Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Herman Miller's warped canons

I really *love* Herman Miller's warped Pachelbel (did someone say
Taco-Bell?) canons.

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

About the only way to hear the Pachelbel these days is "twisted" and
Herman does a great job of it. However, I agree with him that many
of these come out pretty nicely, REGARDLESS of the tuning...

By the way, how was this done again?? Are the approximations the
closest pitch in any given tuning to a basic 12-tET canon?? Or was
there some "liberty" with this, fudging, etc.... I didn't see any
such commentary on the page...

I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??

Among the "warped" variants, my favorites, by the way, was 7-tET,
which still sounds nicely like the canon, but appreciably "sick..."
What fun.

The "gussied" up 5-tET (especially... it shouldn't be missed) and 8-
tET are particular "standouts." Herman gives these particular
tunings a "helping hand" in orchestration... an important point, by
the way... since register and orchestration do a *lot*, not
surprisingly.

At the moment I "canon" think of more fun...

________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jstarret@carbon.cudenver.edu

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., jstarret@c... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#24987

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
> > WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
> > yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??
> <snip>
> > ________ ________ _______
> > Joseph Pehrson
>
> Joseph-
> I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V has no ii chord, so there is no comma to
> distribute in JI. 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 supports all
these chords in their simplest form.
>
> John Starrett

Thanks, John... I believe you.

BUT, what I really need to do right now, obviously, is review the
great COMMA PUMP page that Monz put up some time ago.

Remember that MONZ?? Is it still up someplace, I'd like to look at
it again. (I believe I had downloaded it with the MIDI files, but
that was before my hard drive crash!)

Thanks!

________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:21:10 -0000, jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:

>By the way, how was this done again?? Are the approximations the
>closest pitch in any given tuning to a basic 12-tET canon?? Or was
>there some "liberty" with this, fudging, etc.... I didn't see any
>such commentary on the page...

Graham Breed's Midiconv program has a handy feature that allows you to
describe a tuning based on a given set of intervals. For instance, here's
the tuning file I used for the 15-TET version (only 8 of the 12 pitches are
actually used in the canon):

! 12 from 15TET
coords 3
octave 1.0
fifth 0.6
third 0.333333333
notes 12
0 0 0 0 ! C
1 -2 3 1 ! C#
2 -1 2 0 ! D
3 2 -3 0 ! Eb
4 0 0 1 ! E
5 1 -1 0 ! F
6 -1 2 1 ! F#
7 0 1 0 ! G
8 -2 4 1 ! G#
9 1 -1 1 ! A
10 2 -2 0 ! Bb
11 0 1 1 ! B
12 1 0 0 ! C

Note that it's based on C, since I transposed down to C before doing the
conversion and back up to D afterwards. (My first attempt didn't include
this transposition, so some of the retuned versions sounded sharper and
others flatter, which made it harder to compare the different tunings.) For
the other tunings, the only part that changes is the definition of the
octave, fifth, and third, which is a big time-saver. The trickiest part is
deciding what notes to use for the fifth and the third. For instance:

! 12 from Bohlen-Pierce
coords 3
octave 1.584962501
fifth 0.847996906
third 0.485426827

Choosing 5/3 for the "third" and 7/3 for the "fifth" (for a 3:5:7 triad)
might seem to be a reasonable choice, but the way the harmony progresses,
it works better with the 5:7:9 triad.

>I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
>WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
>yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??

B-->F# C#

C G<->D-->A E
\---->

Note there are no common tones between V (A-C#-E) and vi (B-D-F#) or
between iii (F#-A-C#) and IV (G-B-D).

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

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

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 7:58 PM
> Subject: [tuning] MONZ pump page (??)
>
>
> BUT, what I really need to do right now, obviously, is review the
> great COMMA PUMP page that Monz put up some time ago.
>
> Remember that MONZ?? Is it still up someplace, I'd like to look at
> it again. (I believe I had downloaded it with the MIDI files, but
> that was before my hard drive crash!)

I don't really think of the progression illustrated as a
"comma pump", because it's really a modulation, if we're
referring to the same webpage:

_An Examination of Fox-Strangways and Partch on JI modulation_:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm

I never made a page illustrating the comma pump, did I?...
except for the Blackjack one:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#24994

>
> Graham Breed's Midiconv program has a handy feature that allows you
to describe a tuning based on a given set of intervals. For instance,
here's the tuning file I used for the 15-TET version (only 8 of the
12 pitches are actually used in the canon):
>

Hello Herman "Teamouse" Miller!

