72-tET subsets

Well, these are "preliminary findings" concerning my explorations
with my new 72-tET subsets.

First off, I am *very* grateful for these! It's so wonderful to have
these options. What would be the point of having an "adjustable"
keyboard that can play all different kinds of scales, and then write
in "blackjack" for the rest of my life? It doesn't make any sense!

I guess the "nutty professor" is really right in that respect... it's
important to work with *lots* of different tunings.

Another thing that I believe our code-worded "nutty professor" seems
to have right is the fact that certain scales lend themselves
naturally to harmony and others to melody.

Blackjack is, essentially an *harmonic* scale. Frankly, for *me*
personally, it fails the *melodic* test. Why is that? Well, since
it basically consists of only two intervals, 83 cents and 33 cents,
the "close ones" really are "inflections" or "extensions" of the
larger ones. This tends to restrict melodic development. I feel it
slams on the brakes for long melodies... even short ones. There's
got to be a science analogy to this... It's almost as if the larger
scale steps propel a melody on to the next note, whereas
these "inflections" *absorb* melodic energy, being, essentially
similar to another pitch and holding one back...

But for *harmonies,* of course, blackjack is the champion,
particularly just harmonies... and the hard work that went into the
creation of this scale is revealed there.

Now I was rather amazed by 18-tET. Has there been much discussion of
this scale on this list? Maybe before I came here a couple of years
ago. This is a *FANTASTIC* scale. It really is almost the "dark
brother" to blackjack. Because the step sizes are regular, it lends
itself to a nice chromatic melody in ways that blackjack does not.

It reminds me, frankly, of 19 equal. I know somebody is going to say
this seems silly, since there are no just minor thirds and such like,
but really on the *overall* due to the step sizes and the general
degree of dissonance it reminds me of the 19-tone scales I was
working with, equal and just...

Did I say that 18-tET is a fantastic scale?? That *definitely* would
be the scale I would use for a World Trade Center tribute... unless I
wait until the next incident, in which case somebody *else* is going
to have to do *my* memorial... (a constant thought these days,
seriously).

On a brighter note, how about the two Phi-based 72-tET subsets? They
are also fascinating. I was particularly intrigued with the 13-tone
one. That also is a wonderful scale, but the step sizes are so much
closer to our 12-tET that it doesn't seem quite as adventurous. A
mad 21-century composer with an old out-of-tune piano could possibly
come up with something similar just naturally...

How about the 23-tone Phi-based...? Well, it seemed a little hard
to "tame." I don't quite know what it is about it, but I think I
would have a little more trouble working with it. I'm not quite
certain why that is... but I hold the option to change my opinion on
this, as I get better acquainted with this scale. This is a "first
impression..."

Anyway, I believe I will be working with *all* these scales. I'm
going to figure out a way to place the little colored blackjack
stickers that I presently have on my keyboard on some kind of
cardboard backing, so I can take them on and off, and replace them
with a different set of stickers for different 72-tET subsets...

Like I say, *variety* seems the key in the xenharmonic world. At
least this seem the "fun" of it.

Now, I want to defend a practice that surely some of you will
consider quite stupid. This is the idea of playing traditional
chords and patterns on the keyboard in these new scales.

Quite frankly, I believe this practice is actually defensible! Think
about it... Although it's quite arbitrary, it brings our past
musicianship to the new materials. So what if it doesn't mean
anything?? Lots of things in art don't mean anything. Many things,
as we know, just evolve in certain ways without, necessarily, having
theortical justification. I have no problem with that.

I just thought if you saw me banging out "major triads" on the 18-tET
keyboard, you should know what I was doing.... :)

_________ ______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

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

> Blackjack is, essentially an *harmonic* scale. Frankly, for *me*
> personally, it fails the *melodic* test. Why is that? Well, since
> it basically consists of only two intervals, 83 cents and 33 cents,
> the "close ones" really are "inflections" or "extensions" of the
> larger ones. This tends to restrict melodic development.

I've been very skeptical of the idea that having only two sizes of
scale step is somehow better melodically, so it's interesting to hear
this opinion.

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

> Blackjack is, essentially an *harmonic* scale.

Absolutely!

> Frankly, for *me*
> personally, it fails the *melodic* test.

Me too! But, what about _subsets_ of blackjack for melody, and a
freer use of the pitch materials for _harmonization_? Dave Keenan
posted a long list of the Scala scales that are subsets of blackjack.
Did you try making melodies with any of these?

> Why is that? Well, since
> it basically consists of only two intervals, 83 cents and 33 cents,

Well those are the two step sizes . . . but certainly not the only
intervals!
>
> Now I was rather amazed by 18-tET. Has there been much discussion
of
> this scale on this list?

Not too much . . . it's not too "special" as an ET.

> Maybe before I came here a couple of years
> ago. This is a *FANTASTIC* scale. It really is almost the "dark
> brother" to blackjack. Because the step sizes are regular, it
lends
> itself to a nice chromatic melody in ways that blackjack does not.

Well, wouldn't any ET do that? And, have you tried playing
the "decimal" scales in blackjack? These are very
even, "chromatic" . . .

> It reminds me, frankly, of 19 equal. I know somebody is going to
say
> this seems silly, since there are no just minor thirds and such
like,
> but really on the *overall* due to the step sizes and the general
> degree of dissonance it reminds me of the 19-tone scales I was
> working with, equal and just...

The general degree of dissonance? I'm not sure I can agree! What
about fifths, fourths, major thirds . . .
>
> Did I say that 18-tET is a fantastic scale?? That *definitely*
would
> be the scale I would use for a World Trade Center tribute...

Well, I'm glad I suggested it!
>
> Now, I want to defend a practice that surely some of you will
> consider quite stupid. This is the idea of playing traditional
> chords and patterns on the keyboard in these new scales.
>
> Quite frankly, I believe this practice is actually defensible!
Think
> about it... Although it's quite arbitrary, it brings our past
> musicianship to the new materials.

How so? Isn't musicianship built on the foundation of _ear training_?
So if you play familiar patterns on an instrument but the sounds
coming out are completely different . . . what does that have to do
with your ear?

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Blackjack is, essentially an *harmonic* scale. Frankly, for *me*
> > personally, it fails the *melodic* test. Why is that? Well,
since
> > it basically consists of only two intervals, 83 cents and 33
cents,
> > the "close ones" really are "inflections" or "extensions" of the
> > larger ones. This tends to restrict melodic development.
>
> I've been very skeptical of the idea that having only two sizes of
> scale step is somehow better melodically, so it's interesting to
hear
> this opinion.

Well, I think in this case, Joseph is saying that 33 cents is not so
much a "step" as an "inflection" . . .

P.S. I much prefer the omnitetrachordality criterion to the two-step
size criterion for melodic "goodness".

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28678

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Blackjack is, essentially an *harmonic* scale.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> > Frankly, for *me*
> > personally, it fails the *melodic* test.
>
> Me too! But, what about _subsets_ of blackjack for melody, and a
> freer use of the pitch materials for _harmonization_? Dave Keenan
> posted a long list of the Scala scales that are subsets of
blackjack.
> Did you try making melodies with any of these?
>

Sure... I saw that (the list)... Of course it's possible to create
melodies with subsets of blackjack... However, on the overall, I
believe a scale should be judged when it's *all* present as, say, on
a keyboard as "raw material..." in the way that clay might be to a
sculptor...

In this sense, I'm just saying that the strength of blackjack, in its
*entire* is considerably better for harmony than for melody...

> >
> > Now I was rather amazed by 18-tET. Has there been much
discussion of this scale on this list?
>
> Not too much . . . it's not too "special" as an ET.
>

Well, maybe not when considered as a resource for *just* harmonies...
But that surely isn't the only criterion for a scale, is it??
Somebody said that each scale has a "sonic footprint" (I know who
said that, but we want to keep his name out of the discussion... :) )

Such a "sonic footprint" would have the relationship to just
sonorities as only *one part* of the entire... yes?

I have to admit the one of the *main* attractions to 18-tET is its
notational fit with 72... But that *is* important, I believe, from a
performance standpoint!

> > Maybe before I came here a couple of years
> > ago. This is a *FANTASTIC* scale. It really is almost the "dark
> > brother" to blackjack. Because the step sizes are regular, it
> lends itself to a nice chromatic melody in ways that blackjack does
not.
>
> Well, wouldn't any ET do that?

Actually, Paul, I believe not really. Anything above about 20 notes
per octave doesn't do this for me, even if the scale steps are
regular.

I find it hard even to make melodies in 31-tET...

And, have you tried playing
> the "decimal" scales in blackjack? These are very
> even, "chromatic" . . .
>

That would be an interesting subset to work with but, still it's a
*subset...* not the entire scale...

> > It reminds me, frankly, of 19 equal. I know somebody is going to
> say this seems silly, since there are no just minor thirds and such
> like, but really on the *overall* due to the step sizes and the
general degree of dissonance it reminds me of the 19-tone scales I
was working with, equal and just...
>
> The general degree of dissonance? I'm not sure I can agree! What
> about fifths, fourths, major thirds . . .
> >

See, I *knew* you were going to say that! Of course the dissonance
levels are different, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact that I
believe that the *overall* size of the steps is *very* important in a
scale... maybe even *more* important than the purity of some of the
sonorities!

If I recall, "nutty professor" thought that, too... Maybe it's
an "obvious" factor that is sometimes underestimated...

