times to show this.)

Semitones between chord-members, mod 12:

1. 3 5/6 3 1/6 2 2/3 2 1/3
2. 3 5/6 3 1/6 2 2/3 2 1/3
3. 3 5/6 3 1/6 2 2/3 2 1/3
4. 3 5/6 3 1/6 2 2/3 2 1/3
5. 3 1/6 3 5/6 2 1/3 2 2/3
6. 3 5/6 3 1/6 2 2/3 2 1/3
7. 3 1/6 3 5/6 2 1/3 2 2/3
8. 3 5/6 3 1/6 2 2/3 2 1/3

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

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
>

Awesome! You know what would be really cool, Monz? If you also made a
strict-JI version of this progression. That would drift by 2401:2400
(the Breedsma?) every time you went through it. That's such a small
interval that you might go insane before you noticed the progression
was drifting.

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22676

>
>
> jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., alison.monteith3@w... wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22445
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > But, by there nature, 7 and 11 *ARE* extensions of existing
> > structures through the overtone series, right (??)
>
> Only if you subordinate them to 3 and 5 against a tonic or
> drone. Why not have a whole piece that doesn't go near the
> 3 and 5 but uses minimalistic and other techniques to bring
> out the absolute beauties of 7 and 11?

This is *exactly* what Schoenberg had in mind when he
defended his 12-tone method.

To paraphrase, he said that he could envision a time in
the future when the new resources (exploiting implied
7-, 11-, and 13-based ratios) could be used alongside
the old (3- and 5-based), but for "now" (meaning the 1910s,
1920s and 1930s) he and his students wanted to explore
only the new stuff.

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

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22681

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22443
> >
> > >
> > > The only other examples of theory like this which I can
> > > think of are the few analyses of Partch's compositions
> > > that exist (like the Hackbarth dissertation mentioned
> > > yesterday), and David Doty's recent Microfest presentation.
>
> What about my decatonic theory in 22-tET?

Sorry, Paul... of course I should have included that.

Maybe Yasser's too, but I'm not as familiar with his theory.
For that matter, there's also Haba and Wyschnegradsky.

But all these guys worked in EDOs not necessarily representing
JI (as your paper does), and I was thinking more in terms of
the JI theory.

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

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22687

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> >
> > And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
> >
>
> Awesome! You know what would be really cool, Monz? If you
> also made a strict-JI version of this progression. That would
> drift by 2401:2400 (the Breedsma?) every time you went through
> it. That's such a small interval that you might go insane
> before you noticed the progression was drifting.

No kidding. With a Breedsma at ~0.721197281 cent, the
progression would have to cycle around 30 times (= ~21.63591844
cents) for the drift to be around the size of a syntonic comma!
(= ~21.5062896 cents).

And unless I'm really paying attention, I don't usually
notice *those* drifts!

I don't think it would be worth the trouble to make the
strict-JI version.

Anyway, the main reason I did this was because I still don't
have a MIDI keyboard, so I can't try out this scale like
you other guys. So I wanted to make an audio file of *some*
chord progression, just to get an idea of what the Blackjack
tuning sounds like. And Joe Pehrson was asking...

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

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22676

>
> I'm thinking radically here Joe, in the sense of the hexany and
eikosany compositions from
> Anaphoria and from Erv Wilson's work, which as I understand, seem
to allow a revolutionary break
> with common practice tonal structures yet allow consonant
architecture. I'm also thinking of the
> LaMonte Young pieces and installations which have continuously
sounding higher prime structures
> with no reference to our comfortable rest points such as fifths and
cadences. Dave Beardsley also
> had a beautiful electronic ambient piece that seemed to me to exist
in its own '17th harmonic'
> space without much external familiar reference points.

Hello Alison!

Actually, this is kind of interesting, because my understanding of La
Monte Young's avoidance of, in particular, the 5th partial is, in
certain ways, related to a kind of "conservatism."

Yes, I believe it. In other words, La Monte really puts himself
squarely (although he's not as "square" as most of the rest) in the
company of 20th century "modernists" who also hated the major third.

This is how I read his avoidance of that particular interval...

Any La Monte Young scholars care to contradict me??