I didn't know that Graham Breed had such a program, but now I see it
on his "microtonal programs" page. Maybe it's new... Of course, I'm
familiar with his "Midi Relay" which is a VERY important tool...

I'm not certain I'm fully understanding how this works from what you
presented... but I'm getting an "overview" which is good enough for
now...

What a great canon page!

>
> >I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
> >WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
> >yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??
>
> B-->F# C#
>
> C G<->D-->A E
> \---->
>
> Note there are no common tones between V (A-C#-E) and vi (B-D-F#) or
> between iii (F#-A-C#) and IV (G-B-D).
>

Well, this is a VERY clear diagram. There *is* though a comma being
distributed, no?? Only it's just not by a *common* pitch, but by a
jump to the next tones...(??)

Does one consider a "comma distribution" situation when there is only
a COMMON tone (??)

Paul (??)

________ ______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25005

>
> _An Examination of Fox-Strangways and Partch on JI modulation_:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm
>
>
> I never made a page illustrating the comma pump, did I?...
> except for the Blackjack one:
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
>
>

Hi Monz!

No, these are not the pages. What I'm thinking about happened about
a year ago. We did a I-iv-ii-V-I (exciting) progression in various
tunings, and you put all the MIDI files up. It was to illustrate
various "comma pumps." I'm sure Paul Erlich can remember this, since
it was proven that he could quickly memorize the telephone book...

Not to be critical, Monz... but this is one of the *big* problems I
have with all your pages! These great pages keep getting "lost" in
cyberspace.

May I gently suggest that you have a BIG INDEX of EVERY Monz page
someplace ON ONE PAGE, and add to the index... If you could group
them by general category that would be best.

You've got some of the best tuning stuff on the Web, and it's a shame
to relegate it to obscurity!!!

Thanks!

Joe

_________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:39 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: MONZ pump page (??)
>

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24981.html#25005
>
> >
> > _An Examination of Fox-Strangways and Partch on JI modulation_:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/partch/fs/jimod.htm
> >
> >
> > I never made a page illustrating the comma pump, did I?...
> > except for the Blackjack one:
> > http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> >
> >
>
> Hi Monz!
>
> No, these are not the pages. What I'm thinking about happened about
> a year ago. We did a I-iv-ii-V-I (exciting) progression in various
> tunings, and you put all the MIDI files up. It was to illustrate
> various "comma pumps." I'm sure Paul Erlich can remember this, since
> it was proven that he could quickly memorize the telephone book...

OK, Joe, then you *must* be referring to
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm

But this progression is not a pump!! There's no ii chord!

>
> Not to be critical, Monz... but this is one of the *big* problems I
> have with all your pages! These great pages keep getting "lost" in
> cyberspace.
>
> May I gently suggest that you have a BIG INDEX of EVERY Monz page
> someplace ON ONE PAGE, and add to the index... If you could group
> them by general category that would be best.
>
> You've got some of the best tuning stuff on the Web, and it's a shame
> to relegate it to obscurity!!!

Thanks, Joe. I know this is a bit of a problem. The site has
grown beyond my ability to keep it organized.

The main page anyone should use to access my webpages is my
List of Works:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/worklist/worklist.htm

I really try hard to include every new webpage I create
(with the exception of Tuning Dictionary entries, which are
implicitly all included under that listing) on this page.

One of these days I hope to get around to adding a search engine.

Perhaps one of my "fans" out there could act like Berg did
for Schoenberg and create a nice comprehensive index for my site.
Hmmm... I need one for my book too... any takers?...

I'm too busy tackling new projects and elaborating old ones
to take the time to index things now, even tho I know I really
should do it.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25019
>
> OK, Joe, then you *must* be referring to
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/td/monzo/i-iv-v7-i/I-IV-V-I.htm
>
> But this progression is not a pump!! There's no ii chord!
>
>

That is correct, and *you* are correct... I kept thinking there
*was* a ii in it. It's simpler than I remember, or rather, maybe
these days *I myself* am a bit more complicated... :)

> Perhaps one of my "fans" out there could act like Berg did
> for Schoenberg and create a nice comprehensive index for my site.
> Hmmm... I need one for my book too... any takers?...
>

Well, Monz, the problem is... we don't even know ABOUT all these
pages, or forget about them. How can we possibly index something we
don't know about??

