Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Gee, did I miss a fight somewhere ?

Ummm, theres nothing to keep anyone from discussing
practical music making on this list. We have had
recent posts regarding

homemade instruments,
a recent plea for a discussion of what
a higher limit theory of harmony might
be or at least a chord progression
some concrete information on getting
MIRACLE up and running on composers
home work areas
people announcing compositions they've
placed on the web (and discussions
about those compositions)
the very practical aspect of notations
for microtonal music

There has also been a wealth of other practical
information regarding computer music tools
(CSOUND, FTS, JdL's work)...

And there has been MIRACLE, which may (or may
not) be a holy grail of sorts. The music will
decide. I have tried, but don't really follow
it. I have no idea why 31EDO, which seems
to have the same basic identitys as MIRACLE
( 3*best_16/15 = best_11/9,
2*best_16/15 = best_8/7 )
is not miraculous, but since I'm getting a
31tet guitar, I won't be ready for the
differences for quite awhile.

There are other threads that I ignore more than
MIRACLE, and some I've hoped would blossom more
than they did, (I wish some smart folks had
chimed in with more regarding a higher limit
theory of harmony. Someone commented on
tabulating all the dyadic resolutions and I'll
bet most members of this list have attempted
or wanted to attempt a similar excercise, so,
please make that data available).

Sorry to rant, but when I see another group
starting up, I become a little incensed. There
is NOTHING preventing 'practical music making'
posts in this forum and on some level, all the
posts that are here can lead to someones
practical music making.

I don't think there really is a 'tuning police'
here, but everyone should be sceptical on this
forum of any means of specifying pitch which
is either greater precision a reasonable ear
will care about (what is reasonable can be
debated) and/or greater precision than
technology can realize. If someone wrote a
percussion part and specified a section
in a part as being in the following tuplet

|--------------- 256 -----------|
85 notes 86 notes 85 notes
tied tied tied

one would really wonder whether the specific
differences from a triplet were really
perceivable.

Now maybe these things were important to the
composer to get the piece written. That is a
practical aspect which should not be ignored
similar to "is 407c a sharp 5/4, a 14/11, a
19/15 or a 81/80". It can be any or all of
those things to how the composer is thinking
about it, and hopefully those will influence
the composer to produce interesting, novel
and different works. On the other hand, a
requirement for a trill between 81/80 and
19/15 is probably... <sigh>

Regarding the upper limit chord theory
question, I started an answer based on the
fact that seventh chords have become an
acceptable consonance in twentieth century
tonal music. I wrote out a three voice
triadic harmonization of 'Autumn Leaves'
which is

ii V I IV full cadence to vi

and then a three voice jazz renderring

G F# F# E E D# E
C C B B A A G
A D G C F# B E

where seventh chords are generally
consonant. However, I don't believe
eventh chords imply 7-limit in Western
music, so this line of pursuit failed...

Is there a non-drone, non-blues theory
of 7-limit that describes a body of
music? I suspect that some of the
meantone theory dealing with augmented
intervals would be as close to a place
to start as any. I don't think a
similar extension even to 9 occurs.

Beats me, rant over, keep composing and
theorizing out there.

Bob Valentine

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> I have no idea why 31EDO, which seems
> to have the same basic identitys as MIRACLE
> ( 3*best_16/15 = best_11/9,
> 2*best_16/15 = best_8/7 )
> is not miraculous, but since I'm getting a
> 31tet guitar, I won't be ready for the
> differences for quite awhile.

31-EDO is "borderline miraculous" in the same way 12-tET is
borderline meantone. Yes it has the same identities but with far
greater deviations from just. Max 11-limit error of 11 cents in 31-EDO
versus 3.4 cents in MIRACLE (one third of the error!). This can happen
because it is not a closed cycle, but a chain. The price is a
relatively small number of 11-limit "wolves". The trick was finding
the right generator for the chain.

Or looking at it another way. Folks have known for some time that
72-EDO is quasi-just at the 11-limit (and wafso-just at the 7-limit),
but 72 is just too many notes. We just found a really good answer to
the question:

"How do we choose more manageable sized subsets of 72-EDO to give us
the maximum number of 11-limit (or 7-limit) consonances with
reasonably even pitch spacing."

The answer is:

Use chains of 7/72-of-an-octave generators.

> There
> is NOTHING preventing 'practical music making'
> posts in this forum and on some level, all the
> posts that are here can lead to someones
> practical music making.

I agree.

But I guess people are getting snowed under by the MIRACLE explosion.

Should we start a miracle-tuning group?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

On 5/14/01 3:53 AM, "Robert C Valentine" <BVAL@IIL.INTEL.COM> wrote:

> Ummm, theres nothing to keep anyone from discussing
> practical music making on this list. We have had
> recent posts regarding [...]

Set Theory is coming back to me for a moment... ooh.

