Blackjack subsets and standardisation

Just when you thought we were close to a standard ...

I earlier wrote:

"So for every pitch in the subset, we'd like to calculate how many secors it is above or below the 1/1. Then we can find its longest chain(s) of fifths and see how they can be aligned.
...
Do we really need to do the excercise? Is anyone still not totally convinced that it is better to have 4 naturals than 3 in the standard Blackjack key? If anyone has the slightest doubt, we should do it. So speak up."

Well _I_ had the slightest doubt. So I started doing it. So far I've looked at all the subsets and approximate subsets (from the Scala archive) that had 7 or more notes.

When all these scales are mapped to Blackjack there are 33 distinct subsets. Here's how many there are of each size.

Number of Number
notes per of scales
octave
---------------------
7 17
8 3
9 5
10 5
12 3

Contrary to my expectation, most of them only have 3 notes in their longest chain of fifths, with the tonic as the middle note of the chain. I guess this shows that tetrachordality is more important than mere chaining of fifths (at least in blackjack subsets).

For each of these scales I looked at whether the tonic (and hence the fourth and fifth if they exist) can be named with a natural under a 3-naturals sytem centered on a note (e.g. Joseph's current FCG) and under a 4-naturals system centered on a fifth (e.g. CGDA).

7 scales could only be given a natural tonic in a 3-naturals Bj key.
7 scales could only be given a natural tonic in a 4-naturals Bj key.
19 scales could be given a natural tonic in either system.

Please bear in mind that some of these scales are theoretical scales and may never have had a piece of music written in them, while others are real scales from various parts of the world and periods of history. Please think about how much weight you would give to each.

Here are the 7 that could only be given a natural tonic in a 3-naturals Blackjack key:

1. (7 notes) (these 2 map to the same Blackjack subset)
! mohajira.scl
Mohajira (Dudon) Two 3 + 4 + 3 Mohajira tetrachords, neutral diatonic
! dudon_a.scl
Dudon Tetrachord A, From Jacques Dudon, an Islamic or "Mohajira" type

* Note that while Mohajira cannot have a natural tonic (or fourth or fifth) in a 4-naturals system, it has the most naturals overall in such a system.

2. (7 notes) (these 2 map to the same Blackjack subset)
! arist_diatdor.scl
PsAristo Redup. Diatonic, 14 + 2 + 14 parts
! kring2.scl
Double-tie circular mirroring of 6:7:8

3. (7 notes)
! BARBOUR_CHROM3.SCL
Barbour's #3 Chromatic

4. (9 notes) (these 2 map to the same Blackjack subset)
! kayolonian_f.scl
Kayolonian scale F
! PIPEDUM7_9.scl
225/224, 49/48 and 36/35 are homophonic intervals

5. (9 notes)
! efg3377.scl
Genus [3377]

6. (10 notes)
! efg33777a.scl
Genus [33777] with comma discarded which disappears in 31-tET

7. (12 notes)
! efg3577.scl
Genus [3577]

Here are the 7 that could only be given a natural tonic in a 4-naturals Blackjack key:

1. (7 notes)
! diat_smal.scl
Smallest number diatonic scale

2. (7 notes)
! turkish.scl
Turkish, 5-limit from Palmer on a Turkish music record, harmonic minor inverse

3. (8 notes)
! octony_min.scl
Octony on Harmonic Minor, from Palmer on an album of Turkish music

4. (9 notes)
! farey4.scl
Farey fractions between 0 and 1 until 4th level, normalised by 2/1

5. (10 notes)
! erlich11.scl
Canonical JI interpretation of the Symmetrical decatonic mode of 22-tET

6. (12 notes)
! awraamoff.scl
Awraamoff Septimal Just

7. (12 notes)
! pipedum_12a.scl
128/125 and 2048/2025 are homophonic intervals

The following 4 scales have 2 natural tonics in a 4-naturals system and only one in a 3-naturals system. i.e. they can be transposed by a fifth.