You would have to go through the HTML FILES on your site and
catalogue them that way... Another person can't do it if we don't
know what's there!!!

________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> By the way, how was this done again?? Are the approximations the
> closest pitch in any given tuning to a basic 12-tET canon?? Or was
> there some "liberty" with this, fudging, etc.... I didn't see any
> such commentary on the page...

He explained all this on the list . . . I guess you haven't been
following too closely.
>
> I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
> WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
> yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??

No, Joseph. You only get a comma pump if the final I is in a
_different_ place on the lattice than the initial I. Lots of chord
progressions will simply take a little tour through the lattice and
end up where they began. It just so happens that _most_ pieces of
Western common-practice music _do_ include progressions that move
around on the lattice, not returning to where they began -- Mathieu's
book is an excellent guide to this phenomenon in the Western "canon"
(oops . . . a pun!)

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> Hi Monz!
>
> No, these are not the pages. What I'm thinking about happened
about
> a year ago. We did a I-iv-ii-V-I (exciting) progression in various
> tunings, and you put all the MIDI files up. It was to illustrate
> various "comma pumps." I'm sure Paul Erlich can remember this,
since
> it was proven that he could quickly memorize the telephone book...

Joseph, I don't recall this. I _do_ recall a set of tunings of I-IV-
V7-I, which can be thought of as a _septimal_ comma pump, if you tune
the V7 to 4:5:6:7. But no _syntonic_ comma pump page, that I recall.

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:01 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: MONZ pump page (??)
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps one of my "fans" out there could act like Berg did
> > for Schoenberg and create a nice comprehensive index for my site.
> > Hmmm... I need one for my book too... any takers?...
> >
>
> Well, Monz, the problem is... we don't even know ABOUT all these
> pages, or forget about them. How can we possibly index something we
> don't know about??
>
> You would have to go through the HTML FILES on your site and
> catalogue them that way... Another person can't do it if we don't
> know what's there!!!

Good point, Joe. Hmmm... maybe I should upload all the "pre-compositional"
sketches for my webpages, too... stuff like Excel spreadsheets... then
if someone really *were* interested in continuing one of my unfinished
projects all the material would be available... hmmm...

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25024

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > By the way, how was this done again?? Are the approximations the
> > closest pitch in any given tuning to a basic 12-tET canon?? Or
was
> > there some "liberty" with this, fudging, etc.... I didn't see any
> > such commentary on the page...
>
> He explained all this on the list . . . I guess you haven't been
> following too closely.
> >

Hi Paul...

Actually, I try to follow things pretty closely. I remember his post
now... I guess the "subject header" about Pachelbel's canon didn't
interest me so much so I "skimmed" it. But I really was wrong, since
the page is *very* interesting!

> > I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
> > WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
> > yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??
>
> No, Joseph. You only get a comma pump if the final I is in a
> _different_ place on the lattice than the initial I. Lots of chord
> progressions will simply take a little tour through the lattice and
> end up where they began. It just so happens that _most_ pieces of
> Western common-practice music _do_ include progressions that move
> around on the lattice, not returning to where they began --
Mathieu's book is an excellent guide to this phenomenon in the
Western "canon" (oops . . . a pun!)

I was going to get that book, but then somebody said I wouldn't get
all that much out of it... So I would like more opinions about the
value of it...

Thanks!

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25026

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > > B-->F# C#
> > >
> > > C G<->D-->A E
> > > \---->
> > >
> > > Note there are no common tones between V (A-C#-E) and vi (B-D-
F#) or between iii (F#-A-C#) and IV (G-B-D).
> > >
> >
> > Well, this is a VERY clear diagram. There *is* though a comma
> being distributed, no??
>
> Where? Each note name appears only once in this lattice . . . there
> are no comma-separated pairs.

But don't you get the sense that the just intervals are taking you to
a slightly different "place" than you would be in 12-tET?? Isn't
there a sense at all that you are moving away from the 12-tET
paradigm??

What are the "arrows" about, then, in Herman's diagram. *Something*
is moving around, isn't it??

