Re: Graham Breed's pump on the Blackjack guitar

Oops. The tab for the first chord was wrong. It should be:

G<sm7 8sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_@_| 2fr
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_@_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

That makes it playable but still not comfortable. However, this _is_ the
worst of the lot.

-- Dave Keenan
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> It doesn't look like it remains on the same 4 strings in _either_
> case . . . is there an error?

Oh yes. Sorry.

Here's the whole thing again.

Where I've given several options for fingering the same chord, the first is
for the voicing I mentioned before, a simple 2-voice rotation of Monz's
voicing which can be played entirely on the middle four strings. The second
option gives a voicing where common notes between sucessive chords remain
in the same voice, i.e. they don't jump octaves and they don't jump voices.
But in this case they can't remain on the same 4 strings throughout. The
third option is just an optional fingering for the same voicing as the
second option.

G<sm7 8sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_@_| 2fr
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_@_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

E>sm7 6sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_| 4fr
|_|_|_|_@_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_@_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_@_|_|_|_|

Dsm7 4sm7
_ _ _o_ _ _ _ _o_ _o _ _ _ _ _
|_|_|_|_@_| |_|_|_|_@_| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |_|_|_|_@_| 6fr
|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_| |_|_@_@_|_|
|_|_@_|_|_| |_|_@_|_|_| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |_|_|_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_| |_@_|_|_|_|

C<sm7 2sm7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| | | | | | |_|_|_|_|_@ |_|_|_|_@_| 7fr
|_|_|_|_@_| 2fr | | | | | | | | | | | |
|_|_@_@_|_| |_|_|_|_@_| |_|_|_@_|_|
| | | | | | |_|_@_@_|_| |_@_|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_@_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

A>mdim7 0mdim7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| | | | | | |_|_|_|_|_@
|_|_|_|_@_| 2fr | | | | | |
|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_@_|
| | | | | | |_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_@_@_|_| | | | | | |
|_@_|_|_|_| |_|_@_@_|_|

F]sm7 7sm7
_ _ _ _o_ _ _ _ _o_
|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_@
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_| |_|_|_@_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|_|_@_|_|_| |_|_@_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

B[mdim7 1mdim7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_@_| 4fr
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_@_@_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

Ok. I lied. I _am_ going to bore you with the tablature for the breedpump
in the other key. :-)

Notice that it doesn't have the problem with the big stretch on the first
chord, since it benefits from an open string, but it does have to move down
a string (and up to the 11th fret) to get the fourth chord.

This is the voicing where notes common to two consecutive chords, remain in
the same voice. Same as the second option for the previously posted version
in the other key.

F]sm7 7sm7
_ _ _ _o_
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_@_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

Eb^sm7 5sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_| 2fr
|_|_|_|_@_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_@_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_@_|_|_|_|

C#vsm7 3sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_@_| 4fr
|_|_@_@_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

B[sm7 1sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_@_| 11fr
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_@_|_@_|_|
|_|_@_|_|_|

Ab^mdim7 9>mdim7
_ _ _ _ _
|_|_|_|_@_| 5fr
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_@_|_|_|_|
|_|_@_|_|_|

E>sm7 6sm7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_@_|_| 4fr
|_|_|_|_@_|
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_@_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_@_|_|_|_|

A>mdim7 0mdim7
_ _ _ _ _
| | | | | |
|_|_|_|_@_| 2fr
|_|_|_|_|_|
| | | | | |
|_|_@_@_|_|
|_@_|_|_|_|

You know, I suspect Harry would have been happy to see these recent
developments. In a way, Blackjack is just the smallest useful subset of
Partch's 43.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan
Brisbane, Australia
http://dkeenan.com

Dave,

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> You know, I suspect Harry would have been happy to see these recent
> developments. In a way, Blackjack is just the smallest useful
> subset of Partch's 43.

Suspect all you like. As someone who actually knew Harry, I suspect
it is more likely that he would have looked on this with a bemused
smile at best until someone(s) got off their theoretical asses, made
said guitar, and then got on with the process of making music.

His theory work was so early in his development, and it never went
very far before he made attempts to make music with it. Something he
would heartily, nay agressively, encourage as long as the path
*included* work on the instrument, and not left for 'someone else' to
do.

Post after post of this stuff (all valuable, I am sure); when does
someone get a fire under their fanny with sufficient heat to make
them build a guitar???