1. (7 notes) (these 3 map to the same Blackjack subset)
! xenakis_schrom.scl
Xenakis's Byzantine Liturgical mode, 7 + 16 + 7 parts
! al-farabi_chrom2.scl
Al-Farabi's Chromatic permuted
! helmholtz.scl
Helmholtz's Chromatic scale and Gipsy major from Slovakia

2. (7 notes)
! cross_7.scl
3-5-7 cross reduced by 2/1, quasi diatonic, similar to Zalzal's, Flynn Cohen

3. (7 notes)
! kring4.scl
Double-tie circular mirroring of 4:5:7

4. (7 notes)
! slovak_min.scl
Gipsy minor scale from Slovakia

Only one scale has 2 natural tonics in a 3-naturals system , and it also has 2 natural tonics in a 4-naturals system. It happens to map to the "decimal" scale, i.e. 10 notes in a contiguous chain of secors.

! pipedum7_10a.scl
225/224, 1029/1024 and 64/63 are homophonic intervals

If we take the 4 naturals to be CGDA, then of the 21 scales that have only one natural tonic in a 4-naturals system, 10 have a tonic of G, and 11 have a tonic of D.

Please remember that I haven't examined any of the many subsets with 5 or 6 notes. Also some of the above scales may be modes of each other. I didn't check for that.

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

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

/tuning/topicId_30426.html#30426

> Just when you thought we were close to a standard ...
>
> I earlier wrote:
>
> "So for every pitch in the subset, we'd like to calculate how many
secors it is above or below the 1/1. Then we can find its longest
chain(s) of fifths and see how they can be aligned.
> ...
> Do we really need to do the excercise? Is anyone still not totally
convinced that it is better to have 4 naturals than 3 in the standard
Blackjack key? If anyone has the slightest doubt, we should do it. So
speak up."
>
>
> Well _I_ had the slightest doubt. So I started doing it.

[JP]:
Hi Dave!

This is pretty funny... but congrats on all the continuing research
for a "standard." I think we should send you to Greenwich to help
them set the clocks up there...

>So far I've looked at all the subsets and approximate subsets (from
>the Scala archive) that had 7 or more notes.
>
> When all these scales are mapped to Blackjack there are 33 distinct
subsets. Here's how many there are of each size.
>
> Number of Number
> notes per of scales
> octave
> ---------------------
> 7 17
> 8 3
> 9 5
> 10 5
> 12 3
>
> Contrary to my expectation, most of them only have 3 notes in their
longest chain of fifths, with the tonic as the middle note of the
chain. I guess this shows that tetrachordality is more important than
mere chaining of fifths (at least in blackjack subsets).
>
> For each of these scales I looked at whether the tonic (and hence
the fourth and fifth if they exist) can be named with a natural under
a 3-naturals sytem centered on a note (e.g. Joseph's current FCG) and
under a 4-naturals system centered on a fifth (e.g. CGDA).
>

[JP]:
You know, it *really* seems very intuitive to me to have a system
where the naturals FCG form the basis. Even if I don't modulate,
necessarily, like that with the tetrads (they don't work quite that
way!) it still represents a traditional musical "fulcrum."

Of all the notes to have as naturals, F, C and G seem the
most "intuitively musical" candidates, if *I* were to vote on it.

Besides, then when we standardize the system, I won't have to do any
work at all... :)

Maybe I'll be an obstructionist, and continuing composing in *this*
system, even when there is another "standard!" Don't want to be an
antediluvian, though...

> 7 scales could only be given a natural tonic in a 3-naturals Bj
key.
> 7 scales could only be given a natural tonic in a 4-naturals Bj
key.
> 19 scales could be given a natural tonic in either system.
>
> Please bear in mind that some of these scales are theoretical
scales and may never have had a piece of music written in them, while
others are real scales from various parts of the world and periods of
history. Please think about how much weight you would give to each.
>

Well, this really makes a *lot* of sense to look at the historical
models of this. I wonder why *I* didn't think of this, myself...
Hmmm. Well, regardless, personally I would throw out *all*
the "theoretical" scales or just give them very limited weight, and
concentrate on the "real" scales that have been *used.*

I realize that may be a "radical" view! :)

JP

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> You know, it *really* seems very intuitive to me to have a system
> where the naturals FCG form the basis. Even if I don't modulate,
> necessarily, like that with the tetrads (they don't work quite that
> way!) it still represents a traditional musical "fulcrum."
>
> Of all the notes to have as naturals, F, C and G seem the
> most "intuitively musical" candidates, if *I* were to vote on it.