____________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22681
>
> > After all, wasn't 12-tET "discovered" by many such collaborations
> and
> > experiments in the same way as we are now investigating NEW
> > possibilities.
>
> I don't know . . . 12-tET was always very close to the scales
> actually being used . . . this is quite different.

But couldn't one say that since 12-tET is embedded in 72-tET that
actually it's just an "expansion" of 12-tET?? particularly since it
really is 7 12-tET chains??

Then 72-tET is STILL close to the scales that we presently use... (??)

____________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22686

>
> Here's the simple translation from Paul's notation to mine,
> in Monzo ASCII 72-EDO, reformatted for easier reading:
>
> 1. F< : Av : C< : D>
>
> 2. D> : Gb+ : A> : C
>
> 3. C : E- : G : Bb<
>
> 4. Bb< : Dv : F< : G>
>
> 5. G> : Bv : D> : F<
>
> 6. Ev : G> : Bv : Db+
>
> 7. Av : C< : Ev : F#-
>
> 8. F< : Av : C< : D>
>
>
> Here is a pitch-height graph of it, reduced to one "octave",
> as is the MIDI-file:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpump.jpg
>
>
> And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
>
> I used good voice-leading, just as I was taught in school. :)
>

OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD!
OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD!

MONZ THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is where I want to go!!!!

(may need a little help in the journey!...)
___________ ________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22686

>
> Here ya go, Joe...
>
> Here's the simple translation from Paul's notation to mine,
> in Monzo ASCII 72-EDO, reformatted for easier reading:
>
> 1. F< : Av : C< : D>
>
> 2. D> : Gb+ : A> : C
>
> 3. C : E- : G : Bb<
>
> 4. Bb< : Dv : F< : G>
>
> 5. G> : Bv : D> : F<
>
> 6. Ev : G> : Bv : Db+
>
> 7. Av : C< : Ev : F#-
>
> 8. F< : Av : C< : D>
>
>
> Here is a pitch-height graph of it, reduced to one "octave",
> as is the MIDI-file:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpump.jpg
>
>
> And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
>
> I used good voice-leading, just as I was taught in school. :)
>

But what I'm not understanding, Monz is that you only show 8 chords
here, and in your mp3 there are several sequences of them.

How are you modulating, again??

Let me be the first student in a class of an ENTIRELY NEW ear
training.

I want HOURS of new ear training. HOURS and HOURS and HOURS and HOURS
and HOURS and HOURS and HOURS and HOURS of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

___________ _______ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#22692

>
> To paraphrase, [Schoenberg] he said that he could envision a time in
> the future when the new resources (exploiting implied
> 7-, 11-, and 13-based ratios) could be used alongside
> the old (3- and 5-based), but for "now" (meaning the 1910s,
> 1920s and 1930s) he and his students wanted to explore
> only the new stuff.
>
>
Yes, and like I say, that's why La Monte Young doesn't like major
thirds. He's a "traditional modernist" in that respect!

__________ _________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#23047

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22686
>
> >
> > And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
> >
> > I used good voice-leading, just as I was taught in school. :)
> >
>
> OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD!
> OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD!
> OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD! OHMYGOD!
>
> MONZ THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This is where I want to go!!!!
>
> (may need a little help in the journey!...)
> ___________ ________ _______ _______
> Joseph Pehrson

So then I take it you liked this? ;-)

Here's some of the help you requested:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/miracle.htm
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/blackjack.htm
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/canasta.htm
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

Note that after devoting some time to analyzing the
possibilities of Blackjack, I decided that Blackjack is
good for mapping to a regular keyboard, but since I'm
purchasing a Ztar, I'm going with Canasta. I have yet
to create some detailed webpages about that.

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

On 5/17/01 9:40 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> But couldn't one say that since 12-tET is embedded in 72-tET that
> actually it's just an "expansion" of 12-tET?? particularly since it
> really is 7 12-tET chains??

I saw a subtle separation in measuring intervals a long time ago,
that actually opens the way to a convenient little math,
as far as seeing how accurate intervals are in temperaments...

Measuring in 1200 notes an octave (or anything else),
I called Absolute Accuracy, or that 1/1200 was an "absolute" cent.
Measuring in 1/100 of a temperament, though,
I called a "relative" cent.
I took an interest in polarity,
that if a frequency is between two notes of *any* equal temperament,
it's exactly 50% off, or 50 relative cents.

(I'll do some card tricks with this deck at a later date.)

In Absolute accuracy, sure. 12 = 72 = 1200 = 1200000000000...
if all you're doing is playing in 12.
In any multiple of a temperament (sort of a theorem),
unless there's a note in the multiple that's actually closer,
looking at a reference tone, harmonic ratios or whatever frequencies,
the Relative accuracy is going to be proportional
to the quotient of the multiple to the factor.

Huh? That looks weird.

In other words, the 3:2 is about 2 cents flat in 12.
It's also 2 cents flat in 24 then, 36, 48. ABSOLUTE cents.
But it's then 4 RELATIVE cents flat in 24, 6 flat in 36, and so on.
In other *numbers*, instead of just saying
2/1200 = 2/1200 = 2/1200 = 2/1200,
Relative cents is saying that 2/1200 = 4/1200 = 6/1200 = 8/1200,
which I'd have to argue against myself and say
"it looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other."
But it's a little more than commutative semantics.

The idea though is that the fifth is half as *strong* in 24.
It's only half as cyclable.
Strong might not be a "strong" enough word.
But there's a certain sense of polarity there.

As soon as you touch a note in 72, you're out of 12 and in 72.
So on the level of context that you're expecting to hear 72,
the raw probability of hearing a 12 interval is 1/6 as likely.

If you've ever played a 17 *and* a 34 guitar,
you can hear because of the fretting they sound nothing alike.
and the idea of even playing cycles of 4ths in 34
doesn't sound half as good as it does in 17.
Bad pun, actually it *does* sound EXACTLY half as good...
I've choked on my own logic.
Shoot the duck.

I'm speaking from ABSOLUTE experience,
but since I'm RELATIVE-ly new to the tuning list...
I just wanted to throw that absolute/relative bit in here somewhere.
I'm sure there's a lot more to actual 72 composition
that might even involve some kind of sliding, warping 12 structure.

The harmonic convergence ascensions
seem like a distant cousin to this whole Miracle thing anyway...
But it actually thrives on finding temperaments
with less relative cents inaccuracies.

Anon-of-us

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

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#23048

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22686
>
>
> > And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
>
>
> But what I'm not understanding, Monz is that you only show 8 chords
> here, and in your mp3 there are several sequences of them.
>
> How are you modulating, again??

I looped it so that it plays 3 times thru the cycle.

It's kind of hard to tell when it comes back to the
beginning because Graham devised such a clever "pump"
progression here. Just follow what you hear with what
I wrote in the chart, and realize that it goes back to
the beginning twice.

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

On 5/18/01 12:23 AM, "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@orphonsoul.com> wrote:

> In other *numbers*, instead of just saying
> 2/1200 = 2/1200 = 2/1200 = 2/1200,
> Relative cents is saying that 2/1200 = 4/1200 = 6/1200 = 8/1200,

Addam you idiot.
You mean 2/1200 = 4/2400 = 6/3600 = 8/4800.

You know who :-P

On 5/18/01 1:15 AM, "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@orphonsoul.com> wrote:

>> In other *numbers*, instead of just saying
>> 2/1200 = 2/1200 = 2/1200 = 2/1200,
>> Relative cents is saying that 2/1200 = 4/1200 = 6/1200 = 8/1200,
>
> Addam you idiot.
> You mean 2/1200 = 4/2400 = 6/3600 = 8/4800.
>
> You know who :-P

Fine Peter.
Argue with me over the internet.
I know where you live buddy...

Alright I'll admit I'm glad you caught that in time.
Seems the local folk have a tolerance for typos, don't you think.

Ad

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#23073

>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#23048
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22686
> >
> >
> > > And for your listening enjoyment, here's my mp3 of it:
> > > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/breedpmp.mp3
> >
> >
> > But what I'm not understanding, Monz is that you only show 8
chords
> > here, and in your mp3 there are several sequences of them.
> >
> > How are you modulating, again??
>
>
> I looped it so that it plays 3 times thru the cycle.
>
> It's kind of hard to tell when it comes back to the
> beginning because Graham devised such a clever "pump"
> progression here. Just follow what you hear with what
> I wrote in the chart, and realize that it goes back to
> the beginning twice.
>
>
> -monz
> http://www.monz.org
> "All roads lead to n^0"

Ha! That's what I mean about "ear training!" Lots of work ahead!