Cheers,
Jon

>> You know, I suspect Harry would have been happy to see these
>> recent developments. In a way, Blackjack is just the smallest
>> useful subset of Partch's 43.
>
>Suspect all you like. As someone who actually knew Harry, I suspect
>it is more likely that he would have looked on this with a bemused
>smile at best until someone(s) got off their theoretical asses, made
>said guitar, and then got on with the process of making music.
>
>His theory work was so early in his development, and it never went
>very far before he made attempts to make music with it. Something he
>would heartily, nay agressively, encourage as long as the path
>*included* work on the instrument, and not left for 'someone else'
>to do.

I would also like to know, if you have a spare channel, what my
deceased grandmother would have thought of George W. Bush.

It is clear that Harry was not always as anti-theoretical as you
claim, and as he may have been in his later years, when you knew
him. We know he was quite fond of Wilson's work, and suggested
that he might have used some of it if he'd found it in the
beginning (Wilson, personal communication).

> Post after post of this stuff (all valuable, I am sure); when does
> someone get a fire under their fanny with sufficient heat to make
> them build a guitar???

Damnit, Jon. Why don't *you* build a guitar? For the first time
maybe ever, a guy is showing an incredibly easy way to play high
limit JI on a guitar. His stuff has been out for what... less
than a month. And no guitar!? Well Damn. It must be worthless.

Amazing things take time, Jon. Would Partch's work have been
possible had he not found Helmholtz in the library? Can you see
how Keenan's guitar is the culmination of all the theory you've
also been complaining about for the last two years? Now it bears
fruit, and you're still complaining! Go home!

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> You know, I suspect Harry would have been happy to see these recent
> developments. In a way, Blackjack is just the smallest useful
subset of
> Partch's 43.

For some purposes, perhaps. Partch wouldn't have seen it that way,
because for him, the kernel of the tuning system was the Diamond. In
fact, if it weren't for the Diamond, we wouldn't be talking about
Partch's 43 at all -- it would almost certainly be 41 instead!

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27030.html#27039

> Dave,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> > You know, I suspect Harry would have been happy to see these
recent
> > developments. In a way, Blackjack is just the smallest useful
> > subset of Partch's 43.
>
> Suspect all you like. As someone who actually knew Harry, I suspect
> it is more likely that he would have looked on this with a bemused
> smile at best until someone(s) got off their theoretical asses,
made
> said guitar, and then got on with the process of making music.
>
> His theory work was so early in his development, and it never went
> very far before he made attempts to make music with it. Something
he
> would heartily, nay agressively, encourage as long as the path
> *included* work on the instrument, and not left for 'someone else'
to
> do.
>
> Post after post of this stuff (all valuable, I am sure); when does
> someone get a fire under their fanny with sufficient heat to make
> them build a guitar???
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

I believe John Starrett is already building said guitar... Correct??

_________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Carl,

First off, don't be so defensive, I'm only trying to:

1. instill ferment
2. give a perspective on Partch from someone who not only has studied
him (as a number of people here have) but as also someone who knew
him. If you think that doesn't add a different perspective from those
who have only read about HP, esp when they presume to know what would
have made him "happy", fine!

--- In tuning@y..., carl@l... wrote:
> I would also like to know, if you have a spare channel, what my
> deceased grandmother would have thought of George W. Bush.

Please don't be silly: I didn't know your grandmother.

> It is clear that Harry was not always as anti-theoretical as you
> claim

I never claimed he was anti-theoretical, thanks. I would view it more
as "pro-results".

> We know he was quite fond of Wilson's work, and suggested
> that he might have used some of it if he'd found it in the
> beginning (Wilson, personal communication).

Sure. My suggestion is that Harry liked theory most when it was acted
on, unlike much of what happens... never mind.

> Damnit, Jon. Why don't *you* build a guitar?

Because:

1. I am not a guitarist
2. Dave, Paul, (don't know about Graham), and maybe you *are*
3. I'm making plenty of music these days, thanks very much. I'd just
like to see some of this turn into the fire in the belly that makes
people stop mucking around and make music and ... never mind.

> For the first time maybe ever, a guy is showing an incredibly easy
> way to play high limit JI on a guitar. His stuff has been out for
> what... less than a month. And no guitar!? Well Damn. It must be
> worthless.

Again, Carl, please: you write that only a few brief words past where
I state "all valuable, I am sure". And sure, I know there is a lag
time between the spreadsheets and the ascii diagrams and whatnot, and
it is my natural impatience to 'get on with it'. I've seen plenty of
people spend less time on the up-front issues and try to get things
happening, but that is simply my personality/character, and I know
that it differs quite a bit from Dave (who I've had good email chats
with) and Paul (ditto).