You'd think maybe on a newslist called [Stuff]
if someone announced starting a list called [Interesting Stuff]
that they probably don't consider the stuff on [Stuff] interesting?

Then maybe an announcement on a newslist called [Tuning]
that a list called [Practical Microtonality] is starting
would suggest that the Microtonality discussed in [Tuning]
isn't practical?

Or maybe that a motto of "Keep[ing] it real"
might suggest that the first place isn't being kept real?

I think We picked up on that connotation,
but it seemed like a friendly enough invitation.
Rhyme maybe unintentional.
Might use it in a lyric though...

I had a girlfriend once,
asked me what I thought of her new dress.
I said I thought she looked great in it.
She said "why didn't you ever tell me I'm ugly". I stared.
"If I look good in this dress
then I must look pretty bad without it huh."

Semantics, eh? I don't know...

Jerome & Jeremy
or somewhere in between

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

Robert Valentine wrote:

> And there has been MIRACLE, which may (or may
> not) be a holy grail of sorts. The music will
> decide. I have tried, but don't really follow
> it. I have no idea why 31EDO, which seems
> to have the same basic identitys as MIRACLE
> ( 3*best_16/15 = best_11/9,
> 2*best_16/15 = best_8/7 )
> is not miraculous, but since I'm getting a
> 31tet guitar, I won't be ready for the
> differences for quite awhile.

I think the Miracle tuning is the classic example of the value of a
broad list. On a high-level theory list, Joseph Pehrson probably
wouldn't have been there to ask the questions that got it going. Once
the discovery was made, we very quickly got musicians looking at it.
I know there was a deluge of e-mails, but you'll have to forgive us
that, the worst should be over by now.

> There are other threads that I ignore more than
> MIRACLE, and some I've hoped would blossom more
> than they did, (I wish some smart folks had
> chimed in with more regarding a higher limit
> theory of harmony. Someone commented on
> tabulating all the dyadic resolutions and I'll
> bet most members of this list have attempted
> or wanted to attempt a similar excercise, so,
> please make that data available).

It's something I've thought about, but it's somewhat peripheral to
what we've been discussing lately. Some of the previous discussions
on neo-Gothic music do relate to this.

> Sorry to rant, but when I see another group
> starting up, I become a little incensed. There
> is NOTHING preventing 'practical music making'
> posts in this forum and on some level, all the
> posts that are here can lead to someones
> practical music making.

I was very disappointed to see it. Everything had been going so well
up to that point. Whenever the list gets introspective, the quality
of discussion takes a nose-dive, and the number of posts goes up.
Let's not get into that again.

> Regarding the upper limit chord theory
> question, I started an answer based on the
> fact that seventh chords have become an
> acceptable consonance in twentieth century
> tonal music. I wrote out a three voice
> triadic harmonization of 'Autumn Leaves'
> which is
>
> ii V I IV full cadence to vi
>
> and then a three voice jazz renderring
>
> G F# F# E E D# E
> C C B B A A G
> A D G C F# B E
>
> where seventh chords are generally
> consonant. However, I don't believe
> eventh chords imply 7-limit in Western
> music, so this line of pursuit failed...

In some cases it might work. As well as using 7-limit seventh chords,
you can use 9-limit triads where 5-limit would have been written. And
diminished triads can always be made 7-limit. The objective should be
to provide 8:7 supertones and 21:21 semitones in the melody, which
give more definite progressions than 10:9 and 16:15. Also, 6:7:9
subminor triads give a more otonal, and sometimes stable, sound than
10:12:15. 14:18:21 supermajor triads can be used where a major triad
would function as a dissonance. Progression by wolf-fourths in the
bass should be avoided, at least in a diatonic context.

> Is there a non-drone, non-blues theory
> of 7-limit that describes a body of
> music? I suspect that some of the
> meantone theory dealing with augmented
> intervals would be as close to a place
> to start as any. I don't think a
> similar extension even to 9 occurs.

I don't know about "theory of music" but a lot of the same ideas would
occur. Like resolving dissonances on to consonances, and stepwise
descending resolution. I think 7-limit intervals can be admitted as
consonances, the 11-identity remain useful dissonances. 9 depends on
context. A lot of counterpoint can be moves straight across.
Vicentino's 5-limit chords with (implicit) 11-limit melody is also
worth a look.

Another idea: getting the right inversions is more important as the
limit rises.

I was getting somewhere with the neutral third scales. The
characteristic dissonances are Bv-F, D-Av and D-F (which is a 6:5
approximation in meantone-like scales, but dissonant in 41 and 72).
That leaves C-Ev-G as the obvious tonic and Bv-D-F-Av the obvious
chord to resolve onto it. Bv-D-F could also resolve to Av-C-Ev and
D-F-Av to Ev-G-Bb. These same progressions could be played in Miracle
tuning, but the sense of a neutral triad being stable, and defining
the neutral third scale, would be lost.