Maybe I still need more work on the comma pump concept... although I
*thought* I understood it! (??)

Thanks!

__________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:25 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Herman Miller's warped canons
>
>
> > > I also didn't understand why a I-V-vi-iii-IV-I-IV-V progression
> > > WOULDN'T have a "comma pump." It keeps coming back around to I,
> > > yes?? Doesn't the comma have to be absorbed SOMEWHERE??
> >
> > B-->F# C#
> >
> > C G<->D-->A E
> > \---->
> >
> > Note there are no common tones between V (A-C#-E) and vi (B-D-F#) or
> > between iii (F#-A-C#) and IV (G-B-D).
> >
>
> Well, this is a VERY clear diagram. There *is* though a comma being
> distributed, no?? Only it's just not by a *common* pitch, but by a
> jump to the next tones...(??)
>
> Does one consider a "comma distribution" situation when there is only
> a COMMON tone (??)

Joe, look carefully at the diagram again. There is only one instance
of each pitch-class, therefore there's no comma to be distributed.

The rule for considering comma distribution is not as simply as
just looking for common-tones - you have to look for common-tones
which *are assumed to represent a unison vector on the lattice*.
In other words, you could call them a "xenharmonic bridge" between
two different tunings of a given pitch. Those two pitches would
be instances of a single pitch-class which occurs in chords in
different parts of the lattice.

The fact that there's no E-minor chord in the Pachelbel Canon
means that there is never any question of how to interpret "E".
It's always understood to be a 9:8 above the tonic "D".

If there were an E-minor chord, then there would be times
when that "E" would be interpreted as a 10/9, a 5:4 above "C",
thus causing the need to distrubute the comma difference
between 10/9 and 9/8. But that doesn't happen here.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> I was going to get that book, but then somebody said I wouldn't get
> all that much out of it... So I would like more opinions about the
> value of it...
>
> Thanks!

I think it's a beautiful book, though of course I have a lot
of "disagreements" on various points. It's really meant as
an "alternative" means of teaching Western harmony, from Medieval
through Romantic and beyond, by starting with Just Intonation and
Indian terminology. It's a big, expensive book, so I'd rather see you
get on with microtonal composing and ear-training than
get "sidetracked" on musicology that is really oriented around 12-tET
and traditional tonality when it comes down to it.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25027

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Hi Monz!
> >
> > No, these are not the pages. What I'm thinking about happened
> about
> > a year ago. We did a I-iv-ii-V-I (exciting) progression in
various
> > tunings, and you put all the MIDI files up. It was to illustrate
> > various "comma pumps." I'm sure Paul Erlich can remember this,
> since
> > it was proven that he could quickly memorize the telephone book...
>
> Joseph, I don't recall this. I _do_ recall a set of tunings of I-IV-
> V7-I, which can be thought of as a _septimal_ comma pump, if you
tune the V7 to 4:5:6:7. But no _syntonic_ comma pump page, that I
recall.

I *knew* you would remember this... and, you're right about it... we
were discussing 7th chords with this. I forgot about that. Monz
found the page, I see...

Thanks!

________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

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

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25030

>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <jpehrson@r...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:01 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: MONZ pump page (??)
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps one of my "fans" out there could act like Berg did
> > > for Schoenberg and create a nice comprehensive index for my
site.
> > > Hmmm... I need one for my book too... any takers?...
> > >
> >
> > Well, Monz, the problem is... we don't even know ABOUT all these
> > pages, or forget about them. How can we possibly index something
we
> > don't know about??
> >
> > You would have to go through the HTML FILES on your site and
> > catalogue them that way... Another person can't do it if we
don't
> > know what's there!!!
>
>
> Good point, Joe. Hmmm... maybe I should upload all the "pre-
compositional" sketches for my webpages, too... stuff like Excel
spreadsheets... then if someone really *were* interested in
continuing one of my unfinished projects all the material would be
available... hmmm...
>

Maybe you're thinking that's funny... but actually it might be quite
valuable... Frankly, I believe you're doing *much* more important
work than you realize. You *have* to take ONE DAY and catalogue it!!!