> Amazing things take time, Jon.

Yep, agreed.

> Can you see
> how Keenan's guitar is the culmination of all the theory you've
> also been complaining about for the last two years? Now it bears
> fruit, and you're still complaining! Go home!

Grow up. I'm not complaining, I'm pushing for the next step. Because
I have seen years of theory (and I'm not speaking only or directly
about Dave's work) with very little end-matter. This is not akin to
the uncivil and beligerant rants from ... you know who. This is me,
caring about some of these people, wanting to desperately hear music
come to life. Call it desperation if you like, but don't call it
complaining.

And since I don't post often to the main list, I hope I'm entitled so
a few lines of a counter-view that can easily be deleted or skipped.

That's all.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I believe John Starrett is already building said guitar... Correct??

Yow!!! Man, I hope so, because that ensures lively, non-academic
wonderful stuff from a magical guitar. In fact, John Starrett, if you
*aren't* planning on building one then you are now ordered to do
so! :)

Cheers,
Jon

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

> Post after post of this stuff (all valuable, I am sure); when does
> someone get a fire under their fanny with sufficient heat to make
> them build a guitar???

My order from Stewart-Macdonald Guitar Supply came today
and I just pulled the frets out of an old acoustic guitar with their
spiffy fret nippers. I need some sand paper before I go any further
and that probably won't happen until Friday. Maybe I'll get at least
the fretless part together by next week.

As for the Blackjack tuning, I'll try it with nylon tie-on frets.
I don't know how long I'll keep them on, having an fretless
acoustic may be more fun.

And in other news....

Last night I recorded a 1/2 hour set of Just Intonation guitar music at
Manhattan Neighborhood Network Public Access Cable Television
studios for Mantra TV. Broadcast date to be announced.
{Unfortunately it only broadcasts in Manhattan,
in the past they have talked about streaming to the net, but I haven't
heard anything lately). Photos should be on my site sometime
this week.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

I made a mistake in the tablature for the 1sm7 (B[sm7) chord for the
Breedpump in the lower key, but I don't want to upset Jon Szanto by
posting the correction. ;-)

You make some good points Jon. But the fact is that if _I_ build one
you're not going to hear any great music anyway, because I'm an
extremely amateur guitarist (and I don't have a microphone for my
sound card), and if I'm to convince _real_ guitarists like John
Starrett, Dave Beardsley or Paul Erlich to go to the trouble and
expense, then I figure I'd better show how you actually _can_ play
useful chords and progressions on it.

Thanks for the encouragement, and thanks to you and Paul for
correcting my notions about Partch.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

> As for the Blackjack tuning, I'll try it with nylon tie-on frets.
> I don't know how long I'll keep them on, having an fretless
> acoustic may be more fun.

If you do try the Blackjack tuning, you'll probably want to change
string gauges on some strings, as the open strings are tuned to
somewhat narrower intervals than in a standard open tuning.

---- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

> --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
>
> > As for the Blackjack tuning, I'll try it with nylon tie-on frets.
> > I don't know how long I'll keep them on, having an fretless
> > acoustic may be more fun.
>
> If you do try the Blackjack tuning, you'll probably want to change
> string gauges on some strings, as the open strings are tuned to
> somewhat narrower intervals than in a standard open tuning.

I noticed that. And have been wondering about it. This (and I'd
have to look more closely at the tuning) guitar seems to be tuned in
3rds?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

> I noticed that. And have been wondering about it. This (and I'd
> have to look more closely at the tuning) guitar seems to be tuned in
> 3rds?

Mostly neutral thirds, yes. The intervals between successive open
strings are essentially the ratios

11:9, 11:9, 5:4, 11:9, 11:9.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

> --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that. And have been wondering about it. This (and I'd
> > have to look more closely at the tuning) guitar seems to be tuned in
> > 3rds?
>
> Mostly neutral thirds, yes. The intervals between successive open
> strings are essentially the ratios
>
> 11:9, 11:9, 5:4, 11:9, 11:9.

That's really gonna prohibit playing up and down the neck, I think.
The tuning of a 12tet guitar is a better place to start.
What makes the Catler guitar tuning more accessible is
his open string tuning.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
> >
> > 11:9, 11:9, 5:4, 11:9, 11:9.
>
> That's really gonna prohibit playing up and down the neck, I think.

How so?

> The tuning of a 12tet guitar is a better place to start.
> What makes the Catler guitar tuning more accessible is
> his open string tuning.