> Beats me, rant over, keep composing and
> theorizing out there.

The important theory will come when people get hands-on experience of
the tuning. So far, I've found that a 7:9:11 approximation works well
resolving downwards to a 5-limit chord. I'm sure there's lots of
stuff like this waiting to be discovered. And load of chords that
only work in the temperament, like neutral triads and the 0-3-5-8
chord.

Graham

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22726.html#22726

> ... (... Someone commented on
> tabulating all the dyadic resolutions and I'll
> bet most members of this list have attempted
> or wanted to attempt a similar excercise, so,
> please make that data available).

That was me, Bob. I made a book containing all
the two-chord resolutions possible in the
19-odd-limit Tonality Diamond. Each of the two
chords is a 10-note decad, with identities
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19. The
resolutions follow Partch's Oberservation about
Field of Attraction; I disregarded his admonition
and regarded it as a "rule" of harmonic resolution.

Including all the otonalites and utonalities
there are 19 x 20 = 380 resolutions, and so with
one resolution per page, 380 pages. I never
numbered them.

I could make copies of this on demand for whoever
wants one. By my calculation $50 should cover
my costs and labor. If interested, send me a
private email.

---

Now to the next matter:

> ... I wrote out a three voice
> triadic harmonization of 'Autumn Leaves'
> which is
>
> ii V I IV full cadence to vi
>
> and then a three voice jazz renderring
>
> G F# F# E E D# E
> C C B B A A G
> A D G C F# B E
>
> where seventh chords are generally
> consonant. However, I don't believe
> [s]eventh chords imply 7-limit in Western
> music, so this line of pursuit failed...

I'd be interested to know why and how this "failed".

I made a webpage of this:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/autumn-leaves.htm

Included is an mp3 of the first phrase of the tune,
first in 12-EDO and then in Blackjack 21-of-72-EDO,
which can be downloaded separately from:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/autumnlv.mp3

The Semitone values of the Blackjack notes I chose
are as follows:

19 18&1/6 17&5/6 15&5/6 15&1/2 14&2/3 15&5/6
12 12 10&5/6 10&1/2 8&1/2 8&1/2 7
9&1/3 2&1/3 7 0 5&5/6 -1&1/6 3&5/6

I should have used a Blackjack scale where G = 0, but
I didn't realize that until after I had done it, so C = 0.

Something pretty strange is happening between the C-major-7
and F#-minor-7 chords. I tried several different Blackjack
tunings for the notes in these chords, because there was
a shift at the F#-minor that didn't sound good, so I tried
to smooth it out by changing some of the pitches in C-major.

I settled on the ones here by ear. The C chord has almost
exactly the integer proportions 6:11:15 and is a sound I like,
but the microtonal movement between these two chords sounds
a little off.

I don't have an instrument that can be tuned this way
and did it strictly "by eye", using the graphs that can
be seen on the webpage.

If I had a keyboard tuned to the Blackjack scale I could
play around with the tune a little more and probably come
up with harmonies that sound a little smoother.

But even with this defect, I still feel that the Blackjack
version is much more expressive than the bland 12-EDO version,
and I prefer it.

===============================================

In the correct orientation, where G=0, the Semitone values
of the pitches I used above would transpose into
the following:

24 23&1/6 22&5/6 20&1/2 20&1/2 19&2/3 20&5/6
17 17 15&5/6 15&1/2 13&1/2 13&1/2 12
14&1/3 7&1/3 12 5 10&5/6 4&1/6 8&5/6

Note, however, that if the Blackjack scale originated
on G, it would not have all of these pitches, so some
of them would have to be adjusted.

Thanks, Bob, for inspiring me to create a little bit
of practical music-making in the Blackjack scale!

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

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_22726.html#22731

> [re Bob Valentine's arrangement of _Autumn Leaves_]
>
> In some cases it might work. As well as using 7-limit
> seventh chords, you can use 9-limit triads where 5-limit
> would have been written. And diminished triads can always
> be made 7-limit. The objective should be to provide 8:7
> supertones and 21:21 semitones in the melody, which give
> more definite progressions than 10:9 and 16:15.

There's an error here: you meant "21:20 semitones".

> ... Also, 6:7:9 subminor triads give a more otonal, and
> sometimes stable, sound than 10:12:15. 14:18:21 supermajor
> triads can be used where a major triad would function as a
> dissonance. Progression by wolf-fourths in the bass should
> be avoided, at least in a diatonic context.

Well, Graham, I made a Blackjack-tuned version of this
which you can read about in
/tuning/topicId_22726.html#22737

I know for sure that I followed some "rules of harmonic
progression" as I looked at the pitches on a graph and
tried to decide how to retune it. But I could only put
it into the computer and then listen... no way to play it
in real-time. And I didn't sit down and do a paper analysis
of it which could have made use of the kinds of suggestions
you make above. But even with some very strange melodic
movement, I still like it.