_________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24981.html#25026
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > > > B-->F# C#
> > > >
> > > > C G<->D-->A E
> > > > \---->
> > > >
> > > > Note there are no common tones between V (A-C#-E) and vi (B-D-
> F#) or between iii (F#-A-C#) and IV (G-B-D).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, this is a VERY clear diagram. There *is* though a comma
> > being distributed, no??
> >
> > Where? Each note name appears only once in this lattice . . .
there
> > are no comma-separated pairs.
>
> But don't you get the sense that the just intervals are taking you
to
> a slightly different "place" than you would be in 12-tET??

Sure!

> Isn't
> there a sense at all that you are moving away from the 12-tET
> paradigm??

Absolutely!

> What are the "arrows" about, then, in Herman's diagram.
*Something*
> is moving around, isn't it??

Yup -- the chords change.
>
> Maybe I still need more work on the comma pump concept... although
I
> *thought* I understood it! (??)

You have to see a notated note come up in more than one position in
the lattice for a comma-pump, or a comma-anything, to happen.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25035

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > I was going to get that book, but then somebody said I wouldn't
get
> > all that much out of it... So I would like more opinions about
the
> > value of it...
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> I think it's a beautiful book, though of course I have a lot
> of "disagreements" on various points. It's really meant as
> an "alternative" means of teaching Western harmony, from Medieval
> through Romantic and beyond, by starting with Just Intonation and
> Indian terminology. It's a big, expensive book, so I'd rather see
you get on with microtonal composing and ear-training than
> get "sidetracked" on musicology that is really oriented around 12-
tET and traditional tonality when it comes down to it.

Hmmm. Well that, frankly, really sounds interesting. I wonder why
Graham Breed said I wouldn't get that much out of it... (I remember
who it was now). Maybe it's because I already learned much of this
in school or some such... but an "alternative" sure seems welcome.

You're right, though, for the present I should be involved with other
things... [Any more on this on "Tuning Gossip"...]

_________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:16:36 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

>The pitch bends are doing funny things on my soundcard . . . the
>pitches "waver". This never happened on my soundcard before . . . any
>ideas? John deLaubenfels, would you look at the MIDI file to see if
>anything funny is going on?

I was noticing that on my laptop also -- but the Sound Blaster AWE on my
ancient Windows 95 machine (which is where I do most of my music) doesn't
seem to have this problem. Occasionally there might be one note that
overlaps with another, and gets its pitch bend altered by mistake, but this
sounds more like a built-in glissando effect. Since I'm not using all the
MIDI channels, I probably ought to reserve two channels for each of the
melody lines.

>I think the accordion completely hides the true nature of the JI and
>some other tunings. Did you mean to have an accordion there?
>
>-Paul

Well, it's better than a string section would have been. But it's hard
finding General MIDI voices that sound good together on a sound card AND
don't have much of a vibrato or chorus effect. I could try something like
an alto sax if that would be better.

>The Tempered Bohlen-Pierce version shouldn't be missed (how did you
>map the pitches, Herman?). How about a few similarly twisted
>blackjack versions?

10 4 11 B F# C#
12 6 0 7 1 <= C G D A E

Original Bohlen-Pierce
D 0 (1/1)
E 1 (27/25)
F# 4 (7/5)
G 6 (5/3)
A 7 (9/5)
B 10 (7/3)
C 12 (25/9)
C# 11 (63/25)
D 13 (3/1)

This uses the 5:7:9 triad as the equivalent of the major triad. It just
happens that this works out. Other mappings that preserve the structure of
the scale don't necessarily fit in the BP lattice. Unfortunately, this
results in a lot of dissonant 7:15 intervals showing up....

It would be interesting to see what might fit into the Blackjack lattice --
turning it diagonally instead of using the major triads..... and whether
that might give me some ideas for that Blackjack piece I've been working
on..... (tentative title, "Jack of All Trades")

>The 11-tET version is also well worth listening to. The mapping there?

8 3 9
10 5 0 6 1

Original 11-TET
D 0
E 1
F# 3
G 5
A 6
B 8
C 10
C# 9
D 11

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:

> This uses the 5:7:9 triad as the equivalent of the major triad.

Ah, so it's Kees van Prooijen's "BP Major Scale":
http://www.kees.cc/music/scale13/scale13.html

> It would be interesting to see what might fit into the Blackjack
lattice --
> turning it diagonally instead of using the major triads.....

Can you clarify what you mean by diagonally?

>
> >The 11-tET version is also well worth listening to. The mapping
there?
>
> 8 3 9
> 10 5 0 6 1

Cool.