But Joseph! I think you're being a western major chauvinist pig. What
about minor and neutral scales. Very popular. They would much rather
have a tonic of A and a chain of fifths that goes DAE. Ever wonder why
the first letter of the alphabet is where it is musically, and why it
is the tuning reference?

At least a CGDA Blackjack has the decency to disrespect minor and
major scales scales equally!

> Besides, then when we standardize the system, I won't have to do any
> work at all... :)

Please try to be a _little_ impartial. :-)

> Well, this really makes a *lot* of sense to look at the historical
> models of this. I wonder why *I* didn't think of this, myself...
> Hmmm. Well, regardless, personally I would throw out *all*
> the "theoretical" scales or just give them very limited weight, and
> concentrate on the "real" scales that have been *used.*
>
> I realize that may be a "radical" view! :)

Not radical at all, rather conservative really, and it is what _I_
would tend to do. But given that Blackjack itself is rather
theoretical and had never been used before May this year, doesn't this
seem a little odd.

Anyway, which are which? I'll list the ones that look to me like they
might have been used by more than three composers. And I think we can
leave Mohajira out of it, since it gets 4 naturals in one system and 3
including the tonic in the other system.

Those for which 3 naturals gives an advantage are:
1. PsAristo Redup. Diatonic, 14 + 2 + 14 parts
2. Barbour's #3 Chromatic
3. Kayolonian scale F (9 notes)

Those for which 4 naturals gives an advantage are:
1. Turkish, 5-limit from Palmer on a Turkish music record, harmonic
minor inverse
2. Octony on Harmonic Minor, from Palmer on an album of Turkish music
3. (these 3 map to the same Blackjack subset)
Xenakis's Byzantine Liturgical mode, 7 + 16 + 7 parts
Al-Farabi's Chromatic permuted
Helmholtz's Chromatic scale and Gipsy major from Slovakia
4. Gipsy minor scale from Slovakia

4 naturals seems to be winning by only the slightest of margins, but
at least it mentions actual places: Turkish minor, Turkish inverse
minor, Slovakian major, Slovakian minor.

Who or what is PsAristo? Barbour? And where is/was Kayolonia. It isn't
by any chance somewhere near Anaphoria is it? :-) Anyone know anything
about any of these?

Don't forget that I haven't looked at the hexatonics or pentatonics
yet.

-- Dave Keenan

In-Reply-To: <9thdt4+d9tg@eGroups.com>
Joseph Pehrson:

> > Of all the notes to have as naturals, F, C and G seem the
> > most "intuitively musical" candidates, if *I* were to vote on it.

Dave Keenan:
> But Joseph! I think you're being a western major chauvinist pig. What
> about minor and neutral scales. Very popular. They would much rather
> have a tonic of A and a chain of fifths that goes DAE. Ever wonder why
> the first letter of the alphabet is where it is musically, and why it
> is the tuning reference?

That's an irrelevant objection. We're talking about an adaptation of
staff notation, so the bias is entirely appropriate. Besides, the modern
North Indian natural scale is also major, and usually converted as C
major.

F-C-G will work for major, minor or neutral. Losing F is better than
losing G, because not all Indian scales have a perfect fourth, but all
have a perfect fifth, from the tonic.