> > Did I say that 18-tET is a fantastic scale?? That *definitely*
> would be the scale I would use for a World Trade Center tribute...
>
> Well, I'm glad I suggested it!
> >

Yes, and thanks!! It was a *fine* idea... and I also think it's a
*very* good idea for me to work with different subsets of 72-tET...

I'm not saying I'm going to abandon blackjack! I haven't even
*started* with it! However, it might not be exactly what I need for
every project...

> > Now, I want to defend a practice that surely some of you will
> > consider quite stupid. This is the idea of playing traditional
> > chords and patterns on the keyboard in these new scales.
> >
> > Quite frankly, I believe this practice is actually defensible!
> Think
> > about it... Although it's quite arbitrary, it brings our past
> > musicianship to the new materials.
>
> How so? Isn't musicianship built on the foundation of _ear
training_?
> So if you play familiar patterns on an instrument but the sounds
> coming out are completely different . . . what does that have to do
> with your ear?

Hee, hee... This is *exactly* what I *knew* you were going to say...!

Well, it would be hard for me to argue against ear training... BUT:

What is the *first thing* that a musician do when he/she picks up an
instrument, *regardless* of the tuning it's in??

I believe the first thing is to play common patterns we've learned.
I think virtually *everybody* does this. Don't you do that, too,
when you pick up a guitar??

I'm not saying you wouldn't *modify* those patterns, but I'm just
saying that they are not necessarily, useless.

For example, in some of the scales you have recently given
me, "regular" 12-tET triads sound interesting in 18-tET and in the 13
tone Phi scale you illustrated, but *not* so interesting in the 23
tone Phi or, even, in the full 72-tET. In fact, they're not at *all*
interesting there...

So, if they're interesting, why not just figure out what they are and
use them??

I'm just saying it is one of many possible methods to approach new
scales, and shouldn't be automatically dismissed as an approach...

Naturally, *all* of this is subject to hearing... since it's the
sound medium we're talking about... at least I *hope* it is...!

Thanks again for the suggestions...

________ ________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

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

> Sure... I saw that (the list)... Of course it's possible to create
> melodies with subsets of blackjack... However, on the overall, I
> believe a scale should be judged when it's *all* present as, say,
on
> a keyboard as "raw material..." in the way that clay might be to a
> sculptor...

I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments? Doesn't
the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we can take some
of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and modulate them
through various keys, etc. . . .
>
> In this sense, I'm just saying that the strength of blackjack, in
its
> *entire* is considerably better for harmony than for melody...

Well, there's nothing stopping you from making full use of this while
harmonizing melodies made from *subsets* of Blackjack.

But if I'm to respond to you literally, when coming up with blackjack
as a good scale from a harmonic point of view, we were again
concerned with *subsets* -- specifically, chords like 4:5:6:7 chords,
etc. . . .

> Well, maybe not when considered as a resource for *just*
harmonies...
> But that surely isn't the only criterion for a scale, is it??
> Somebody said that each scale has a "sonic footprint" (I know who
> said that, but we want to keep his name out of the
discussion... :) )

"sonic footprint" . . . sounds good! Certainly ETs through 34 each
have their own character.
>
> Such a "sonic footprint" would have the relationship to just
> sonorities as only *one part* of the entire... yes?

Absolutely.
>
> I have to admit the one of the *main* attractions to 18-tET is its
> notational fit with 72... But that *is* important, I believe, from
a
> performance standpoint!

Well then, go with it!
>
> Actually, Paul, I believe not really. Anything above about 20
notes
> per octave doesn't do this for me, even if the scale steps are
> regular.

But anything with 20 or fewer notes per octave would work . . . and
if there are more, you can play _every other note_, or _every third
note_, etc.
>
> I find it hard even to make melodies in 31-tET...

I have a very easy time making melodies on my 31-tET guitar . . .
diatonic, pentatonic, slendro, even microtonal segments with 77-cent
steps . . . all kinds of scales can be found in 31-tET . . .

> And, have you tried playing
> > the "decimal" scales in blackjack? These are very
> > even, "chromatic" . . .
> >
> That would be an interesting subset to work with but, still it's a
> *subset...* not the entire scale...

Good! I'd never dream of using a 21-tone-per-octave scale as a "white-
key" scale, as Dan puts it. What culture on the planet makes its
melodies with that many notes at a time? 5 to 9 seems the most common
range . . . Turkish and North African melodies, for example, stick to
such subsets for a time, and then cleverly "modulate" to another
one . . . that's my idea of microtonal music.
>
> > > It reminds me, frankly, of 19 equal. I know somebody is going
to
> > say this seems silly, since there are no just minor thirds and
such
> > like, but really on the *overall* due to the step sizes and the
> general degree of dissonance it reminds me of the 19-tone scales I
> was working with, equal and just...
> >
> > The general degree of dissonance? I'm not sure I can agree! What
> > about fifths, fourths, major thirds . . .
> > >
>
> See, I *knew* you were going to say that! Of course the dissonance
> levels are different, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact that
I
> believe that the *overall* size of the steps is *very* important in
a
> scale... maybe even *more* important than the purity of some of the
> sonorities!

I understand that, but you did say "general degree of dissonance". So
what did you mean by that? Surely dissonance has little to do with
the sizes of the smallest scale steps . . . does it?

If you're trying to use _every single note_ in the melodic scales,
then of course that's the impression you're going to get . . . but
that seems, to me, to be such a silly limitation to place on yourself
when composing. Scales like blackjack are meant to be a _universe_
within which one may find many wonders . . . like 12-tET, but more so.
>
> Yes, and thanks!! It was a *fine* idea... and I also think it's a
> *very* good idea for me to work with different subsets of 72-tET...
>
> I'm not saying I'm going to abandon blackjack! I haven't even
> *started* with it! However, it might not be exactly what I need
for
> every project...

Agreed. But I'm wondering whether you're limiting yourself greatly in
the way you're conceiving of any tuning as a "white-key" scale . . .

>
> Well, it would be hard for me to argue against ear training... BUT:
>
> What is the *first thing* that a musician do when he/she picks up
an
> instrument, *regardless* of the tuning it's in??
>
> I believe the first thing is to play common patterns we've
learned.
> I think virtually *everybody* does this. Don't you do that, too,
> when you pick up a guitar??

Hmm . . . if I'm really stiff and need to warm up . . . but I play
music from my _head_, not from my fingers.

> I'm not saying you wouldn't *modify* those patterns, but I'm just
> saying that they are not necessarily, useless.
>
> For example, in some of the scales you have recently given
> me, "regular" 12-tET triads sound interesting in 18-tET and in the
13
> tone Phi scale you illustrated, but *not* so interesting in the 23
> tone Phi or, even, in the full 72-tET. In fact, they're not at
*all*
> interesting there...

Well the intervals are just getting narrower and narrower . . . so
this is not surprising . . . I guess a guitar would be better for
this approach because if you *tried* to play a familiar chord on a
guitar with an unfamiliar fretting, you'd at least have roughly the
same *sizes* of intervals . . . rather than intervals 6 times smaller!

You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really teensy
tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for me. As
a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my path is
different.

Joe:
> You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really teensy
> tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for me.
As
> a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my path
is
> different.

Bob:
May I just add my two cents (or 77 cents) here for whatever it's
worth or not? Classical Indian melodic music is soem of the most
subtle, sophisticated, highly evolved, essentially melodic musics on
the planet. It uses microtonal melodic inflections of very small
degree quite frequently, and I personally find the effect exquisitely
pleasing.

For example, we can take our cues from this and construct a melodic
sequence that contains a kind of ornamentation that inflects back and
forth among three versions of a minor third. If we think in C, we can
use the 16:19 for an Eb as our middle "resting" pitch and oscillate
above and below that to 5:6 and 6:7 respectively.

We could even move a parallel melody to harmonize it monophonically
at F, G, and Ab (sounding together with 6:7, 16:19, and 5:6
respectively) while holding down a drone on C. This produces
exquisite just harmonies while moving melodically in a very subtle
sequence of microtonal inflections that is rationalized to the ear by
the harmony.

I personally find there is something about this sort of musical
playing around that is almost infinitely pleasing to the ear. It
seems to bespeaks profoudnly of unity within diversity, uniting the
subtlest aspects of both melody and harmony in way that touches the
very center of the human soul.

I find experimenting with microtonality as a kind of exotic toy
interesting and informative at times, but I seldom get much out of
that aesthetically. I don't know whether that's clear. I'm agreeing
with Joe, I guess, that I don't go much for the exotic aspects of
microtonality for their own sake, as a kind of gleeful, cheeky
rebellion against conventional tonality. I quickly get bored with
that, and that seems to me to be what often tends to predominate.

I kind of grin deep inside when I perceive what I think to be
Dimitrov's kind of innocent gut reaction to that as "sounding
terrible", etc. I think on some deep level, he's actually right, even
though some may think he's being naive. I'm reminded of the tale of
the three taylors and the naked king.

I'm excited about the potential of microtonality as a door to both
greatly expanded melodic and harmonic potential. I envision (or is it
enaudiate or something?) vastly expanded melodic color uniting in
intimate beauty with new harmonies and counterpoint in ways analogous
to DiLasso's highly chromatic works. (Heard the album Lasso by the
Hilliard Ensemble with their wonderully just renderings?).