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

Herman Miller wrote,

<<But it's hard finding General MIDI voices that sound good together
on a sound card AND don't have much of a vibrato or chorus effect.>>

Indeed, and in all honesty I'd have to say that the GM factor makes
this more like a torture test than an enjoyable listening test to me!

I like the idea of what you did very much as well as the way you
presented it with the accompanying levelheaded text, and others
perhaps don't have the same "problems" I have, but I honestly found it
all but unapproachable.

--Dan Stearns

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:34:52 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

>One last thing O Wonderful Herman (from a member of your fan club):
>
>In the just-like tunings, somewhere between 41 and 53, the inequality
>of the whole steps stops bothering me. Could you do a version in 46?
>I'm curious as to how the melodies would sound in 46.

Yes, 46 and 49 look like good candidates, with 46 a bit closer to just. I
put up a 65-TET version today, by the way, and a few other new ones along
with it.

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Herman Miller wrote,
>
> <<But it's hard finding General MIDI voices that sound good together
> on a sound card AND don't have much of a vibrato or chorus effect.>>

Well, the accordion is sort of an _extreme_ chorus effect, wouldn't
you agree?
>
> Indeed, and in all honesty I'd have to say that the GM factor makes
> this more like a torture test than an enjoyable listening test to
me!

Dan -- maybe it's the soundcard you're using? It sounds great on my
Yamaha DS-XG.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25069

> --- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> > Herman Miller wrote,
> >
> > <<But it's hard finding General MIDI voices that sound good
together
> > on a sound card AND don't have much of a vibrato or chorus
effect.>>
>
> Well, the accordion is sort of an _extreme_ chorus effect, wouldn't
> you agree?
> >
> > Indeed, and in all honesty I'd have to say that the GM factor
makes
> > this more like a torture test than an enjoyable listening test to
> me!
>
> Dan -- maybe it's the soundcard you're using? It sounds great on my
> Yamaha DS-XG.

I noticed myself that soundcards made a *big* difference in the
quality of this... after trying it with two of far different
quality...

_________ __________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 04:08:55 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

Maybe it is, on your sound card, but it doesn't sound that bad on the
AWE32. I put up three different versions with the JI tuning on the Warped
Canon page -- with reed organ, alto sax, and trombone replacing the
accordion. (Trumpet would have been more logical than trombone in that
register, but the trombone sounded better on my AWE32.) The version with
the reed organ sounds best to me, although the AWE32's reed organ patch is
a little quieter than the other two voices. I also replaced the marimba
with a harp. Which of the three alternative versions sounds best on your
sound card?

I also changed the voicing on the Bohlen-Pierce versions to use mainly
clarinet sounds, which naturally sound much better!

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:

>Which of the three alternative versions sounds >best on your
> sound card?

I'll let you know when I listen to these tomorrow --
my problem with the accordion was not only that
it obsured the good things about JI, but also that it
obscured the problems with JI!

> I also changed the voicing on the Bohlen-Pierce versions to use mainly
> clarinet sounds, which naturally sound much better!

Brilliant idea! (For those who don't know, this is
because the clarinet timbre is dominated by the
odd harmonics, and BP is based on odd-number
ratios).

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

Thanks, Herman, for including some new variations. The reed organ
works better for me than the accordion. It sounds like a Renaissance
crumhorn or something. The sax and trombone are fine too. Now I can
really hear the JI-ness of the JI version, which is mostly a
wonderful thing, except at a few points -- for example, whenever the
E comes over the G major chord, it sounds dissonant (since it forms a
27/16 with G and a 27/20 with B, rather than the desired 5/3 and 4/3,
respectively), and melodically sharp. That's what I was expecting to
hear, but couldn't because of the accordion! (Can I again praise the
wonderful realistic sounds of the Yamaha DS-XG soundcard? I have no
idea why my office computer is equipped with such a good soundcard!!!)

Could I convince you to ditch the accordion in favor of one of these
timbres for _all_ the examples? I'd like to be able to hear what's
going on with all of them! Let me say, though, that _none_ of the JI
versions ended with a completely beatless chord on my soundcard -- I
guess there's a _very small_ amount of vibrato on many, if not all,
of the sounds . . .

The new blackjack versions are SICK! (That's high praise.) Joseph,
don't you agree? Can't wait to hear them without accordion.