I agree that, if you're an experienced guitarist (as I know you are
and I am), having a familiar open string tuning immediately makes the
guitar very accessible, no matter how it's fretted.

But in this case, Dave Keenan has managed some masterful trickery to
get this scale to work so well with frets that go straight across the
fingerboard (the Catler guitar's frets don't). Given that, and given
that the Blackjack scale is most definitely non-diatonic in nature
anyway, I'd hope a true microtonal explorer would be willing to take
on the extra challenge of re-orienting oneself to the unfamiliar open
string tuning.

An alternative would be to get frets that don't go straight across
and give you the blackjack scale when you tune the open strings
exactly in standard tuning (remember, 12-tET is a subset of 72-tET).
But then many of the open strings wouldn't even be members of the
blackjack scale! Wouldn't you agree that that's rather inelegant?

P.S. Partch's Adapted Guitars were tuned in thirds, too, weren't they?

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

> P.S. Partch's Adapted Guitars were tuned in thirds, too, weren't they?

I could check but they were slide guitars.

I'll think about your points in the previous post for a day or so.

Without me giving this much thought, how are you going to
get from one end of the Blackjack Gtr. to the other?

In 12 tet, if you play a scale from the low E to high E at 12th fret with
4 notes to a string (slide on the half steps), you end up
at the high end of the guitar. You don't get there with the
Blackjack Gtr. Dave's posted chords but how about scales?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27030.html#27065

> I made a mistake in the tablature for the 1sm7 (B[sm7) chord for
the
> Breedpump in the lower key, but I don't want to upset Jon Szanto by
> posting the correction. ;-)
>
> You make some good points Jon. But the fact is that if _I_ build
one
> you're not going to hear any great music anyway, because I'm an
> extremely amateur guitarist (and I don't have a microphone for my
> sound card), and if I'm to convince _real_ guitarists like John
> Starrett, Dave Beardsley or Paul Erlich to go to the trouble and
> expense, then I figure I'd better show how you actually _can_ play
> useful chords and progressions on it.
>
> Thanks for the encouragement, and thanks to you and Paul for
> correcting my notions about Partch.
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

The fact of the matter is, some people are more interested in
*theory*, some in *composition.*

I'm really getting tired of composers *terrorizing* other people just
because there priorities aren't composition. And *this* is coming
from a composer... provably by recorded "sound miles" logged.

I'm speaking, of course, of people like the "nutty professor" who
are, frankly, also adept at theorizing, but prefer terrorizing...

________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> The fact of the matter is, some people are more interested in
> *theory*, some in *composition.*

No kidding!

> I'm really getting tired of composers *terrorizing* other people
> just because there priorities aren't composition. And *this* is
> coming from a composer... provably by recorded "sound miles" logged.

Terrorizing? I don't think for one minute that stalwart people like
Paul and Dave can't take a single post, every few weeks or so,
encouraging them to go *further* than theory. Because, in reality, it
is no different then to ask practicing performers to understand the
theory behind the notes that they are playing, to better understand
the music.

> I'm speaking, of course, of people like the "nutty professor" who
> are, frankly, also adept at theorizing, but prefer terrorizing...

I hadn't seen any of his posts in a while, esp since I quit that
list. So since he hasn't posted here, why bitch here? Unless it's
about someone else's post, like mine. Fact of the matter is, I like
theory, but I'm one of those weirdos that likes theory best when it
ends up producing something besides papers. And since I've already
jotted Dave, and he's aware that this is gentle prodding, I can still
assert that all the guitar designs in the world are worth squat until
and unless they finally make music on one of them...

...and I know it will happen, some day. Just stoking the fire, Joe,
so try to calm down. I want to see Starrett, or someone else, build
one and get some music on it, so it doesn't end up just being
some "pieces of paper, blowing in the wind".

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27030.html#27077

> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > The fact of the matter is, some people are more interested in
> > *theory*, some in *composition.*
>
> No kidding!
>
> > I'm really getting tired of composers *terrorizing* other people
> > just because there priorities aren't composition. And *this* is
> > coming from a composer... provably by recorded "sound miles"
logged.
>

> Terrorizing? I don't think for one minute that stalwart people like
> Paul and Dave can't take a single post, every few weeks or so,
> encouraging them to go *further* than theory.

You made both of them cry...