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Sure... I saw that (the list)... Of course it's possible to
create
> > melodies with subsets of blackjack... However, on the overall, I
> > believe a scale should be judged when it's *all* present as, say,
> on
> > a keyboard as "raw material..." in the way that clay might be to
a
> > sculptor...
>
> I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
> pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments?
Doesn't
> the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we can take
some
> of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and modulate them
> through various keys, etc. . . .
> >
> > In this sense, I'm just saying that the strength of blackjack, in
> its
> > *entire* is considerably better for harmony than for melody...
>
> Well, there's nothing stopping you from making full use of this
while
> harmonizing melodies made from *subsets* of Blackjack.
>
> But if I'm to respond to you literally, when coming up with
blackjack
> as a good scale from a harmonic point of view, we were again
> concerned with *subsets* -- specifically, chords like 4:5:6:7
chords,
> etc. . . .
>
> > Well, maybe not when considered as a resource for *just*
> harmonies...
> > But that surely isn't the only criterion for a scale, is it??
> > Somebody said that each scale has a "sonic footprint" (I know
who
> > said that, but we want to keep his name out of the
> discussion... :) )
>
> "sonic footprint" . . . sounds good! Certainly ETs through 34 each
> have their own character.
> >
> > Such a "sonic footprint" would have the relationship to just
> > sonorities as only *one part* of the entire... yes?
>
> Absolutely.
> >
> > I have to admit the one of the *main* attractions to 18-tET is
its
> > notational fit with 72... But that *is* important, I believe,
from
> a
> > performance standpoint!
>
> Well then, go with it!
> >
> > Actually, Paul, I believe not really. Anything above about 20
> notes
> > per octave doesn't do this for me, even if the scale steps are
> > regular.
>
> But anything with 20 or fewer notes per octave would work . . . and
> if there are more, you can play _every other note_, or _every third
> note_, etc.
> >
> > I find it hard even to make melodies in 31-tET...
>
> I have a very easy time making melodies on my 31-tET guitar . . .
> diatonic, pentatonic, slendro, even microtonal segments with 77-
cent
> steps . . . all kinds of scales can be found in 31-tET . . .
>
> > And, have you tried playing
> > > the "decimal" scales in blackjack? These are very
> > > even, "chromatic" . . .
> > >
> > That would be an interesting subset to work with but, still it's
a
> > *subset...* not the entire scale...
>
> Good! I'd never dream of using a 21-tone-per-octave scale as a
"white-
> key" scale, as Dan puts it. What culture on the planet makes its
> melodies with that many notes at a time? 5 to 9 seems the most
common
> range . . . Turkish and North African melodies, for example, stick
to
> such subsets for a time, and then cleverly "modulate" to another
> one . . . that's my idea of microtonal music.
> >
> > > > It reminds me, frankly, of 19 equal. I know somebody is
going
> to
> > > say this seems silly, since there are no just minor thirds and
> such
> > > like, but really on the *overall* due to the step sizes and the
> > general degree of dissonance it reminds me of the 19-tone scales
I
> > was working with, equal and just...
> > >
> > > The general degree of dissonance? I'm not sure I can agree!
What
> > > about fifths, fourths, major thirds . . .
> > > >
> >
> > See, I *knew* you were going to say that! Of course the
dissonance
> > levels are different, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact
that
> I
> > believe that the *overall* size of the steps is *very* important
in
> a
> > scale... maybe even *more* important than the purity of some of
the
> > sonorities!
>
> I understand that, but you did say "general degree of dissonance".
So
> what did you mean by that? Surely dissonance has little to do with
> the sizes of the smallest scale steps . . . does it?
>
> If you're trying to use _every single note_ in the melodic scales,
> then of course that's the impression you're going to get . . . but
> that seems, to me, to be such a silly limitation to place on
yourself
> when composing. Scales like blackjack are meant to be a _universe_
> within which one may find many wonders . . . like 12-tET, but more
so.
> >
> > Yes, and thanks!! It was a *fine* idea... and I also think it's
a
> > *very* good idea for me to work with different subsets of 72-
tET...
> >
> > I'm not saying I'm going to abandon blackjack! I haven't even
> > *started* with it! However, it might not be exactly what I need
> for
> > every project...
>
> Agreed. But I'm wondering whether you're limiting yourself greatly
in
> the way you're conceiving of any tuning as a "white-key" scale . . .
>
> >
> > Well, it would be hard for me to argue against ear training...
BUT:
> >
> > What is the *first thing* that a musician do when he/she picks up
> an
> > instrument, *regardless* of the tuning it's in??
> >
> > I believe the first thing is to play common patterns we've
> learned.
> > I think virtually *everybody* does this. Don't you do that, too,
> > when you pick up a guitar??
>
> Hmm . . . if I'm really stiff and need to warm up . . . but I play
> music from my _head_, not from my fingers.
>
> > I'm not saying you wouldn't *modify* those patterns, but I'm just
> > saying that they are not necessarily, useless.
> >
> > For example, in some of the scales you have recently given
> > me, "regular" 12-tET triads sound interesting in 18-tET and in
the
> 13
> > tone Phi scale you illustrated, but *not* so interesting in the
23
> > tone Phi or, even, in the full 72-tET. In fact, they're not at
> *all*
> > interesting there...
>
> Well the intervals are just getting narrower and narrower . . . so
> this is not surprising . . . I guess a guitar would be better for
> this approach because if you *tried* to play a familiar chord on a
> guitar with an unfamiliar fretting, you'd at least have roughly the
> same *sizes* of intervals . . . rather than intervals 6 times
smaller!
>
> You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really teensy
> tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for me.
As
> a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my path
is
> different.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> Joe:
> > You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really
teensy
> > tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for me.
> As
> > a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my path
> is
> > different.

Bob: _I_ wrote that, not Joe.
>
> Bob:
> May I just add my two cents (or 77 cents) here for whatever it's
> worth or not? Classical Indian melodic music is soem of the most
> subtle, sophisticated, highly evolved, essentially melodic musics
on
> the planet. It uses microtonal melodic inflections of very small
> degree quite frequently, and I personally find the effect
exquisitely
> pleasing.

Well, this is exactly the kind of music I would use as an example of
what I'm talking about. Generally, for a particular raga, only 7 or
so pitches are chosen from the theoretical 22 avaiable. "Microtonal
inflections" are achieved through vibratos, glissandi, and
other "continuous" types of ornamentation. The effect couldn't be
further from the effect of playing consecutively the notes of a
microtonal scale with lots of teensy intervals on a keyboard.
>
> We could even move a parallel melody to harmonize it monophonically
> at F, G, and Ab (sounding together with 6:7, 16:19, and 5:6
> respectively) while holding down a drone on C. This produces
> exquisite just harmonies while moving melodically in a very subtle
> sequence of microtonal inflections that is rationalized to the ear
by
> the harmony.

Well, this is very much like the sort of thing I like to do
compositionally . . . but I don't think it resembles anything you'll
find in Indian music.
>
> I find experimenting with microtonality as a kind of exotic toy
> interesting and informative at times, but I seldom get much out of
> that aesthetically. I don't know whether that's clear. I'm agreeing
> with Joe, I guess, that I don't go much for the exotic aspects of
> microtonality for their own sake, as a kind of gleeful, cheeky
> rebellion against conventional tonality. I quickly get bored with
> that, and that seems to me to be what often tends to predominate.

Hmm . . . you're agreeing with Joe, or with me? See above . . .

> I kind of grin deep inside when I perceive what I think to be
> Dimitrov's kind of innocent gut reaction to that as "sounding
> terrible", etc. I think on some deep level, he's actually right,
even
> though some may think he's being naive. I'm reminded of the tale of
> the three taylors and the naked king.

You think he's right about JI sounding terrible?
>
> I'm excited about the potential of microtonality as a door to both
> greatly expanded melodic and harmonic potential. I envision (or is
it
> enaudiate or something?) vastly expanded melodic color uniting in
> intimate beauty with new harmonies and counterpoint in ways
analogous
> to DiLasso's highly chromatic works.

I'm totally with you!

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28687

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Sure... I saw that (the list)... Of course it's possible to
create melodies with subsets of blackjack... However, on the overall,
I believe a scale should be judged when it's *all* present as, say,
> on a keyboard as "raw material..." in the way that clay might be to
a sculptor...
>
> I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
> pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments?
Doesn't the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we can
take some of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and
modulate them through various keys, etc. . . .

But actually, Paul... this hasn't been done since about the time of
Wagner. Even Wagner thought of the full 12-tET collection as a
palette...

For the *contemporary* composer, wouldn't it just be easier to come
up with a different scale that serves a particular purpose better??
And then leave blackjack for what it does best??

I thought that was one of the *advantages* of being able to change
scales so easily with modern electronic instruments (keyboards,
mostly...)??

> But if I'm to respond to you literally, when coming up with
blackjack as a good scale from a harmonic point of view, we were
again concerned with *subsets* -- specifically, chords like 4:5:6:7
chords, etc. . . .
>

Why sure! Anytime one would play anything less than 21 notes
simultaneously one would get a "subset" of blackjack! That doesn't
mean anything, though! It still doesn't effect the *overall* sound
of the scale (the "sonic footprint" blah blah) and it's propensities
for making melodies!

> > I have to admit the one of the *main* attractions to 18-tET is
its notational fit with 72... But that *is* important, I believe,
from a performance standpoint!
>
> Well then, go with it!
> >

Of course... and I appreciate your help. The thing about 18-tET is
that it is an especially *restless* scale... I've been messing
around more with it, and really, you're right, it is quite a bit
different from 19-tET... although the general "melodic feel" is
similar because the step sizes are not too different.

But, 19-tET is *considerably* more stable, "sunnier," etc...

18-tET is really a "disturbed" scale...which is why, if I do a Trade
Center piece, it would be a good candidate...