Dave:
> Those for which 3 naturals gives an advantage are:
> 1. PsAristo Redup. Diatonic, 14 + 2 + 14 parts
> 2. Barbour's #3 Chromatic
> 3. Kayolonian scale F (9 notes)
>
> Those for which 4 naturals gives an advantage are:
> 1. Turkish, 5-limit from Palmer on a Turkish music record, harmonic
> minor inverse
> 2. Octony on Harmonic Minor, from Palmer on an album of Turkish music
> 3. (these 3 map to the same Blackjack subset)
> Xenakis's Byzantine Liturgical mode, 7 + 16 + 7 parts
> Al-Farabi's Chromatic permuted
> Helmholtz's Chromatic scale and Gipsy major from Slovakia
> 4. Gipsy minor scale from Slovakia
>
> 4 naturals seems to be winning by only the slightest of margins, but
> at least it mentions actual places: Turkish minor, Turkish inverse
> minor, Slovakian major, Slovakian minor.

It's winning by a huge margin from where I'm sitting. More important than
the places, two are mentioned as being found on records. I'll assume the
two Turkish and Gipsy scales outweigh anything on the other list until
somebody argues to the contrary.

> Who or what is PsAristo? Barbour? And where is/was Kayolonia. It isn't
> by any chance somewhere near Anaphoria is it? :-) Anyone know anything
> about any of these?

>From its name, the Barbour looks suspiciously like a theoretical scale to
me.

> Don't forget that I haven't looked at the hexatonics or pentatonics
> yet.

You could find a more productive way of spending your time. I'm not
likely to take seriously any argument that tells me to only have 3
naturals. I don't think anybody else will either.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <9thdt4+d9tg@e...>
> Joseph Pehrson:
>
> > > Of all the notes to have as naturals, F, C and G seem the
> > > most "intuitively musical" candidates, if *I* were to vote on
it.
>
> Dave Keenan:
> > But Joseph! I think you're being a western major chauvinist pig.
What
> > about minor and neutral scales. Very popular. They would much
rather
> > have a tonic of A and a chain of fifths that goes DAE. Ever wonder
why
> > the first letter of the alphabet is where it is musically, and why
it
> > is the tuning reference?
>
> That's an irrelevant objection. We're talking about an adaptation
of
> staff notation, so the bias is entirely appropriate.

I don't follow. Ordinarily A (harmonic) minor has no sharps or flats
while C minor has plenty.

Graham, you're not arguing for an FCGD Blackjack standard are you?

Perhaps I should have said that a _JI_ major with minimum accidentals
wants FCGD and a _JI_ minor with minimum accidentals wants DAEB.

Consider a CGDA Blackjack key.

Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<C#v D Eb^ E> F] G<G#v A Bb^
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

It's nearest approaches to major diatonic scales with minimum
accidentals (and a natural tonic) are:
a JI G major with no sixth, G A Bv C D - F#v
a JI D major with no second, D - F#v G A Bv C#v

It's nearest approaches to (harmonic) minor diatonic scales with
minimum accidentals (and natural tonic) are:
a JI G minor with no seventh, G A Bb^ C D Eb^ -
a JI C minor with no fourth, C D Eb^ - G Ab^ Bb^

So a CGDA Blackjack key doesn't treat major and minor quite equally as
I claimed earlier. It has a slight bias toward the majors, just as a
GDAE blackjack would have a slight bias toward the minors.

> Besides, the modern
> North Indian natural scale is also major, and usually converted as C
> major.

Ok. So leave out the "western" bit. But I still say FCG is biased
toward _JI_ major and against _JI_ minor.

> > 4 naturals seems to be winning by only the slightest of margins,
but
> > at least it mentions actual places: Turkish minor, Turkish inverse
> > minor, Slovakian major, Slovakian minor.
>
> It's winning by a huge margin from where I'm sitting. More
important than
> the places, two are mentioned as being found on records. I'll
assume the
> two Turkish and Gipsy scales outweigh anything on the other list
until
> somebody argues to the contrary.

I'll go along with that. Just trying to be as impartial as possible.

> > Don't forget that I haven't looked at the hexatonics or
pentatonics
> > yet.
>
> You could find a more productive way of spending your time. I'm not
> likely to take seriously any argument that tells me to only have 3
> naturals. I don't think anybody else will either.