Herman, how about including one or two deLaubenfels-tuned examples --
COFT should be easy, fully adaptive might be too (if John provides
you with the MIDI file).

This is so much fun!

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

I wrote:
>
> >The pitch bends are doing funny things on my soundcard . . . the
> >pitches "waver". This never happened on my soundcard before . . .
any
> >ideas? John deLaubenfels, would you look at the MIDI file to see
if
> >anything funny is going on?
>
Herman wrote,

> I was noticing that on my laptop also -- but the Sound Blaster AWE
on my
> ancient Windows 95 machine (which is where I do most of my music)
doesn't
> seem to have this problem. Occasionally there might be one note that
> overlaps with another, and gets its pitch bend altered by mistake,
but this
> sounds more like a built-in glissando effect. Since I'm not using
all the
> MIDI channels, I probably ought to reserve two channels for each of
the
> melody lines.

I'm hearing the same problem with your 5-equal piece, _Daybreak on
Slendro Mountain _.

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:35 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Herman Miller's warped canons
>
>
> ... I have no idea why my office computer is equipped
> with such a good soundcard!!!)

Why, Paul... it's because *you* sit in front of it!

Really, I'm being serious... the universe works in strange
ways and not all of it is "rational". (intended pun of major
proportions... oops, second pun...)

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Erlich <paul@s...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:35 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: Herman Miller's warped canons
> >
> >
> > ... I have no idea why my office computer is equipped
> > with such a good soundcard!!!)
>
>
> Why, Paul... it's because *you* sit in front of it!
>
> Really, I'm being serious... the universe works in strange
> ways and not all of it is "rational". (intended pun of major
> proportions... oops, second pun...)

Well, why isn't the universe letting me listen to Manfred
Stahnke's "Partch Harp"?

http://members.aol.com/stahnkem/pharp.mov

Is there a free download that will allow me to experience this on my
PC?

Anyway, it's too bad my soundcard has such a realistic accordion
sound that the harmonic differences between most of the different
tunings are completely obsured. But it does make me feel like I'm in
a cafe in Paris or something.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Well, why isn't the universe letting me listen to Manfred
> Stahnke's "Partch Harp"?
>
> http://members.aol.com/stahnkem/pharp.mov

Anything with .mov as an extension is a Quicktime file; could be
a 'movie' (video) or just an audio file. Go to:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/

and you should be able to find everything you need. I'll check out
the stahnke link, but be aware that, like mp3 files, some of these
can be large. It is possible that a click on the link will stream it,
or you could right-click and "save target as" to put it on your hard
drive (which is helpful if the streaming balks).

HTH,
Jon

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Well, why isn't the universe letting me listen to Manfred
> Stahnke's "Partch Harp"?
>
> http://members.aol.com/stahnkem/pharp.mov

That's an audio file in Quicktime format. Go to

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/

if you don't have it installed on your computer. I checked out the
link and it streams, music didn't balk even on a 56k dialup account.

hth,
Jon

P.S. Try changing thread names every so often...

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:35:38 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

>Could I convince you to ditch the accordion in favor of one of these
>timbres for _all_ the examples? I'd like to be able to hear what's
>going on with all of them! Let me say, though, that _none_ of the JI
>versions ended with a completely beatless chord on my soundcard -- I
>guess there's a _very small_ amount of vibrato on many, if not all,
>of the sounds . . .

Yes, probably the oboe has some vibrato, and maybe the clarinet as well.
Also, the tuning resolution of your sound card might not be good enough to
produce beatless JI (and if it's sample-based, the samples might be very
slightly out of tune to begin with).

It'll take some time to go through all the MIDI files and substitute one of
the other sounds for the accordion, which is why I wanted to do the test
first to see if it was worth while doing, but it sounds like it definitely
is.

>Herman, how about including one or two deLaubenfels-tuned examples --
>COFT should be easy, fully adaptive might be too (if John provides
>you with the MIDI file).

Yes, I'd like to hear those.

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

Herman,

Two things here, but first that is an amazing bit of work you've done
(and continue to do), as I have just gone to the page today to check
out all the variations.

First thing is this:

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:35:38 -0000, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> >Let me say, though, that _none_ of the JI versions ended with a
> >completely beatless chord on my soundcard -- I guess there's a
> >_very small_ amount of vibrato on many, if not all, of
> >the sounds . . .