_________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#22681
> >
> > > After all, wasn't 12-tET "discovered" by many such
collaborations
> > and
> > > experiments in the same way as we are now investigating NEW
> > > possibilities.
> >
> > I don't know . . . 12-tET was always very close to the scales
> > actually being used . . . this is quite different.
>
> But couldn't one say that since 12-tET is embedded in 72-tET that
> actually it's just an "expansion" of 12-tET?? particularly since it
> really is 7 12-tET chains??

6 of them.
>
> Then 72-tET is STILL close to the scales that we presently use...
(??)

You could say that, I won't try to debate that. But my point was
about the MIRACLE scales, not about 72-tET.

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#23071
>
> Here's some of the help you requested:
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/miracle.htm
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/blackjack.htm
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/canasta.htm
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
>
> Note that after devoting some time to analyzing the
> possibilities of Blackjack, I decided that Blackjack is
> good for mapping to a regular keyboard, but since I'm
> purchasing a Ztar, I'm going with Canasta. I have yet
> to create some detailed webpages about that.
>

I'm hoping you do, since I think we can convince several composers
going into microtonality to go this route through 72-tET... These
could be some of the most "important" pages you do...

Thanks again!

________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22433.html#23072

>
> Measuring in 1200 notes an octave (or anything else),
> I called Absolute Accuracy, or that 1/1200 was an "absolute" cent.
> Measuring in 1/100 of a temperament, though,
> I called a "relative" cent.

Quite frankly, Marc, I'm having some problems with this, since
a "cent" is so clearly defined as 1/100 of a tempered step of 12-tET.

I think you might be looking for a different term than an "elastic"
cent?? That's kind of like taking a meter and then having "relative"
meters... (??)

>
> As soon as you touch a note in 72, you're out of 12 and in 72.
> So on the level of context that you're expecting to hear 72,
> the raw probability of hearing a 12 interval is 1/6 as likely.
>

I don't see how this is necessarily true. In fact, we have shown
with the "blackjack" scale that a "subset" of 72 has it's OWN
properties... One could play 12-tET in 72 without any untoward
expectations until quite a bit along in the initial "exposition" of
the scale.... (??)

>>
> I'm speaking from ABSOLUTE experience,
> but since I'm RELATIVE-ly new to the tuning list...
> I just wanted to throw that absolute/relative bit in here somewhere.

Regarding a unit of measurement, I would say the term is misplaced...
(??)

> I'm sure there's a lot more to actual 72 composition
> that might even involve some kind of sliding, warping 12 structure.
>

I don't believe this was ever inferred in the discussion.... (??)

_________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

On 5/20/01 6:41 PM, "jpehrson@rcn.com" <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., "Orphon Soul, Inc." <tuning@o...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_22433.html#23072
>
>>
>> Measuring in 1200 notes an octave (or anything else),
>> I called Absolute Accuracy, or that 1/1200 was an "absolute" cent.
>> Measuring in 1/100 of a temperament, though,
>> I called a "relative" cent.
>
> Quite frankly, Marc, I'm having some problems with this, since
> a "cent" is so clearly defined as 1/100 of a tempered step of 12-tET.
>
> I think you might be looking for a different term than an "elastic"
> cent?? That's kind of like taking a meter and then having "relative"
> meters... (??)

Actually it came from trying to name a mathematical principle
I haven't actually demonstrated the use of.
I'll try to post one later tonight.

>> As soon as you touch a note in 72, you're out of 12 and in 72.
>> So on the level of context that you're expecting to hear 72,
>> the raw probability of hearing a 12 interval is 1/6 as likely.
>>
>
> I don't see how this is necessarily true. In fact, we have shown
> with the "blackjack" scale that a "subset" of 72 has it's OWN
> properties... One could play 12-tET in 72 without any untoward
> expectations until quite a bit along in the initial "exposition" of
> the scale.... (??)

>> I'm sure there's a lot more to actual 72 composition
>> that might even involve some kind of sliding, warping 12 structure.
>>
>
> I don't believe this was ever inferred in the discussion.... (??)

Ehh just guessing by some things I've heard so far.
I'm saying I don't know how people tend to actually use 72 in composition.