Apparently Joseph takes such arguments seriously. But I'll take your
advice anyway.

It seems to me that CGDA and GDAE are almost equally desirable. But,
since converting from one to the other only involves transposing by a
fifth, a familiar operation, I personally don't care much which one we
choose.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that all those folks that saw a
significant difference between the two, preferred CGDA. So I think
that's settled.

It was good to hear from some folks other than the usual Blackjack
enthusiasts. Thanks Margo, Robert and Klaus. Thanks also to Paul,
Graham, Joseph and Alison. I hope we've managed to a avert the
pachydermal apocalype. :-)

There's just one other little matter. What do we take as the "tonic"
for this Blackjack key? It seems to me that it should be G, because
(a) it is the tonic of both an abbreviated major scale and an
abbreviated minor scale (as described above) and (b) it is the only
natural that is the root of a 4:5:6:7:9 chord.

Given the relationship between Blackjack and Partch's scales, it is
nice that the tonic of the standard scale comes out as a G (assuming
no-one objects). For what it's worth, this should maximise the
possibilility of Blackjack pieces being playable on Partch instruments
or vice versa.

Scroll to the end of
/tuning/topicId_30143.html#30143
to see a conversion table between the new standard (key of G) and the
FCG system (key of A[ = A half-flat) and a table of frequencies in
hertz for a middle octave of the new standard (mistakenly described
at the time as "Graham's key").

And here's the lattice for it again:
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/Blackjack7LatticeGD.gif

Anyone who thinks I'm being too hasty in declaring the CGDA system to
be the new Blackjack standard key of G, please speak up. Don't be shy.
You can even email me privately if you want.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

In-Reply-To: <9tj56m+5vnm@eGroups.com>
Dave Keenan wrote:

> There's just one other little matter. What do we take as the "tonic"
> for this Blackjack key? It seems to me that it should be G, because
> (a) it is the tonic of both an abbreviated major scale and an
> abbreviated minor scale (as described above) and (b) it is the only
> natural that is the root of a 4:5:6:7:9 chord.

That suits me fine. I've updated the conversion charts at
<http://x31eq.com/miracle/conversion.html> to map G to the
decimal 0. It means the standard Blackjack can be played using the
mapping I'm familiar with the standard tonic at a special place.

Graham

Dave Keenan wrote:

> Given the relationship between Blackjack and Partch's scales, it is
> nice that the tonic of the standard scale comes out as a G (assuming
> no-one objects). For what it's worth, this should maximise the
> possibilility of Blackjack pieces being playable on Partch instruments
> or vice versa.
>
> Scroll to the end of
> /tuning/topicId_30143.html#30143
> to see a conversion table between the new standard (key of G) and the
> FCG system (key of A[ = A half-flat) and a table of frequencies in
> hertz for a middle octave of the new standard (mistakenly described
> at the time as "Graham's key").
>
> And here's the lattice for it again:
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/Blackjack7LatticeGD.gif
>
> Anyone who thinks I'm being too hasty in declaring the CGDA system to
> be the new Blackjack standard key of G, please speak up. Don't be shy.
> You can even email me privately if you want.
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan

I don't know who is composing with Blackjack out there, but I am in the thick of it and so
apparently is Joseph. As CGDA would seem to keep both of us happy, I'm going to adopt it and
rewrite my charts. In the absence of hordes of objecting composers I think we could settle the
matter now. What d'y'all think?

Kind Regards

Dave wrote:
>Who or what is PsAristo? Barbour? And where is/was Kayolonia. It isn't
>by any chance somewhere near Anaphoria is it? :-) Anyone know anything
>about any of these?