As I understand it, there is a huge amount of variation in the types
of sounds, the samples, and the way waveforms are generated on
soundcards that would make comparative tests or evalutations of tuned
midi files, on multiple computer setups, far less then reliable! The
*only* way I could see this done would be to use a single outboard
sound device (or if there *is* a well-done sound card with good
samples and beatless timbres) and then the output was recorded to an
audio file. And then mp3'd or something.

Then you could compare the tunings on their intrinsic value, and not
this infinite set of variations that come from each and every
soundcard/synth/computer setup.

(I realize this is something you have probably thought about already,
and I've seen some discussion of it. But if Paul is still talking
about it, I don't know what could be done, because even if you fix it
on your system, with certain patches chosen, that doesn't mean it
will have the same results across the board...).

Secondly? Oh, I was just dissapointed that they still sounded like
Pachelbel's "Canon"! <g>

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25160

amount of vibrato on many, if not all, of the sounds . . .
>
> The new blackjack versions are SICK! (That's high praise.) Joseph,
> don't you agree? Can't wait to hear them without accordion.
>

I really enjoyed these, but I was rather surprised that blackjack,
with all it's consonant intervals, sounded so far "out" from the
original canon... Well, I guess the "beating" example sounded more
like the original canon. It seems to be highly predicated upon the
set selection in the case of this scale. Frankly, I don't yet
understand the "decimal" notation for this scale, but I note that
Herman is attempting to explain it to me in a further post...

_______ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_24981.html#25160
>
> amount of vibrato on many, if not all, of the sounds . . .
> >
> > The new blackjack versions are SICK! (That's high praise.) Joseph,
> > don't you agree? Can't wait to hear them without accordion.
> >
>
> I really enjoyed these, but I was rather surprised that blackjack,
> with all it's consonant intervals, sounded so far "out" from the
> original canon... Well, I guess the "beating" example sounded more
> like the original canon. It seems to be highly predicated upon the
> set selection in the case of this scale.

It's highly predicated on the set selection in the case of every scale. It's just that, for most scales,
Herman pretty much went for the best approximation to the 5-limit JI version. In the blackjack
"otonal" version, he mapped the 4:5:6 chords in the original to 4:5:7 chords, which causes
oddities like making C# higher than D and F# higher than G . . . in a way, it's even weirder than
the BP version, in which 2:1s become 3:1s and 4:5:6s are mapped to 5:7:9s, but at least up
remains up and down remains down . . .

Don't you find, though, that the "otonal" blackjack version sounds very consonant, despite its lack
of obvious correspondence with the original?

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24981.html#25249

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_24981.html#25160
> >
> > amount of vibrato on many, if not all, of the sounds . . .
> > >
> > > The new blackjack versions are SICK! (That's high praise.)
Joseph,
> > > don't you agree? Can't wait to hear them without accordion.
> > >
> >
> > I really enjoyed these, but I was rather surprised that
blackjack,
> > with all it's consonant intervals, sounded so far "out" from the
> > original canon... Well, I guess the "beating" example sounded
more
> > like the original canon. It seems to be highly predicated upon
the
> > set selection in the case of this scale.
>
> It's highly predicated on the set selection in the case of every
scale. It's just that, for most scales,
> Herman pretty much went for the best approximation to the 5-limit
JI version. In the blackjack
> "otonal" version, he mapped the 4:5:6 chords in the original to
4:5:7 chords, which causes
> oddities like making C# higher than D and F# higher than G . . . in
a way, it's even weirder than
> the BP version, in which 2:1s become 3:1s and 4:5:6s are mapped to
5:7:9s, but at least up
> remains up and down remains down . . .
>
> Don't you find, though, that the "otonal" blackjack version sounds
very consonant, despite its lack
> of obvious correspondence with the original?

Yes... absolutely, there seems sometimes an incredible "resonance"
that's set up... a real harmonic "coming together" at times that I
don't seem to hear in some of the other scales except some that are
MOST directed to 5-limit consonance...

Well, this page really would be a good addition to any FAQ,
particularly if more *understandable* background information is added.

I think any tuning beginner would find it interesting... as well as
the tuning "cognoscenti"...

I'll bet even Mr. Dill liked it...

________ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson