Reply to Jacky Ligon re: MOSniks

(discussion moved from MakeMicroMusic)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jacky_ligon@y... wrote:

> To Paul:
>
> 1. When you speak of "Coherency" in pitch sets, is this
subjective
> or are there certain rules-of-thumb and criteria that you look for?

Basically, just that no pitches can be added, and no pitches can be
removed, without ruining the scale.

> 2. Does your concept of Pitch Set Coherency (PSC from here on
out)
> accord with Carl Lumma's "diatonicity", in that the ear tends
toward
> hearing scales as an abstracted harmonic series-like structure (if
> I'm understanding this correctly)?

I'm not sure if this is the point you're referring to, but I don't
agree with Carl that we always or even often tend to hear/construct
melodies as harmonic series segments.

> 3. What are some attributes that to you define PSC?

One "biggie" is consonant-CS -- in other words, every interval that
functions as a basic harmonic consonance in the scale (I'm thinking
music with chord progressions and a homophonic and/or polyphonic
language) always subtends the same number of scale steps. For
example, in the diatonic scale, a fourth always subtends four scale
steps, a major third three, and a minor third three.
>
> 4. Is "transposability" an attribute that you look for?

Yes, but as per the discussions on this that Robert Valentine and I
had here, I'm more flexible about what this can mean than he is.
>
> 5. Are many recognizable fifths a criteria?

I'm willing to be flexible on this but the desire for similarity of
melodic segments at a 4:3 or 3:2 apart is strong (in this one).

> 6. In a melodic sense and style of music where melody is the
> primary focus, what do you look for as far as PSC?

If there isn't much in the way of functional harmonic progression,
then most of the "consonant" intervals aren't even going to occur as
simultaneities, so one has much greater leeway in tuning . . . almost
an "anything goes" scenario if you can make musical sense with the
given resources.
>
> 7. When harmony is the primary focus, what should one be looking
> for as far as PSC?

Hmm . . . without melody as a guiding principle, the sense
of "missing" or "extra" notes in the scale may be lost, so the CS
stuff mail not be as relevant . . . I'd look for a connected chunk of
the lattice -- Wilson's CPS scales fall into this category.
>
> 8. Can you give me two or three examples of tunings and or modes
> that to you display PSC?

In 9-tET, two fine examples are the Pelog (1 3 1 1 3) and Augmented
(1 2 1 2 1 2) scales -- they work amazingly convincingly considering
that the 3:2 is approximated by only 666.67 cents!

> 9. What are some modes of 22, 31 and tET that would qualify as
> having PSC?

The meantone diatonics and pentatonics in 31, the septimal diatonics
and pentatonics in 22, the decatonics in 22, the 11-tone chain-of
minor-thirds in 31 . . . One blues mode in 22 that plays nicely on
the edge of PSC is 6 3 1 3 6 3, where the two notes separated by 1
degree can be thought of either as variants of the same note (making
the scale consonant-CS), or as distinct notes, for the effect of
a "micro-chromatic" figuration.

P.S. other than the blues mode, all of the scales mentioned in my
responses to questions 8 and 9 above are mentioned without regard to
which mode is used. As you know, I have different ideas about
tonality, but PSC is a "pre-tonal" consideration for me.
>
> 10. Do you feel at all that musical context, style, timbres,
> melodic (and or) harmonic needs for a given musical setting will
best
> define what is needed as far as PSC, or are there overall general
> things that you tend to look for?

A bit of both, perhaps.
>
> 11. Does your 72 tET "Blackjack" mode display PSC, and could you
> speak about its attributes in this regard?

Does it display PSC? Yes and no. Yes because it's fully CS. No
because it's quite improper. Harmonically, a big yes because of all
the consonant chords. Melodically, a big no because of the large
number of notes (21). But that's OK because there seems to be a good
variety of subsets (5-, 7-, and 10-tone ones, maybe others) that can
carry the melodic coherence, while the harmonization might draw more
freely from the full 21 . . . in particular, since the 33-cent
inflections would tend not to be noticed as such when occuring non-
consecutively in various voices within the harmonization, one might
say that a 10-tone framework (i.e., Graham Breed's notational
symbols, ignoring accidentals) could emerge as a structure giving
effective coherency to the full set.

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

/tuning/topicId_26541.html#26541

>
> Does it display PSC? Yes and no. Yes because it's fully CS. No
> because it's quite improper. Harmonically, a big yes because of all
> the consonant chords. Melodically, a big no because of the large
> number of notes (21). But that's OK because there seems to be a
good
> variety of subsets (5-, 7-, and 10-tone ones, maybe others) that
can
> carry the melodic coherence, while the harmonization might draw
more
> freely from the full 21 . . . in particular, since the 33-cent
> inflections would tend not to be noticed as such when occuring non-
> consecutively in various voices within the harmonization, one might
> say that a 10-tone framework (i.e., Graham Breed's notational
> symbols, ignoring accidentals) could emerge as a structure giving
> effective coherency to the full set.

This makes sense that there are, essentially, 10 "melodic" notes of
Blackjack, with 33 cent "inflections..." That's what it *seems*
like, anyway...

_________ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

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

> This makes sense that there are, essentially, 10 "melodic" notes of
> Blackjack, with 33 cent "inflections..." That's what it *seems*
> like, anyway...

It's amazing how many 10-note scales have come out of the various
studies of people on this list. For example:

Gary Morrison's early 10-tET experiments
Graham Breed's 7+3 "quartertone" scale
The 10-tone MOS generated by the major third, studied by Dave Keenan
My two decatonic scales, in 22-tET, JI, etc.
. . . and now the blackjack scale as an "inflected" 10-tone scale.
(Robert Valentine, got any more?)

What intrigues me is the idea of a multi-movement work, in which a
basic 10-tone motif is presented in a different scale in each
movement (with each movement using the appropriate tuning) . . .

--- In tuning@y..., jacky_ligon@y... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > 6. In a melodic sense and style of music where melody is the
> > > primary focus, what do you look for as far as PSC?
> >
> > If there isn't much in the way of functional harmonic
progression,
> > then most of the "consonant" intervals aren't even going to occur
> as
> > simultaneities, so one has much greater leeway in tuning . . .
> almost
> > an "anything goes" scenario if you can make musical sense with
the
> > given resources.
>
> Now this is a really exciting thing to read!! Yes - I found the
same
> thing. To me it even opens up possibilites for generating melodic
> scales - designed for the "anything goes" scenario.
>
[...]
>
> > P.S. other than the blues mode, all of the scales mentioned in my
> > responses to questions 8 and 9 above are mentioned without regard
> to
> > which mode is used. As you know, I have different ideas about
> > tonality, but PSC is a "pre-tonal" consideration for me.
>
> Fascinating! Should I interpret you here to mean that PSC is a
> highly "melodic" consideration?

Nope! See above about melodic considerations. By pre-tonal I mean,
without regard to which tone (if any) may ultimately be able to
function as a tonal center (tonic). For example, the diatonic scale
was used harmonically, but not yet tonally, in Western music before
the 17th century. The major and minor modes were not especially
interesting until the advent of tonality!

P.S. Don't be scared of the 666.67 fifths of 9-tET. They're quite
beautiful melodically in the context of the scales I mentioned.