"Ps" stands for Perfect System, see John Chalmers' book, also see the
scales *pis*.scl.
Kayolonia is Keiolonië in English orthography. The references are
in the bibliography, see under Hans Barnard. Few people know where it is :
-)

Manuel

Kayolonia and Anaphoria recently exchanged diplomatic liaison and are in the process of setting up
permanent cultural exchange. First meeting took place among the Ababda people of Eastern Egypt.

manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com wrote:

> Dave wrote:
> >Who or what is PsAristo? Barbour? And where is/was Kayolonia. It isn't
> >by any chance somewhere near Anaphoria is it? :-) Anyone know anything
> >about any of these?
>
> "Ps" stands for Perfect System, see John Chalmers' book, also see the
> scales *pis*.scl.
> Kayolonia is Keioloni� in English orthography. The references are
> in the bibliography, see under Hans Barnard. Few people know where it is :
> -)
>
> Manuel

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >Who or what is PsAristo? Barbour? And where is/was Kayolonia. It
isn't
> >by any chance somewhere near Anaphoria is it? :-) Anyone know
anything
> >about any of these?
>
> "Ps" stands for Perfect System, see John Chalmers' book, also see
the
> scales *pis*.scl.
> Kayolonia is Keiolonië in English orthography. The references are
> in the bibliography, see under Hans Barnard. Few people know where
it is :
> -)

I'll take that as confirmation of Graham's guess that the only
Blackjack subset scales (of 7 notes or more) to benefit from a 3
naturals notation were 3 theoretical/experimental scales, not
historical or cultural.

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

/tuning/topicId_30426.html#30476

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > You know, it *really* seems very intuitive to me to have a system
> > where the naturals FCG form the basis. Even if I don't modulate,
> > necessarily, like that with the tetrads (they don't work quite
that
> > way!) it still represents a traditional musical "fulcrum."
> >
> > Of all the notes to have as naturals, F, C and G seem the
> > most "intuitively musical" candidates, if *I* were to vote on it.
>
> But Joseph! I think you're being a western major chauvinist pig.

Hi Dave!

But, what about *blues* and rock guitarists, who only know 3 chords,
C, F and G?? Surely they can't be "chauvinist" pigs as well?? :)

[Well, to be fair to primitive "old style" rock composers, they were
somewhat modal, so knew Bb major as well sometimes...]

What
> about minor and neutral scales. Very popular. They would much
rather have a tonic of A and a chain of fifths that goes DAE. Ever
wonder why the first letter of the alphabet is where it is musically,
and why it is the tuning reference?
>
> At least a CGDA Blackjack has the decency to disrespect minor and
> major scales scales equally!
>

[JP]
Well, even though I'm currently composing in F,C,G blackjack, I guess
that would be my favorite "alternate" candidate...

However, I do have a question.

Let's say for violin work, G,D,A,E...

Is there any reason to *assume* that one would want to set up a
blackjack violin with open strings like that? I mean, open strings
are generally good, but does that work in nicely with Blackjack
tetrads and so forth... Maybe we wouldn't be using all the open
strings... ??

(I'll bet Paul can quickly answer that question...)

> > Besides, then when we standardize the system, I won't have to do
any work at all... :)
>
> Please try to be a _little_ impartial. :-)
>

[JP]
It is difficult when I'm staring right now at my F,C,G keyboard, with
which I'm now reasonably familiar...

I have "middle C" of course, and then, on my Halberstadt, and octave
above that is "G" and an octave *below* that is "F." That seems
incredibly intuitive and symmetrical to me!

> Anyway, which are which? I'll list the ones that look to me like
they might have been used by more than three composers. And I think
we can leave Mohajira out of it, since it gets 4 naturals in one
system and 3 including the tonic in the other system.
>
> Those for which 3 naturals gives an advantage are:
> 1. PsAristo Redup. Diatonic, 14 + 2 + 14
parts
> 2. Barbour's #3 Chromatic
> 3. Kayolonian scale F (9 notes)
>
> Those for which 4 naturals gives an advantage are:
> 1. Turkish, 5-limit from Palmer on a Turkish music record, harmonic
> minor inverse
> 2. Octony on Harmonic Minor, from Palmer on an album of Turkish
music
> 3. (these 3 map to the same Blackjack subset)
> Xenakis's Byzantine Liturgical mode, 7 + 16 + 7 parts
> Al-Farabi's Chromatic permuted
> Helmholtz's Chromatic scale and Gipsy major from Slovakia
> 4. Gipsy minor scale from Slovakia
>
> 4 naturals seems to be winning by only the slightest of margins,
but at least it mentions actual places: Turkish minor, Turkish
inverse minor, Slovakian major, Slovakian minor.
>

[JP]
Hmmm... well, in this case, it really doesn't seem to make any "grand
pronouncement" of superiority based upon the historical models.