(I still really don't know *what* I'm doing next... if I don't do a
Trade Center piece I won't be writing... too messed up...)

I think, frankly, I'm getting a bit more in the Dan Stearns "camp"
with this... He always liked weird "unstable" scales, and I think I
can *now* appreciate their usefulness!!

> > Actually, Paul, I believe not really. Anything above about 20
> notes per octave doesn't do this for me [make melodies], even if
the scale steps are regular.
>

> But anything with 20 or fewer notes per octave would work . . . and
> if there are more, you can play _every other note_, or _every third
> note_, etc.
> >

Well, sure... but I just find that certain scales are *natively*
geared to fostering melody... at least for *me* anyway, and some
impede.

Naturally, one can make melodies out of *ANY* scales. After all, the
composer Tom Johnson made an entire *opera* out of only 4 notes!
Now, *that's* a *subset* for you!

> > I find it hard even to make melodies in 31-tET...
>
> I have a very easy time making melodies on my 31-tET guitar . . .
> diatonic, pentatonic, slendro, even microtonal segments with 77-
cent steps . . . all kinds of scales can be found in 31-tET . . .
>

I *still* would rather make melodies on a keyboard set to 18-tET or
19-tET... Maybe it's also a matter of taste and approach...

> Good! I'd never dream of using a 21-tone-per-octave scale as
a "white-key" scale, as Dan puts it. What culture on the planet makes
its melodies with that many notes at a time? 5 to 9 seems the most
common range . . . Turkish and North African melodies, for example,
stick to such subsets for a time, and then cleverly "modulate" to
another one . . . that's my idea of microtonal music.
> >

Sure... we *know* you're a kind of "modulatory" xenharmonicist. You
like to think "logically" in that way. That's why you like Herman
Miller so much... he's a *master* at that kind of thing...

But then another xenharmonic master Jacky Ligon hardly modulates at
all... or at least not *conventionally.*

Is one approach better than the other?? It think not... it's a
matter of *style!*

>
> If you're trying to use _every single note_ in the melodic scales,
> then of course that's the impression you're going to get . . . but
> that seems, to me, to be such a silly limitation to place on
yourself when composing. Scales like blackjack are meant to be a
_universe_ within which one may find many wonders . . . like 12-tET,
but more so.

Now wait a minute! Where did you get the impression I was abandoning
blackjack?? I haven't even *started* with it! I'm just saying that
for a dolorous, meditative, mournful, agitated (*screwed up*) kind of
piece, it might just not have the right overall sound! I doubt that
your "scale engineering" is to blame for that! The opposite, most
probably.

> Agreed. But I'm wondering whether you're limiting yourself greatly
in the way you're conceiving of any tuning as a "white-key"
scale . . .
>

Please see my remarks on "post-Wag" above...

> > What is the *first thing* that a musician do when he/she picks up
> an instrument, *regardless* of the tuning it's in??
> >
> > I believe the first thing is to play common patterns we've
> learned. I think virtually *everybody* does this. Don't you do
that, too, when you pick up a guitar??
>
> Hmm . . . if I'm really stiff and need to warm up . . . but I play
> music from my _head_, not from my fingers.

That's the problem, Paul! For *me,* I play music mostly from my
*body* and add the head sometimes later... :)

Actually, I don't want to belabor a point that could get a little
silly... I'm just saying that, when I sit down to a xenharmonic
keyboard I'm tempted to say, "Hey, I wonder what a traditionally
fingered 'major triad' would sound like in this system?"

Sure, I might not even use that, but I see no harm in coming to
something entirely new though the paths of one's previous
experiences...

Sure glad I wasn't in that tower! (Whoops, stream of consciousness
there...)

>
> Well the intervals are just getting narrower and narrower . . . so
> this is not surprising . . . I guess a guitar would be better for
> this approach because if you *tried* to play a familiar chord on a
> guitar with an unfamiliar fretting, you'd at least have roughly the
> same *sizes* of intervals . . . rather than intervals 6 times
smaller!

I see what you're saying. Well, I'm *sure* that much of the way I
approach things is due to my strong keyboard orientation.

However, keyboardists are starting to *rule* for xenharmonics!
Finally *we* have the advantage with the instantaneous adjustments!

It's the keyboard revenge, at long last, after many years
of "confinement!" :)

>
> You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really teensy
> tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for me.
As a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my path
is different.

Well... I think from my commentary it's clear that I agree with you!
I also just like the smallest intervals for "special effects."

Otherwise I like xenharmonic *melodies* as one can find in the
keyboard versions of 18-tET and 19-tET!!

Gee, this is an interesting discussion... Seriously...

_______ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28691

> Joe:
> > You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really
teensy tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for
me. As a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my
path is different.
>

Hi Bob!

Actually, it was Paul who said that but, essentially, I also agree
with him... so no matter.

> Bob:
> May I just add my two cents (or 77 cents) here for whatever it's
> worth or not? Classical Indian melodic music is soem of the most
> subtle, sophisticated, highly evolved, essentially melodic musics
on the planet. It uses microtonal melodic inflections of very small
> degree quite frequently, and I personally find the effect
exquisitely pleasing.
>
> For example, we can take our cues from this and construct a melodic
> sequence that contains a kind of ornamentation

OK... well this is *very* interesting and, in fact, it probably is an
aspect of melody that one *could* do easily with blackjack.

Frankly, I wasn't thinking so much of this approach. I guess I
really still am steeped in the "Western" tradition... at least for
certain kinds of pieces, the kind I was thinking of writing with
Paul's suggestion of 18-tET...

>
> I kind of grin deep inside when I perceive what I think to be
> Dimitrov's kind of innocent gut reaction to that as "sounding
> terrible", etc. I think on some deep level, he's actually right,
even though some may think he's being naive. I'm reminded of the tale
of the three taylors and the naked king.
>

Well, he's certainly a good "foil" around here... since about 99.999%
of traditional musicians agree with him.

(Although more *younger* ones are accepting microtonality... could it
be their exposure to more electronic and microtonal pop music??)

(Heard the album Lasso by the
> Hilliard Ensemble with their wonderully just renderings?).
>

No... but I do have their Perotin...

_______ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28695

Bob:
> > I kind of grin deep inside when I perceive what I think to be
> > Dimitrov's kind of innocent gut reaction to that as "sounding
> > terrible", etc. I think on some deep level, he's actually right,
> even though some may think he's being naive. I'm reminded of the
tale of the three taylors and the naked king.
>

Paul:
> You think he's right about JI sounding terrible?
> >

Ha... that's a funny one. Did you fall in a big trap here, Bob?? :)

Joe

_______ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

> Paul:
> > You think he's right about JI sounding terrible?
> > >
>
>
> Ha... that's a funny one. Did you fall in a big trap here, Bob?? :)
>
>
> Joe

Bob:
No, ha-ha! No, I wasn't referring to JI with regard to Dimitrov. My
apology for lack of clarity there. I believe he had reacted to some
microtonal tinkering in some sort of ET or exotic scale that is not
necessarily a great approximation for JI intervals or 12-tET either,
and he thought it sounded terrible.

I have had similar reactions to some of the microtonal midi files I
have heard here, so I was just amused at the bold innocence with
which he published his reaction and was identifying with him on that
to some degree. He seems a bit closed to me on a lot of issues, but I
like his unabashed openness in revealing his feelings.

Also, I obviously got a bit confused and reversed things from Paul
and Joe. That's why I try to make it clear with labels, because after
a few iterations in a thread, the info about who the source is gets
confusing or even lost.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_28657.html#28695
>
> Bob:
> > > I kind of grin deep inside when I perceive what I think to be
> > > Dimitrov's kind of innocent gut reaction to that as "sounding
> > > terrible", etc. I think on some deep level, he's actually
right,
> > even though some may think he's being naive. I'm reminded of the
> tale of the three taylors and the naked king.
> >
>
> Paul:
> > You think he's right about JI sounding terrible?
> > >
>
>
> Ha... that's a funny one. Did you fall in a big trap here, Bob?? :)
>
>
> Joe
>
> _______ _______ ______
> Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28710

Bob:
> I have had similar reactions to some of the microtonal midi files I
> have heard here, so I was just amused at the bold innocence with
> which he published his reaction and was identifying with him on
that to some degree. He seems a bit closed to me on a lot of issues,
but I like his unabashed openness in revealing his feelings.
>

Joe:
You're right, Bob! That's why I have been encouraging him to a
degree... I think it's healthy to have all different kinds of
opinions on this forum... That is, as long as people can have
consideration and respect for one another. Dimitrov has, for the
most part. I think he should get the "smiley award..." He's posted
more smilies than anybody...

Bob:
> Also, I obviously got a bit confused and reversed things from Paul
> and Joe. That's why I try to make it clear with labels, because
after a few iterations in a thread, the info about who the source is
gets confusing or even lost.
>

Joe:
I think you've started a good trend her, Bob... I hope it catches
on... As for *me* I'll label mine either "Joe" or "Joseph"... I use
both about equally, but when big "Joe Monz" comes back maybe "Joseph"
will work best just to distinguish...

thanks for the suggestions!

________ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

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

> Not sure who wrote what here, but I must say that many times (but
not
> all) it does help me to work with subsets from large scales such as
> BJ.

I'm working on my first microtonal piece in 20 years, and enjoying
having a palette larger than merely square waves. As was often the
case when I was doing this previously, I don't even have a scale,
though I am keeping it in the 11-limit. It depends a lot on your
working method, I think.