> I was getting somewhere with the neutral third scales.
> The characteristic dissonances are Bv-F, D-Av and D-F
> (which is a 6:5 approximation in meantone-like scales,
> but dissonant in 41 and 72). That leaves C-Ev-G as the
> obvious tonic and Bv-D-F-Av the obvious chord to resolve
> onto it. Bv-D-F could also resolve to Av-C-Ev and D-F-Av
> to Ev-G-Bb. These same progressions could be played in
> Miracle tuning, but the sense of a neutral triad being
> stable, and defining the neutral third scale, would be lost.

In the chords of my retuning of _Autumn Leaves_ which I
specifically point out as "problematic", the C-major to
F#-minor, I used neutral "3rds" and "7ths".

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

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Bob,

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> Ummm, theres nothing to keep anyone from discussing
> practical music making on this list.

If one were to do a statistical analysis on posts from the last two
months where the subject matter was making music (or directly related
in a pragmatic way) versus theoretical postings (i.e. the MIRACLE
thread, etc), I don't think anyone would be surprised by the complete
lopsided nature.

One very valuable lesson that I have learned (from this list) is the
importance in finding value in information that has nothing to do
with me or my interests, and learning that lesson has allowed me to
watch all this go by with a lot more patience, and an occasional
perusal. Nonetheless, the digests come in, some days two or three or
four, and I scroll through all the messages looking for something of
musical interest to me instead of logarithmic calculations. Very,
very limited of recent times, and that only reflects my particular
bias.

> Sorry to rant, but when I see another group
> starting up, I become a little incensed.

Why? Just let it happen.

> There is NOTHING preventing 'practical music making'
> posts in this forum and on some level, all the
> posts that are here can lead to someones
> practical music making.

Look, if the vast majority of posts is NOT what someone wants to read
about, then it makes perfectly good sense to find a home where the
S/N ratio is more in line with their needs. It can get disheartening
to scroll through digest after digest looking for those few posts
directly related to the practical side.

Let those that want a separate list go there -- probably in addition -
- and find what they want. It doesn't diminish the work being done
here, but also points up that, whether you acknowledge it or not,
there is a segment of the audience that has either not been served,
or is being steamrollered by an avalanch of research when all they
want to do is get on with music making.

Cheers,
Jon (who wishes he was posting from his 'spell-checking enabled'
email program...)

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> I have no idea why 31EDO, which seems
> to have the same basic identitys as MIRACLE
> ( 3*best_16/15 = best_11/9,
> 2*best_16/15 = best_8/7 )
> is not miraculous,

The only reason is that the deviations from JI are much larger. Kraig
Grady has said he doesn't like some of 31-tET's intervals, such as
the 10:9 and 9:8, which are conflated. Personally, I'm not as much of
a JI guy, so I'll probably be happy with my 31-tET guitar myself. But
Joseph wanted to stay closer to JI, so started the discussions which
led to MIRACLE.

> Is there a non-drone, non-blues theory
> of 7-limit that describes a body of
> music?

My paper _Tuning, Tonality, and Twenty-Two-Tone Temperament_ provides
a theory of 7-limit tonality. So far there's only a small body of
music for it (some of which you might hear on the 18th!).

> I suspect that some of the
> meantone theory dealing with augmented
> intervals would be as close to a place
> to start as any.

That's another approach, which is why I got the 31-tone guitar. But
it's going to be pretty hard to make coherent compositional use of
all the 7s in 31.

> I don't think a
> similar extension even to 9 occurs.

Hmm?

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_22726.html#23384

> How was it then, however, that the example of the quasi "pop" tune
> that Monzo put into 21 Miracle came out so well... That WAS Monzo
> who did that, right...?? (so many posts!)
>
> ________ ________ _______
> Joseph Pehrson

Yep... I did a Blackjack version mp3 of Bob Valentine's
arrangement of the first part of _Autumn Leaves_:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/autumn-leaves.htm

I'm really glad you liked it, Joe. Paul was kind enough
to email me privately to tell me that he thought it sounded
"like !@#$%". He preferred the 12-tET version (which comes
first on my mp3).

I responded to him that I was kind of playing Devil's Advocate
on my webpage when I said how much I liked it, because I
really think it could be better too... in Canasta. I still
like the variety of intervals better than the blandness of
the 12-tET version, but some of it does sound a little "out
of tune" to my ears.

But anyway, if you like it, enjoying listening!

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

Gee, did I miss a fight somewhere ?

🔗Robert C Valentine <BVAL@IIL.INTEL.COM>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Orphon Soul, Inc. <tuning@orphonsoul.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗paul@stretch-music.com

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>