So, I guess we have to figure out what is best just based on future
possibilities... that's OK by me...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_30426.html#30492

>I'm not likely to take seriously any argument that tells me to only
have 3 naturals. I don't think anybody else will either.
>
> Apparently Joseph takes such arguments seriously. But I'll take
your advice anyway.
>

Well, of course, I would also agree that it would be better to have 4
naturals! My lethargy in this, obviously, is the fact that I'm going
to find it difficult and somewhat confusing to change everything
around, now that I'm used to composing in the F,C,G system...

Besides, there are two significant points that make the entire
process less than urgent for me:

1) It doesn't affect the sound any. Blackjack is going to sound
pretty much like Blackjack, regardless of the notation and

2) The *real* standard, to my mind, is 72-tET. Once I can get
performers to play 1/6 of a whole tone and 1/12 of a whole tone, they
can play in *any* key of Blackjack. The difficulty is getting the
precision in "deviating" from 12-tET, and once they get that process
down, they could do it an *any* Blackjack key.

And, just having *one more* natural in the system to work with is, in
my way of thinking, more a "cosmetic" than "substantive" alteration...

But, I applaud the further advancements! Seriously. I'm just going
to be stuck for awhile using the previous "software release..." :)

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_30426.html#30499

> I don't know who is composing with Blackjack out there, but I am in
the thick of it and so
> apparently is Joseph. As CGDA would seem to keep both of us happy,
I'm going to adopt it and
> rewrite my charts. In the absence of hordes of objecting composers
I think we could settle the
> matter now. What d'y'all think?
>
> Kind Regards

Hello Allison!

Well, certainly I don't want to be a person to impede progress, but I
believe I will have some difficulty making the conversion.

In the first place, there's more to it than just changing the name of
the notes. I have a "middle C" that corresponds to my traditional
piano and now, suddently, it seems as though this pitch has to be B[.

What this means is that, obviously, I have to adjust my Scala file
and completely "retune" the keyboard, in addition to changing all the
colored stickers on it.

*Then* I have a whole bunch of materials on Blackjack harmonies in
lists that are in the F,C,G system.

Also, I've begun categorizing and developing various harmonic
progressions in this system, and I've coordinated them with the
lattices.

This would all have to be changed, so it is quite a bit of extra work
for me now...

I applaud the "standardizers" but for the time being, I am going to
have to stick with the F,C,G base...

Joseph

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

> Hi Dave!
>
> But, what about *blues* and rock guitarists, who only know 3
chords,
> C, F and G??

Joseph -- I don't know what planet you're from :), but around here,
the 3 main chords of blues and rock guitarists are A, D, and E!

> Surely they can't be "chauvinist" pigs as well?? :)
>
> [Well, to be fair to primitive "old style" rock composers, they
were
> somewhat modal, so knew Bb major as well sometimes...]

G as well sometimes . . .

But, Joseph, I think you *totally* missed Dave Keenan's meaning in
this. Perhaps for the better, this is not worth spending too much
time on . . .