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

> >
> > I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
> > pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments?
> Doesn't the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we can
> take some of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and
> modulate them through various keys, etc. . . .
>
>
> But actually, Paul... this hasn't been done since about the time of
> Wagner. Even Wagner thought of the full 12-tET collection as a
> palette...

Hasn't been done? What about Bloch, Stravinsky, Messaien, Gershwin,
Copland, Part, jazz, rock, country, folk . . .
>
> For the *contemporary* composer, wouldn't it just be easier to come
> up with a different scale that serves a particular purpose
better??
> And then leave blackjack for what it does best??

I have nothing against that . . . but I think you'd be missing a lot
if you didn't try to dip into the melodic potentialities of the
_subsets_ of blackjack.

> > But if I'm to respond to you literally, when coming up with
> blackjack as a good scale from a harmonic point of view, we were
> again concerned with *subsets* -- specifically, chords like 4:5:6:7
> chords, etc. . . .
> >
>
> Why sure! Anytime one would play anything less than 21 notes
> simultaneously one would get a "subset" of blackjack! That doesn't
> mean anything, though! It still doesn't effect the *overall* sound
> of the scale (the "sonic footprint" blah blah) and it's
propensities
> for making melodies!

Hmm . . . if you conceive of the full 21-tone set as a melodic scale,
you'll end up with a very different *sound* than if you use one of
the many subsets that have proved useful for melody in the past . . .

> > But anything with 20 or fewer notes per octave would work . . .
and
> > if there are more, you can play _every other note_, or _every
third
> > note_, etc.
> > >
>
> Well, sure... but I just find that certain scales are *natively*
> geared to fostering melody... at least for *me* anyway, and some
> impede.

I agree, but I don't think playing the notes of a tuning
consecutively up and down is going to give you much of an idea of the
kinds of melodic possibilities that the various scales in the tuning
have.
>
> Naturally, one can make melodies out of *ANY* scales. After all,
the
> composer Tom Johnson made an entire *opera* out of only 4 notes!
> Now, *that's* a *subset* for you!
>
>
> > > I find it hard even to make melodies in 31-tET...
> >
> > I have a very easy time making melodies on my 31-tET guitar . . .
> > diatonic, pentatonic, slendro, even microtonal segments with 77-
> cent steps . . . all kinds of scales can be found in 31-tET . . .
> >
>
>
> I *still* would rather make melodies on a keyboard set to 18-tET or
> 19-tET... Maybe it's also a matter of taste and approach...
>
Well, on a standard keyboard with all of 31-tET, many common
intervals will be *unreachable* . . . so I certainly can sympathize!
>
> > Good! I'd never dream of using a 21-tone-per-octave scale as
> a "white-key" scale, as Dan puts it. What culture on the planet
makes
> its melodies with that many notes at a time? 5 to 9 seems the most
> common range . . . Turkish and North African melodies, for example,
> stick to such subsets for a time, and then cleverly "modulate" to
> another one . . . that's my idea of microtonal music.
> > >
>
> Sure... we *know* you're a kind of "modulatory" xenharmonicist. You
> like to think "logically" in that way. That's why you like Herman
> Miller so much... he's a *master* at that kind of thing...
>
> But then another xenharmonic master Jacky Ligon hardly modulates at
> all... or at least not *conventionally.*
>
Neither does Turkish or North African music "modulate" in the
conventional Western sense. That wasn't my point. My point was that
successful melodies tend to come from a patterned use of a
relatively "comprehensible" pitch set -- not one with 21 or so
distinct pitches.

>
> >
> > If you're trying to use _every single note_ in the melodic
scales,
> > then of course that's the impression you're going to get . . .
but
> > that seems, to me, to be such a silly limitation to place on
> yourself when composing. Scales like blackjack are meant to be a
> _universe_ within which one may find many wonders . . . like 12-
tET,
> but more so.
>
>
> Now wait a minute! Where did you get the impression I was
abandoning
> blackjack??

I didn't. On the contrary, I'm seeing you using it a lot in the
future, which is why I'm trying to influence you to try to think
about it a little differently.
> >
> > You know, I don't actually like *micro*tonality . . . really
teensy
> > tiny intervals . . . naah, that in itself doesn't so much for me.
> As a special effect, sure, but as the basis for melody . . . my
path
> is different.
>
>
> Well... I think from my commentary it's clear that I agree with
you!
> I also just like the smallest intervals for "special effects."
>
> Otherwise I like xenharmonic *melodies* as one can find in the
> keyboard versions of 18-tET and 19-tET!!

Well, if you're not using subsets, this is exactly what I'm saying I
_don't_ like.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > Paul:
> > > You think he's right about JI sounding terrible?
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Ha... that's a funny one. Did you fall in a big trap here,
Bob?? :)
> >
> >
> > Joe
>
> Bob:
> No, ha-ha! No, I wasn't referring to JI with regard to Dimitrov. My
> apology for lack of clarity there. I believe he had reacted to some
> microtonal tinkering in some sort of ET or exotic scale that is not
> necessarily a great approximation for JI intervals or 12-tET
either,
> and he thought it sounded terrible.

Actually, he's been much more vocal in voicing his ridicule for JI,
and the idea that musical intervals are harmonically based, than for
alternate scales in general. His reaction to the latter is
basically, "well, you can compose good music in any tuning, but
what's the point?" I'll let him clarify . . .

> I have had similar reactions to some of the microtonal midi files I
> have heard here, so I was just amused at the bold innocence with
> which he published his reaction and was identifying with him on
that
> to some degree.

His most negative reactions were to the adaptively-retuned Mozart,
Bach, and other classical works on John deLaubenfels' site. I'm not
too crazy about most of the new microtonal music I've heard, but I
certainly think (and I'd expect you'd agree) that classical works can
benefit from this type of treatment, pulling simultaneous intervals
toward JI.

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

> Very seldom do I find the need to use every single pitch in
> an entire tuning, preferring to focus in on some special facet of
it
> (modes).

Boy do I agree with you, Jacky! But would you allow that you might
want to use some pitches from outside the current mode in the
_harmonization_? That's the kind of approach that, I think, could
make a scale like blackjack shine melodically as well as harmonically.

> > Actually, Paul, I believe not really. Anything above about 20
> > notes per octave doesn't do this for me [make melodies], even if
> > the scale steps are regular.
>
> This is why I like to narrow the palette of choice.

Ditto.

> I like Margo's approach
> of assigning a tuning to two manuals, although I don't have the
> capability to do this (yet).

Joseph -- maybe this is something you can try in the future? To help
escape the tyranny of your familiar keyboard patterns?
>
> > I *still* would rather make melodies on a keyboard set to 18-tET
or
> > 19-tET... Maybe it's also a matter of taste and approach...
>
> This whole discussion is fascinating to me, and gets into one of my
> favorite questions:
>
> How many pitches does one need at one time to make beautiful music?
>
> In East Indian Classical - 5 to 7 is usually all that's needed, and
> it is enchanting music!

Just my point (though of course, lots of "extra" pitches are present,
and implied, in the detailed ornamentations, which are somewhere
between and beyond the Western concepts of "vibrato" and "glissando").
>
> Isn't a large part of making music about imposing limitations on
> ourselves? Certainly if we didn't, the results of our efforts could
> lean toward white-noise.

Hear here! The Gary Morrison Thesis.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > > Paul:
> > > > You think he's right about JI sounding terrible?
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ha... that's a funny one. Did you fall in a big trap here,
> Bob?? :)
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe
> >
> > Bob:
> > No, ha-ha! No, I wasn't referring to JI with regard to Dimitrov.
My
> > apology for lack of clarity there. I believe he had reacted to
some
> > microtonal tinkering in some sort of ET or exotic scale that is
not
> > necessarily a great approximation for JI intervals or 12-tET
> either,
> > and he thought it sounded terrible.
>
> Actually, he's been much more vocal in voicing his ridicule for JI,
> and the idea that musical intervals are harmonically based, than
for
> alternate scales in general. His reaction to the latter is
> basically, "well, you can compose good music in any tuning, but
> what's the point?" I'll let him clarify . . .
>
> > I have had similar reactions to some of the microtonal midi files
I
> > have heard here, so I was just amused at the bold innocence with
> > which he published his reaction and was identifying with him on
> that
> > to some degree.
>
> His most negative reactions were to the adaptively-retuned Mozart,
> Bach, and other classical works on John deLaubenfels' site. I'm not
> too crazy about most of the new microtonal music I've heard, but I
> certainly think (and I'd expect you'd agree) that classical works
can
> benefit from this type of treatment, pulling simultaneous intervals
> toward JI.

Bob replies:
Oh, yes! Absolutely!!! I love what John is doing with retuning old
works. You're absolutely right that it would follow that I do, given
my orientation toward adaptive JI in choral a cappella performance of
"classical" works, meaning a range from Des Prez to Franz Biebl.

Biebl's popular Ave Maria sounds wonderful on our 2nd CD (still not
up on our site. Whew!). The rich sonorities of his modern harmonies
are unbelieveable with our singers' ears naturally gravitating to the
low-entropy valleys, even in twentieth-century compositions.

Incidentally, I have significant problems sometimes deciphering
Dimitrov's postings. So I don't read all of them and sometimes miss
the context. I didn't realize he took those positions.

Also even compositions in exotic tunings that fail to move me
aesthetically I find interesting nonetheless, and often informative
in terms of my own vision of the possibilities I would like to
explore.

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Neither does Turkish or North African music "modulate" in the
> conventional Western sense. That wasn't my point. My point was that
> successful melodies tend to come from a patterned use of a
> relatively "comprehensible" pitch set -- not one with 21 or so
> distinct pitches.