Because, in reality, it
> is no different then to ask practicing performers to understand the
> theory behind the notes that they are playing, to better understand
> the music.
>
> > I'm speaking, of course, of people like the "nutty professor" who
> > are, frankly, also adept at theorizing, but prefer terrorizing...
>
> I hadn't seen any of his posts in a while, esp since I quit that
> list. So since he hasn't posted here, why bitch here? Unless it's
> about someone else's post, like mine. Fact of the matter is, I like
> theory, but I'm one of those weirdos that likes theory best when it
> ends up producing something besides papers. And since I've already
> jotted Dave, and he's aware that this is gentle prodding, I can
still
> assert that all the guitar designs in the world are worth squat
until
> and unless they finally make music on one of them...
>
> ...and I know it will happen, some day. Just stoking the fire, Joe,
> so try to calm down. I want to see Starrett, or someone else, build
> one and get some music on it, so it doesn't end up just being
> some "pieces of paper, blowing in the wind".
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

OK... Jon, forget about it... I just took my Zoloft, anyway (just
kidding, did I spell that right...)

Just don't get like the "nutty professor." Sometimes it sounds like
you're halfway there.

The "giant" has been asleep for awhile, which is just as well...

best,

Joe

_________ ________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

<snip>
> > Post after post of this stuff (all valuable, I am sure); when does
> > someone get a fire under their fanny with sufficient heat to make
> > them build a guitar???
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> I believe John Starrett is already building said guitar... Correct??
>
> _________ _______ ______
> Joseph Pehrson

Not at this exact moment, but I have set aside a guitar and bass for
this very purpose, and I will start building in about two months. I've
got a guitar to finish for Neil, three papers to write and submit, and
a Couette-Taylor rig to instrument and rebuild. These things take
time!

John Starrett

on 8/16/01 4:00 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@biink.com>

> As for the Blackjack tuning, I'll try it with nylon tie-on frets.
> I don't know how long I'll keep them on, having an fretless
> acoustic may be more fun.

Yes, a fretless acoustic is lots of fun. I look forward to hearing your
musical excursions in blackjack.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

on 8/16/01 4:00 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
>
>> --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

>> Mostly neutral thirds, yes. The intervals between successive open
>> strings are essentially the ratios
>>
>> 11:9, 11:9, 5:4, 11:9, 11:9.
>
> That's really gonna prohibit playing up and down the neck, I think.
> The tuning of a 12tet guitar is a better place to start.
> What makes the Catler guitar tuning more accessible is
> his open string tuning.

What is the tuning of the Catler guitar? Just curious. Also, I don't see
anything wrong, at least in theory, of tuning in thirds... it's only the
equivalent of one 12-tET fret difference.

Is there a way to try out blackjack, or an approximation of it, on a 31-tET
instrument (3 or 4 course fretted zither)?

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

on 8/16/01 4:00 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:25:59 -0000
> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Graham Breed's pump on the Blackjack guitar
>
> P.S. Partch's Adapted Guitars were tuned in thirds, too, weren't they?
>

I thought Partch's Adapted Guitar 1 was tuned 1/1, 1/1 (same octave, in
pairs like a 12 string) 3/2, 3/2, then 2/1, 2/1. #2 had 10 strings, I'd have
to look it up. And yes, they were slide guitars.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

> Without me giving this much thought, how are you going to
> get from one end of the Blackjack Gtr. to the other?
>
> In 12 tet, if you play a scale from the low E to high E at 12th
fret with
> 4 notes to a string (slide on the half steps), you end up
> at the high end of the guitar.

A chromatic scale? A diatonic scale? Are you talking about staying in
one position on the fingerboard, or shifting positions? I know that
Catler's guitar doesn't have the same notes on all strings or in all
positions . . .

> You don't get there with the
> Blackjack Gtr.

The blackjack guitar doesn't have any traditional diatonic or
chromatic scales.

> Dave's posted chords but how about scales?

We've talked about a number of scales within Blackjack . . . the 7-
tone neutral-thirds scales, the "slendro" pentatonics, the decimal
scales, my 12-tone subset . . . I think there are interesting 9-tone
scales . . . of course we've discussed the hexanies . . . perhaps
Dave Keenan would like to provide fingering charts for a couple of
these?

This guitar may be weird, but at least it repeats itself at the
octave! If you really want something to mess with your head, try
Bohlen's BP guitar!

--- In tuning@y..., Seth Austen <klezmusic@e...> wrote:
>
> What is the tuning of the Catler guitar? Just curious.

Pairs of adjacent open strings are tuned, from high to low,

4:3, 5:4, 27:20, 4:3, 4:3.
>
> Is there a way to try out blackjack, or an approximation of it, on
a 31-tET
> instrument (3 or 4 course fretted zither)?

