Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning 72-EDO ground for adaptive retuning?

[Monz wrote:]
>Would it be possible or make any sense to use 72-EDO as your
>ground?

>Is it absolutely necessary to use a 12-tone scale as a ground,
>the way your software currently works?

I've toyed with tuning other EDO's ever since joining the list. It
would require a fair amount of modification to my program, but nothing
undoable. So far, a dearth of sequences sourced in anything but 12-tET
has reduced the pressure to follow through, compared to other
enhancements.

72-EDO would not require any tuning files; the intervals to be targeted
in JI are immediately clear from the 72-EDO interval. Well, at least
where the interval makes any JI sense; otherwise it could be left as-is,
with very weak vertical springs (even zero-strength). So in that sense,
it'd be "easy".

But, what about the comma pump? C-A-D-G-C, and variants. The drift of
72-EDO makes it unappealing to me. I'm aware that there is a huge body
of music that never has the problem, but so far the music I like does.
That makes me less motivated to support it. Some day, though...

(If some musically minded rich person waved bucks in my face and I could
quit my day-job, I could get _very_ motivated ;-> ).

JdL

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_22538.html#22546

> But, what about the comma pump? C-A-D-G-C, and variants.
> The drift of 72-EDO makes it unappealing to me. I'm aware
> that there is a huge body of music that never has the problem,
> but so far the music I like does. That makes me less motivated
> to support it. Some day, though...

I suppose that commatic alterations in pitch simply don't
bother me as much as they bother some other people. I know
that Paul and I feel strongly different about this. So
and Paul agree, and I disagree with you both.

I'm willing to accept little surprise comma shifts, like
those in my fourth and, especially, second examples here:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

(About halfway down the page. "Starred chords" refers to
the two chords marked with asterisks in the musical example
near the top of the page. Read all four of my examples to
understand what's going on.)

(John, I realize you know about this already... the page
has four of your examples in adaptive tuning! That's for
newbies.)

To my ears, there's nothing at all objectionable about
the second example. In fact I prefer that one above all
the others which keep all vertical sonorities "in tune".

(Each of the examples which have dissonant chords are cool
in their various unique ways, too. I could imagine every
one of them serving an expressive purpose.

Hmmm... it would be a great idea to incorporate this
progression as the refrain in a song, using a different
variant each time around, with words fitted to the musical
expression. Hey, Mr. Broadway [Jacky], take me up on this!)

So, anyway, for me it seems that a grounding in 72-EDO would
be a nearly perfect solution for retuning any 12-EDO file into
an 11-limit nearly-JI version.

Seems like this would also be a good way of finding WAFSO-just
temperaments as well as COFTs which do not deviate much from
the adaptive-JI solution. (consult Dictionary if necessary)
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/wafso.htm
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/coft.htm

>
> (If some musically minded rich person waved bucks in my face
> and I could quit my day-job, I could get _very_ motivated ;-> ).

At *least* a double AMEN!!!

If his happened to me, JustMusic is all I'd work on until it's
finished! (Then I'd have the tool I'm itching for, and could
get back to heavy composing.)

Any rich people out there interested?...

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

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

> > [Monz wrote:]
> > >Would it be possible or make any sense to use 72-EDO as your
> > >ground?

Hi Monz. I wonder if you may be misunderstanding the role of grounding in John's system.

Firstly, the grounding can only have as many notes as are specified in the input file. The MIDI
sequences John has been retuning start with only 12 notes per octave, specified using MIDI
note numbers. So for these sequences it wouldn't be possible to use a grounding tuning with
more than 12 notes per octave.

I suggested to John that if the score (for a work of common-practice or Renaissance music)
distinguishes, say, G# from Ab, then he should ground them separately, using as many notes in
the grounding tuning (which will typically be meantone or meantone-like) as notated by the
composer. Of course, as he's working from MIDI files, not scores, he doesn't have access to this
notation information -- one would have to input the pieces in a different formatted.

But you're referring to using 72-tET, a tuning which distinguishes comma differences, as a
ground. Before one did that, one would need to go into the piece and make the (usually
arbitrary) decision of where to put how many comma shifts, which whole tones are 9:8 and which
are 10:9, etc., in order to make definite which note in the score is to be grounded to which 72-tET
pitch. Of course, once you've gone through that process, you've pretty much got a JI version of
the piece already, so what's the point in adaptively tuning it? On the other hand, if you want to
use adaptive tuning to eliminate comma drifts and shifts, and perhaps to even out the melodic
whole tones, then quantifying to 72-tET would be shooting yourself in the foot.

Now, Monz, let's say for the moment that there's not one other person on earth who, like me,
would ever be disturbed by 10 to 22 cent shifts in the pitch of a note. Still, why would you want
to have the full-comma pitch shifts rather than not having them? John deLaubenfels can achieve
vertical JI to any desired degree of accuracy with his current methods, whether grounding to
12-tET or to a 12-tone COFT (or larger COFTs for enharmonic distinctions as in a possible
future score-input-based version). As an additional effect, the full-comma shifts (or any shifts of
10 cents or more) are eliminated. You've pointed out a case where your ears don't mind when
the full-comma shift is there. But do your ears complain when it isn't there? In other words, what
I'm asking is, why would you _want_ the full-comma shifts if there's no advantage, nothing to
gain, in having them there?

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_22538.html#22596

>
> > [Monz wrote:]
> > Would it be possible or make any sense to use 72-EDO as
> > your ground?
>
> Hi Monz. I wonder if you may be misunderstanding the role
> of grounding in John's system.
>
> Firstly, the grounding can only have as many notes as are
> specified in the input file.
> <snip>

Hi Paul, and thanks for explaining this. I did misunderstand
a little of it, and you've made it crystal-clear.

Yes, I agree that adaptive methods which distribute the
comma generally sound better than any tuning which leaves
it bare and exposed. Then again, on occasion a composer
might very well find reason to use those commatic shifts.

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

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

[I wrote:]
>>But, what about the comma pump? C-A-D-G-C, and variants.
>>The drift of 72-EDO makes it unappealing to me. I'm aware
>>that there is a huge body of music that never has the problem,
>>but so far the music I like does. That makes me less motivated
>>to support it. Some day, though...

[Monz wrote:]
>I suppose that commatic alterations in pitch simply don't
>bother me as much as they bother some other people. I know
>that Paul and I feel strongly different about this. So [you]
>and Paul agree, and I disagree with you both.

I don't know what to say about my ear. I spent years stretching it to
accept lots of retuning motion, when running my NeXT's real-time
adaptive program. Now, with springs in the leisure retuning program,
I'm able to whittle down retuning motion, and I find myself growing more
sensitive to it! I do like the idea of distributing out motion where
possible.

>I'm willing to accept little surprise comma shifts, like
>those in my fourth and, especially, second examples here:

>http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

Kyool. It does certainly depend upon the piece.

I'm writing this Sunday, after you and Paul have discussed other points
in your post. It sounds like the rest is clear.

I do want to work again on my (so far feeble) attempt to transform an
input sequence with only 12 pitch classes into one with more, if
appropriate, in order to increase the number of grounding points. I
have some new ideas about how to approach the problem, but they're
unfortunately computationally intensive and also not that quick to
program. *sigh*...

JdL