Question: how could anyone term a melody "successful"? If we ask
ourselves to listen more closely so we can hear (correctly) smaller
and different intervals from 12tET, if we ask ourselves to break out
of dopey Western rhythms and delve into the rhythmic complexities of
so many World musics (and, I suppose, the rhythms of composers such
as Xenakis), why can we not attempt to make melodies out of larger
pitch sets?

Success? Leave that to Dale Carnegie! This sounds like someone who
makes music from their head and not their heart...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> Question: how could anyone term a melody "successful"?

Well, if you find yourself whistling or humming the melody to
yourself later, that's one sign . . . The melody sticks with you,
it's beautiful, or evocative, or something distinctly different than
the output of a random number generator on the one hand, and a
predictable set of rules on the other.

> If we ask
> ourselves to listen more closely so we can hear (correctly) smaller
> and different intervals from 12tET, if we ask ourselves to break
out
> of dopey Western rhythms and delve into the rhythmic complexities
of
> so many World musics (and, I suppose, the rhythms of composers such
> as Xenakis), why can we not attempt to make melodies out of larger
> pitch sets?

We can and should attempt to do so, and sometimes we are successful
(some of my friends go around humming the _TIBIA_ melody, which
basically just descends through almost all the notes of 22-tET, but I
think that's only possible if you hear the harmony in your head). But
what World musics can we look to for inspiration?

> Success? Leave that to Dale Carnegie! This sounds like someone who
> makes music from their head and not their heart...

Quite the opposite . . . hmm . . . is there no such thing as
aesthetic success? Artistic success? Haven't you ever engaged in a
musical endeavor and then felt that it was a failure in some way?

Hey you!

(must be online, huh?)

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> But what World musics can we look to for inspiration?

For melodies? I'm the wrong guy to answer that one, but certainly the
progression in Afro-Cuban musics shows an increase in the complexity
of rhythmic structure and interplay, and it is being done by and for
people who are not researchers or professors but everyday people
(well, the musicians are a little more than 'everyday'). I recently
heard a recording of a new Cuban singer that just made a big splash
in New York, and the interplay in the band, rhythmically, was so far
beyond anything I'd heard I almost couldn't believe it!

> Quite the opposite . . . hmm . . . is there no such thing as
> aesthetic success? Artistic success?

Absolutely. But it would vary by performer and audience, and isn't
something that could be quantified. Which is why I would hesitate to
term something as ephemeral as a melody "successful". Besides, I've
had melodies stick in my head that I *hated*! :) (that happens a lot
when you do a long run of a particularly lame Broadway show or
something...).

> Haven't you ever engaged in a musical endeavor and then felt that
> it was a failure in some way?

Gad, it seems like a weekly battle, but then again I subject myself
to some pretty high standards! Fortunately, the successes tend to
assuage the failures...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Hey you!
>
> (must be online, huh?)
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > But what World musics can we look to for inspiration?
>
> For melodies? I'm the wrong guy to answer that one,

Well, my understanding is that all the world's melodies tend to be
restricted to a fairly manageable number of pitches at a time (with
very large pitch sets sometimes used in order to
facilitate "modulation" from one to another, as in Turkish music). I
won't go as far as the Miller limit advocates and attempt to say "the
magic number is 7±2", because so many factors can alter the
underlying conditions . . .

> but certainly the
> progression in Afro-Cuban musics shows an increase in the
complexity
> of rhythmic structure and interplay,

Right . . . but we're talking about large pitch sets in melodies.
>
> > Quite the opposite . . . hmm . . . is there no such thing as
> > aesthetic success? Artistic success?
>
> Absolutely. But it would vary by performer and audience, and isn't
> something that could be quantified.

Who said anything about quantifying it?

> Which is why I would hesitate to
> term something as ephemeral as a melody "successful".

Well, some melodies clearly work for me, and others don't . . . I try
to give myself enough time to "learn the language", and see if the
melody "makes sense" (how one defines that in music is an age-old
question, but somehow the concept has meaning for most of us). That's
really all I can do.

> Besides, I've
> had melodies stick in my head that I *hated*! :) (that happens a
lot
> when you do a long run of a particularly lame Broadway show or
> something...).

Yes, we need variety . . .
>
> > Haven't you ever engaged in a musical endeavor and then felt that
> > it was a failure in some way?
>
> Gad, it seems like a weekly battle, but then again I subject myself
> to some pretty high standards! Fortunately, the successes tend to
> assuage the failures...

Well there you go. So you know very well what I mean by success and
failure.

Look, I was just suggesting that, based on the evidence from world
musics, Joseph Pehrson might be interested in trying to construct
melodies from various _subsets_ of the large tunings he's working
with. Even if he's composing in a world where diatonicism and
anything resembling it are out the window. Bob and Jacky seem to
understand what I'm getting at, despite coming at it from different
angles.

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
<snip>
> Question: how could anyone term a melody "successful"?
<snip>
> Success? Leave that to Dale Carnegie! This sounds like someone who
> makes music from their head and not their heart...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Perhaps we can measure success by its ability to survive. There are
some folk melodies that have lasted through ages (and evolved, no
doubt!) while others have faded into obscurity.

Stumbling into your conversation with no clue,
John Starrett

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > but certainly the
> > progression in Afro-Cuban musics shows an increase in the
> complexity
> > of rhythmic structure and interplay,
>
> Right . . . but we're talking about large pitch sets in melodies.

I was only holding open the door that as rhythms could become more
complex and _still_ hold undeniable sway, maybe the same could be
said of expanding resources for complex melodies, if the listener
became similarly 'hip' to the evolution.

> Who said anything about quantifying it?

If it varies from person to person, then how could you call any
particular melody "successful" - a show of hands?

> Well there you go. So you know very well what I mean by success and
> failure.

In very personal terms; I wouldn't apply it to others. If one plays
or composes enough, one finds a performance that people have enjoyed
but the performer was very disheartened, or a composition very much
favored by the composer and disliked by an audience. In cases such as
these, what is success? Failure?

(...and, Jon, who cares?...)

> Look, I was just suggesting that, based on the evidence from world
> musics, Joseph Pehrson might be interested in trying to construct
> melodies from various _subsets_ of the large tunings he's working
> with.

And, not oddly, I agree with you. I had just slipped into my "Paul
Erlich 'I call the question!'" mode! :)

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28717

PE=Paul Erlich, JP=Joseph Pehrson

PE
> > > I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
> > > pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments?
> > Doesn't the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we
can take some of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and
> > modulate them through various keys, etc. . . .

JP
> > But actually, Paul... this hasn't been done since about the time
of Wagner. Even Wagner thought of the full 12-tET collection as a
> > palette...
>

PE
> Hasn't been done? What about Bloch, Stravinsky, Messaien, Gershwin,
> Copland, Part, jazz, rock, country, folk . . .
> >

JP
Hi Paul! Well... you certainly are making a point, *but* your
inclusion of Stravinsky doesn't advance it. One of his most famous
statements is that he liked to stare at the *entire* 12-note
collection and thought of it as a complete set. It comforted him
that he only had 12 notes he had to work with! :)

JP
> > For the *contemporary* composer, wouldn't it just be easier to
come up with a different scale that serves a particular purpose
> better??
> > And then leave blackjack for what it does best??
>

PE
> I have nothing against that . . . but I think you'd be missing a
lot if you didn't try to dip into the melodic potentialities of the
> _subsets_ of blackjack.
>

JP
OK... I'll buy it. I'm "all set" for subsets. I note that I had
saved Dave Keenan's message #22431, which has several of
the "classical" subsets of Blackjack.

HOWEVER, I thought I remembered an even *longer* post about this...
Maybe it was later. I can't find it at the moment. Anybody have the
reference number??

PE
> I agree, but I don't think playing the notes of a tuning
> consecutively up and down is going to give you much of an idea of
the kinds of melodic possibilities that the various scales in the
tuning have.

JP
Why, of course... However, I really don't think that's what I have
*ever* been doing... In the construction of motivic material I
already *have* been using subsets and even transposing them. I just
haven't thought of them systematically as a subset for melodic
creation... The melodies *themselves* are the subsets...

Does that follow??

________ _______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28720

> Joseph -- maybe this is something you can try in the future? To
help escape the tyranny of your familiar keyboard patterns?

Actually, what I'm *more* inclined to do at the moment, is expand my
palette of *motives* and perhaps make them more systematic as
*subsets*...

That would even be better, in *my* book than trying to use
a "classical scale" subset of Blackjack...

________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

on 9/29/01 6:18 AM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:09:42 -0000
> From: "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>> But what World musics can we look to for inspiration?
>
> For melodies? I'm the wrong guy to answer that one, but certainly the
> progression in Afro-Cuban musics shows an increase in the complexity
> of rhythmic structure and interplay, and it is being done by and for
> people who are not researchers or professors but everyday people
> (well, the musicians are a little more than 'everyday').

A number of eastern European melodies that I play come to mind. Most of the
tunes tend to have a small melodic compass, usually only slightly over an
octave, some under an octave. Scottish bagpipe melodies also only have a
melodic range of 9 notes, and many Appalachian or Celtic fiddle melodies
aren't much larger than that. A number of Balkan and Greek melodies in odd
meters that I play use only six notes, with no octave duplication. I've even
found one Hungarian tune that is only 5 notes, and it's an amazingly
haunting melody.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

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

Seth,

> A number of eastern European melodies that I play come to mind.
> Most of the tunes tend to have a small melodic compass ...

Right. As usual, my clarity was not the best. What I was wondering
aloud was that if it is possible for other aspects of 'music' to
become complex without losing a connection to an audience, could this
happen with melodies? Or is melodic material somehow boxed in, and
that going beyond a smallish number of notes will only sap it's
ability to gain hold in a listener...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r...
wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_28657.html#28717
>
> PE=Paul Erlich, JP=Joseph Pehrson
>
>
> PE
> > > > I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
> > > > pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments?
> > > Doesn't the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we
> can take some of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and
> > > modulate them through various keys, etc. . . .
>
>
> JP
> > > But actually, Paul... this hasn't been done since about the time
> of Wagner. Even Wagner thought of the full 12-tET collection as a
> > > palette...
> >
>
> PE
> > Hasn't been done? What about Bloch, Stravinsky, Messaien, Gershwin,
> > Copland, Part, jazz, rock, country, folk . . .
> > >
>
> JP
> Hi Paul! Well... you certainly are making a point, *but* your
> inclusion of Stravinsky doesn't advance it. One of his most famous
> statements is that he liked to stare at the *entire* 12-note
> collection and thought of it as a complete set. It comforted him
> that he only had 12 notes he had to work with! :)

Yes, but _some_ of Stravinsky's
music features subset. Perhaps
Bartok would have been a better
example.
>
>
> JP
> > > For the *contemporary* composer, wouldn't it just be easier to
> come up with a different scale that serves a particular purpose
> > better??
> > > And then leave blackjack for what it does best??
> >
>
>
> PE
> > I have nothing against that . . . but I think you'd be missing a
> lot if you didn't try to dip into the melodic potentialities of the
> > _subsets_ of blackjack.
> >
>
>
> JP
> OK... I'll buy it. I'm "all set" for subsets. I note that I had
> saved Dave Keenan's message #22431, which has several of
> the "classical" subsets of Blackjack.
>
> HOWEVER, I thought I remembered an even *longer* post about this...
> Maybe it was later. I can't find it at the moment. Anybody have the
> reference number??

Not off-hand . . . but I'm currently
thinking, rather than a fixed
subset, why not think of Blackjack
as basically a 10-tone scale,
proceeding mostly by steps of
one secor (116.7 cents) at a time,
but "inflecting" certain notes at
times for harmonic fitness, or
even melodic effect?
>
>
> PE
> > I agree, but I don't think playing the notes of a tuning
> > consecutively up and down is going to give you much of an idea of
> the kinds of melodic possibilities that the various scales in the
> tuning have.
>
>
> JP
> Why, of course... However, I really don't think that's what I have
> *ever* been doing... In the construction of motivic material I
> already *have* been using subsets and even transposing them. I just
> haven't thought of them systematically as a subset for melodic
> creation... The melodies *themselves* are the subsets...
>
> Does that follow??

I hear some of that kind of
approach in your Blackjack piece.
But it seemed that your original
complaint, which started this
thread, was about the melodic
qualities of Blackjack when you
just play all the notes,
consecutively. But these melodic
qualities are completely different
if you base your melodies on, say,
every other note (Decimal), or
every third note (Mohajira), in the
scale. That's the kind of point I've
been trying to make, as a
response to your original
observation.

--- In tuning@y..., Seth Austen <
klezmusic@e...> wrote:

> A number of eastern European melodies that I play come to mind. Most of the
> tunes tend to have a small melodic compass, usually only slightly over an
> octave, some under an octave. Scottish bagpipe melodies also only have a
> melodic range of 9 notes, and many Appalachian or Celtic fiddle melodies
> aren't much larger than that. A number of Balkan and Greek melodies in odd
> meters that I play use only six notes, with no octave duplication. I've even
> found one Hungarian tune that is only 5 notes, and it's an amazingly
> haunting melody.
>
I think the question was kind of
the opposite -- in what cultures
does one find melodies which use
a large number (say, around 20 or
more) pitches at a time?

on 9/29/01 6:58 PM, tuning@yahoogroups.com at tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Achieving success...
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Seth Austen <

> I think the question was kind of
> the opposite -- in what cultures
> does one find melodies which use
> a large number (say, around 20 or
> more) pitches at a time?

At this moment, I can't think of any culture that uses that high a number of
pitches. It seems that most traditional musics that I play make the most out
of a limited pallette, whether of pitch or rhythm.

Many great and memorable blues melodies and Appalachian/Celtic ballads come
to mind that are in pentatonic scales, and don't ever span much more than an
octave.

Seth

--
Seth Austen

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

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28752

>
I'm currently
> thinking, rather than a fixed
> subset, why not think of Blackjack
> as basically a 10-tone scale,
> proceeding mostly by steps of
> one secor (116.7 cents) at a time,
> but "inflecting" certain notes at
> times for harmonic fitness, or
> even melodic effect?
> >

Paul....

Eureka! You did it here! You solved my blackjack melodic "problem!"

The 10-note scale is *essentially* a "chromatic" entity... it almost
sounds like our regular 12-tET, only, of course, with slightly larger
steps... I can get all the chromaticism I *want* that way, and
the "inflections" add nice alterations.

I wonder why I hadn't thought about working with blackjack this way
before...(??)

If I think every *other* note, I can get all the "chromaticism" I
need and, in addition, all the other *harmonic* nuances that I
couldn't possibly get in a scale such as 18-tET... Because of this,
it really presents a greater emotive range...

wow...

>But these melodic
>qualities are completely different
>if you base your melodies on, say,
>every other note (Decimal), or
>every third note (Mohajira), in the
scale. That's the kind of point I've
been trying to make, as a
response to your original
observation.

Actually, I *also* like the effect of the "Mohajira...", every
*third* note...

Where does that word come from, and to what does it relate again??

Working with every *other* note, or every *third* note is really
something I could easily integrated into my compositional style...
and there really is *much* more variety in this way than I had
imagined!

Thanks for the "illuminations..."!!!

_______ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > but certainly the
> > > progression in Afro-Cuban musics shows an increase in the
> > complexity
> > > of rhythmic structure and interplay,
> >
> > Right . . . but we're talking about large pitch sets in melodies.
>
> I was only holding open the door that as rhythms could become more
> complex and _still_ hold undeniable sway, maybe the same could be
> said of expanding resources for complex melodies, if the listener
> became similarly 'hip' to the evolution.
>
> > Who said anything about quantifying it?
>
> If it varies from person to person, then how could you call any
> particular melody "successful" - a show of hands?
>
> > Well there you go. So you know very well what I mean by success
and
> > failure.
>
> In very personal terms; I wouldn't apply it to others. If one plays
> or composes enough, one finds a performance that people have
enjoyed
> but the performer was very disheartened, or a composition very much
> favored by the composer and disliked by an audience. In cases such
as
> these, what is success? Failure?
>
> (...and, Jon, who cares?...)
>
> > Look, I was just suggesting that, based on the evidence from
world
> > musics, Joseph Pehrson might be interested in trying to construct
> > melodies from various _subsets_ of the large tunings he's working
> > with.
>
> And, not oddly, I agree with you. I had just slipped into my "Paul
> Erlich 'I call the question!'" mode! :)

Bob:
(Wide grin!)

>
> Cheers,
> Jon

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_28657.html#28717
>
> PE=Paul Erlich, JP=Joseph Pehrson
>
>
> PE
> > > > I completely disagree. Do we not play music using diatonic,
> > > > pentatonic, and octatonic subsets, on our 12-tET instruments?
> > > Doesn't the piano have "white keys" for a reason? Similarly, we
> can take some of the melodically viable subsets of blackjack, and
> > > modulate them through various keys, etc. . . .
>
>
> JP
> > > But actually, Paul... this hasn't been done since about the
time
> of Wagner. Even Wagner thought of the full 12-tET collection as a
> > > palette...
> >
>
> PE
> > Hasn't been done? What about Bloch, Stravinsky, Messaien,
Gershwin,
> > Copland, Part, jazz, rock, country, folk . . .
> > >
>
> JP
> Hi Paul! Well... you certainly are making a point, *but* your
> inclusion of Stravinsky doesn't advance it. One of his most famous
> statements is that he liked to stare at the *entire* 12-note
> collection and thought of it as a complete set. It comforted him
> that he only had 12 notes he had to work with! :)
>
> Bob:
Joe, I think Paul must be referring to Stravinsky's "pan-diatonic"
music. It is well-known that he tinkered quite a bit as a composer
with music restricted to the white notes, but defying conventional
diatonic tonal classifications.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28786

> > Bob:
> Joe, I think Paul must be referring to Stravinsky's "pan-diatonic"
> music. It is well-known that he tinkered quite a bit as a composer
> with music restricted to the white notes, but defying conventional
> diatonic tonal classifications.

Hi Bob!

Which pieces do you think fit into that category?? _Mass_, _Symphony
of Psalms_, _Pulcinella?_

Anybody??

_______ ________ _________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_28657.html#28752
>
> >
> I'm currently
> > thinking, rather than a fixed
> > subset, why not think of Blackjack
> > as basically a 10-tone scale,
> > proceeding mostly by steps of
> > one secor (116.7 cents) at a time,
> > but "inflecting" certain notes at
> > times for harmonic fitness, or
> > even melodic effect?
> > >
>
> Paul....
>
> Eureka! You did it here! You solved my blackjack
melodic "problem!"
>
> The 10-note scale is *essentially* a "chromatic" entity... it
almost
> sounds like our regular 12-tET, only, of course, with slightly
larger
> steps... I can get all the chromaticism I *want* that way, and
> the "inflections" add nice alterations.
>
> I wonder why I hadn't thought about working with blackjack this way
> before...(??)