Yes, you can get an approximation of blackjack in 31 . . . it's

121212121212121212121 (mode arbitrary)

in 31-tET. A few of the dissonances of blackjack become consonances
in 31.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
>
> > As for the Blackjack tuning, I'll try it with nylon tie-on frets.
> > I don't know how long I'll keep them on, having an fretless
> > acoustic may be more fun.
>
> If you do try the Blackjack tuning, you'll probably want to change
> string gauges on some strings, as the open strings are tuned to
> somewhat narrower intervals than in a standard open tuning.

Yes. While less than ideal, you'd probably get by with two "D" strings
in the middle, and move the G and B strings over. i.e. string gauges
could be as if for an E A D D G B tuning.

I'm currently suggesting
Eb^ G< Bb^ D F] A,
for notational convenience, but obviously any transposition of that
would do. It might be better a secor higher:
E> G#v B> Eb^ G< Bb^
But you must retain that N3 N3 M3 N3 N3 (approx 9:11 9:11 4:5 9:11
9:11) spacing to retain the playability properties of the proposed
fretting.

Can anyone tell us what the ideal gauges would be?

Legend:
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,#,b as for 12-tET
] = quarter-tone up (+50 c)
> = sixth-tone up (+33 c)
^ = twelfth-tone up (+17 c)
v = twelfth-tone down (-17 c)
< = sixth-tone down (-33 c)
[ = quarter-tone down (-50 c)

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell us what the ideal gauges would be?

That totally depends on the tension the player is used to. For steel
strings, the tension is roughly constant if the string diameter is
inversely proportional to frequency. But the fact that some strings
are wound and some unwound complicates this a bit. For nylon strings,
I don't think you have this proportionality at all.

--- In tuning@y..., Seth Austen <klezmusic@e...> wrote:
> Is there a way to try out blackjack, or an approximation of it, on a
31-tET
> instrument (3 or 4 course fretted zither)?

Yes. The harmonies will not be just, but it _will_ be an
approximation. With the open tuning being in thirds, only 3 or 4
courses may be a serious limitation.

Look at http://uq.net.au/Music/Miracle/BlackjackGuitar.gif
and imagine an extra fret in each wide gap. That's your 31.

In fact my tablature shows the wide and narrow gaps _as_if_ it was a
subset of 31-tET.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., Seth Austen <klezmusic@e...> wrote:
> I thought Partch's Adapted Guitar 1 was tuned 1/1, 1/1 (same octave,
in
> pairs like a 12 string) 3/2, 3/2, then 2/1, 2/1. #2 had 10 strings,
I'd have
> to look it up. And yes, they were slide guitars.

Open tuning in alternating 2:3s and 3:4s seems to be the standard way
of getting minimum missing notes with full-width frets, for most JI
scales. Kind of the easy way out. But this has the serious drawback of
making many chords difficult to play. We seem to want most chords
voiced as stacks of thirds, with occasional fourths and seconds (say
intervals from 8:9 to 5:7). So those fifths are a right pain. To turn
an open string fifth into a third means a big stretch. Seconds and the
smaller thirds are impossible on open fifth strings, except way down
the neck.

Thanks Dave Beardsley for all your criticisms/questions. Very valuable
to a mere thorist such as myself. Seriously. And thanks Paul Erlich
for your excellent responses.

Here's a set of string gauges that should have consistent tension
.058w .048w .038w .034w .026w .021
Eb^ G< Bb^ D F] A

If you know what your current D string is now, you can scale
accordingly.

Given that the blackjack guitar only has an octvae and a half between
outer strings, instead of the usual two octaves, where do you real
guitarists think this should be positioned. At the top of the standard
guitar range, the bottom, or the middle, and why?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> Look at http://uq.net.au/Music/Miracle/BlackjackGuitar.gif

Doesn't work.

on 8/17/01 4:27 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

> Look at http://uq.net.au/Music/Miracle/BlackjackGuitar.gif
> and imagine an extra fret in each wide gap. That's your 31.
>
> In fact my tablature shows the wide and narrow gaps _as_if_ it was a
> subset of 31-tET.

Thanks, I'll check this out. All these posts about Blackjack will make a lot
more sense to me if I can hear even an approximation of it. I'm one of those
learn by ear types.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

http://www.sethausten.com
emails: seth@sethausten.com
klezmusic@earthlink.net

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > Look at http://uq.net.au/Music/Miracle/BlackjackGuitar.gif
>
> Doesn't work.

Sorry. Should have been
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackGuitar.gif