>
>
> What
> > about minor and neutral scales. Very popular. They would much
> rather have a tonic of A and a chain of fifths that goes DAE. Ever
> wonder why the first letter of the alphabet is where it is
musically,
> and why it is the tuning reference?
> >
> > At least a CGDA Blackjack has the decency to disrespect minor and
> > major scales scales equally!
> >
>
> [JP]
> Well, even though I'm currently composing in F,C,G blackjack, I
guess
> that would be my favorite "alternate" candidate...
>
> However, I do have a question.
>
> Let's say for violin work, G,D,A,E...
>
> Is there any reason to *assume* that one would want to set up a
> blackjack violin with open strings like that? I mean, open strings
> are generally good, but does that work in nicely with Blackjack
> tetrads and so forth... Maybe we wouldn't be using all the open
> strings... ??
>
> (I'll bet Paul can quickly answer that question...)

They'd all be part of tetrads -- in fact each pair of adjacent
strings is part of at least one tetrad.
>
> [JP]
> It is difficult when I'm staring right now at my F,C,G keyboard,
with
> which I'm now reasonably familiar...
>
> I have "middle C" of course, and then, on my Halberstadt, and
octave
> above that is "G" and an octave *below* that is "F." That seems
> incredibly intuitive and symmetrical to me!

No one is going to force you to change over! It's just that if a big
community and literature develops, you'll be "out in the cold". I
don't see a big threat of that happening, though . . .

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_30426.html#30499
>
> > I don't know who is composing with Blackjack out there, but I am
in
> the thick of it and so
> > apparently is Joseph. As CGDA would seem to keep both of us
happy,
> I'm going to adopt it and
> > rewrite my charts. In the absence of hordes of objecting
composers
> I think we could settle the
> > matter now. What d'y'all think?
> >
> > Kind Regards
>
>
> Hello Allison!
>
> Well, certainly I don't want to be a person to impede progress, but
I
> believe I will have some difficulty making the conversion.
>
> In the first place, there's more to it than just changing the name
of
> the notes. I have a "middle C" that corresponds to my traditional
> piano and now, suddently, it seems as though this pitch has to be B
[.

Nope. Joseph, you're misundertanding the proposal. There's a C in it,
and you can still map that to the middle C on your keyboard! It's
some of the _other_ notes that will change . . . of course, no
pressure if you don't feel like doing that.

>
> What this means is that, obviously, I have to adjust my Scala file
> and completely "retune" the keyboard, in addition to changing all
the
> colored stickers on it.

Well yes, you would have to do that.
>
> *Then* I have a whole bunch of materials on Blackjack harmonies in
> lists that are in the F,C,G system.
>
> Also, I've begun categorizing and developing various harmonic
> progressions in this system, and I've coordinated them with the
> lattices.
>
> This would all have to be changed, so it is quite a bit of extra
work
> for me now...
>
> I applaud the "standardizers" but for the time being, I am going to
> have to stick with the F,C,G base...

Makes sense.

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

/tuning/topicId_30426.html#30674

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Hi Dave!
> >
> > But, what about *blues* and rock guitarists, who only know 3
> chords,
> > C, F and G??
>
> Joseph -- I don't know what planet you're from :), but around here,
> the 3 main chords of blues and rock guitarists are A, D, and E!
>

That's pretty funny... I'm *obviously* not a guitarist...

> > [JP]
> > Well, even though I'm currently composing in F,C,G blackjack, I
> guess
> > that would be my favorite "alternate" candidate...
> >
> > However, I do have a question.
> >
> > Let's say for violin work, G,D,A,E...
> >
> > Is there any reason to *assume* that one would want to set up a
> > blackjack violin with open strings like that? I mean, open
strings
> > are generally good, but does that work in nicely with Blackjack
> > tetrads and so forth... Maybe we wouldn't be using all the open
> > strings... ??
> >
> > (I'll bet Paul can quickly answer that question...)
>
> They'd all be part of tetrads -- in fact each pair of adjacent
> strings is part of at least one tetrad.
> >

I guess that would make sense... and the C-G-D-A standard for cello
would operate similarly...

> No one is going to force you to change over! It's just that if a
big
> community and literature develops, you'll be "out in the cold". I
> don't see a big threat of that happening, though . . .

Me neither... but if changing over facilitates communication, I'll do
it.

However, I'm only going to change *ONCE* so now's the "big chance"
for final Blackjack tinkerings!

JP