Actually, it seems that you did . . . on the MMM list, a while back?
>
> If I think every *other* note, I can get all the "chromaticism" I
> need and, in addition, all the other *harmonic* nuances that I
> couldn't possibly get in a scale such as 18-tET... Because of this,
> it really presents a greater emotive range...
>
> wow...
>
>
> >But these melodic
> >qualities are completely different
> >if you base your melodies on, say,
> >every other note (Decimal), or
> >every third note (Mohajira), in the
> scale. That's the kind of point I've
> been trying to make, as a
> response to your original
> observation.
>
>
> Actually, I *also* like the effect of the "Mohajira...", every
> *third* note...
>
> Where does that word come from, and to what does it relate again??

It's a rare Arabic mode: 3434343 in 24-tET.
>
> Working with every *other* note, or every *third* note is really
> something I could easily integrated into my compositional style...
> and there really is *much* more variety in this way than I had
> imagined!

Well, then, I'm glad I kept beating my head against you in this!
Also, try every fourth note -- that's "Slendro" . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28790
>
> Well, then, I'm glad I kept beating my head against you in this!
> Also, try every fourth note -- that's "Slendro" . . .

It seemed to work, didn't it!

Well, it's true that some of these "discoveries" were *partially*
revealed to me in my blackjack piece... but not in a systematic
enough way for me to appreciate them.

It's funny how a person can work with certain materials and then,
with just a different "mindset" think about the same materials in an
*entirely* different way!

Looking forward to working with this new approach, and I'll keep you
posted on what happens...

_________ ______ _________
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph,

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> Which pieces do you think fit into that category?? _Mass_,
_Symphony
> of Psalms_, _Pulcinella?_
>
> Anybody??

Les Noces?

Jon

Paul:

<< Thanks for the implication of plagiarism >>

Pierre:

There is not plagiarism where it was simply a suggestion
about the blackjack set with which I'm not really concerned.
It was surely very badly formulated.

The problem is reversed. I'm not disapointed for you would
use an 'idea' which would be mine without credit but for you
ignore the concept I consider really important behind the
decatonic viewpoint about these miracle, canasta and blackjack
sets. I mean the following (what I qualify of) 'idea'

-----------------------------------------------
The linear convexity used with a microgenerator
has sense only as a reflect of the multilinear
convexity of a JI domain. Using here a convex
generated sequence of 41, 31 and 21 intervals
reflecting a decatonic structure implies forcely
it contains unison vectors. The 2 and 70 are such
unison vectors.
------------------------------------------------

Maybe it's an 'idea' hard to catch when the tuning question
and the structural question are not separated.

-----

I wrote:

> Nice, but since I use maths with so few sense for the music I
> suppose it is totally unsignificant to add there exist four
> pentatonic substructure in ib1215, the chinese one, the slendro
> one, a pelog one using 11 (the other using 13) and the japanese
> one. You could "discovered" also many hexatonic structures like
> the blues one, many heptatonic like the arabic one, the Zarlino
> one, the lydian one, and so many others ...

and Paul wrote:

<< This has all already been done, by Dave Keenan, who posted
all the subsets of blackjack that are named scales in Scala,
to within 5 cents. >>

I talked about substructures, not about subsets being named scales
in Scala. As long as someone won't have demonstrate there exist a
common ground permitting to generate all these scales, I will say
we speak about things totally different.

Besides, Miracle, canasta and blackjack sets are not structures
even if Miracle is very near from the ib1215 structure as shown
on my graphics.

All the structures mentionned could be represented with the forms
used for ib1215, such relational structure, lattice, modal treillis
(and related 'keyboard'), simply in erasing part of the forms used
with ib1215.

Trying to make that with scales in Scala, you could see how any set
named scale is not necessary a well structured object.

Pierre

In-Reply-To: <9pb2ok+rnj4@eGroups.com>
Paul wrote:

> Thanks for the implication of plagiarism, Pierre, but we had already
> mentioned this on MakeMicroMusic, and Graham Breed implied it even
> earlier with his initial conception of "Decimal" here in April or May.

Yes, I'd already bookmarked the post where I gave my keyboard mappings
</tuning/topicId_22183.html#22183> in case Joseph wanted
to give them a try. I see there's almost no explanation there, though.
The idea is that you start the tuning on the C key, and then the black
notes are a decimal scale. The white notes for the "high" mapping are
always a quomma (2/72) above the black note to the left, except where
there isn't a black note to the left.

I had the original idea of decimal notation and keyboard mapping in
</tuning/topicId_21957.html#22030> by the looks of it.
May 3rd. That also includes a comment about the Mohajira scales.

Stepping back through the archive, I see the ideas behind decimal notation
in </tuning/topicId_21957.html#21970> (much of which is
duplicating </tuning/topicId_21894.html#21894> that I
hadn't read properly then). Oh, and the approximation to 10-equal
mentioned in my first post on the subject
</tuning/topicId_21940.html#21945> on May 1st.

And yes, the word is "decimal" so that "decatonic" always specifies Paul's
modes from 22-equal. And for anybody collecting 10 note scales, note that
neutral thirds also give a 10 note MOS.

Graham

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

...Dave Keenan posted a long list of the Scala scales that are
subsets of blackjack.
> Did you try making melodies with any of these?
>
Bob asks:
Where is this posting? I did a search on the archives and couldn't
find it.

--- In tuning@y..., Pierre Lamothe <plamothe@a...> wrote:

> The problem is reversed. I'm not disapointed for you would
> use an 'idea' which would be mine without credit

Well that's certainly what you seemed to be implying.

> but for you
> ignore the concept I consider really important behind the
> decatonic viewpoint about these miracle, canasta and blackjack
> sets. I mean the following (what I qualify of) 'idea'
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> The linear convexity used with a microgenerator
> has sense only as a reflect of the multilinear
> convexity of a JI domain. Using here a convex
> generated sequence of 41, 31 and 21 intervals
> reflecting a decatonic structure implies forcely
> it contains unison vectors. The 2 and 70 are such
> unison vectors.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe it's an 'idea' hard to catch when the tuning question
> and the structural question are not separated.

Maybe. I ignore your concept because

(a) I don't understand it
(b) I find it unlikely to be of practical importance for Joseph
(c) Your presentation seems to be tied to certain choices of "tonic"
(d) Your presentation makes use of "sonance" concepts that don't seem
reasonable

It may be that you have a deeper understanding of all musical and
tuning issues than anyone else. But if I am unable to grasp your
work, and in particular feel that its foundation disagrees with my
own, what good would it do for me to cite your ideas in a discussion
such as this one with Joseph?

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> ...Dave Keenan posted a long list of the Scala scales that are
> subsets of blackjack.
> > Did you try making melodies with any of these?
> >
> Bob asks:
> Where is this posting? I did a search on the archives and couldn't
> find it.

Perhaps Manuel could reproduce this with little trouble. Also, the
same for Canasta would be nice, though the result would likely be so
long that one would want to put it in a file, rather than post it.

--- In tuning@y..., Pierre Lamothe <plamothe@a...> wrote:

> The linear convexity used with a microgenerator
> has sense only as a reflect of the multilinear
> convexity of a JI domain.

"Multilinear" as in tensor or wedge products, or what exactly do you
mean?

Using here a convex
> generated sequence of 41, 31 and 21 intervals
> reflecting a decatonic structure implies forcely
> it contains unison vectors. The 2 and 70 are such
> unison vectors.

It seems to me that a sequence defined by one generator is trivially
convex.

> Maybe it's an 'idea' hard to catch when the tuning question
> and the structural question are not separated.

I'm all in favor of separating those, but what do you see as the
structure in question?

> Besides, Miracle, canasta and blackjack sets are not structures
> even if Miracle is very near from the ib1215 structure as shown
> on my graphics.

What do you mean by a "structure"?

If you reply on tuning-math, I always read that.

Paul,

You wrote:

<< if I am unable to grasp your work, and in particular feel
that its foundation disagrees with my own, what good would
it do for me to cite your ideas in a discussion such as this
one with Joseph? >>

Logic. And I understand. And also it was not the good place. I
remain however a few disapointed for I have not yet seen how I
could present my work and its foundation.

I suppose I have finally to face the unique issue to sit down
and take time to write without regard about presumed future
readers.

I apologize for the bad introduction which seemed certainly
as an implication of plagiarism for anyone else than me. Even
if I thought wrongly my precedent posts had helped to confirm
your decatonic views, the reproach I had in head was only the
apparent refusal to face the contestation of the 21 degrees
interpretation of blackjack from the convexity argument.

Now I understand your position.

Pierre

>Perhaps Manuel could reproduce this with little trouble. Also, the
>same for Canasta would be nice, though the result would likely be so
>long that one would want to put it in a file, rather than post it.

It was /tuning/topicId_23116.html#23116
I did a comparison of Canasta too, it was a superset of about 160
scales.

Manuel

--- In tuning@y..., <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28657.html#28851

>
> >Perhaps Manuel could reproduce this with little trouble. Also, the
> >same for Canasta would be nice, though the result would likely be
so
> >long that one would want to put it in a file, rather than post it.
>
> It was /tuning/topicId_23116.html#23116
> I did a comparison of Canasta too, it was a superset of about 160
> scales.
>
> Manuel

Thank you, Manuel, for re-posting this...

__________ _________ _______
Joseph Pehrson