finally some "real" blackjack theory

Well... it seems that progress is being made here on the blackjack
theory front.

Here is a great progression:

Lets start with a chord Paul Erlich calls a "magic" chord:

Db^:F:G:Bv (for this exercise I'm still using the "old" F-C-G
blackjack key)

This chord on the lattice is a kind of "tilted square" affair... I'm
sure there's a geometric name for it...

Then, use common tone harmony to get a parallelogram, which is our,
previously discussed "Ramos-influenced" chord:

Db^:F:Ab^:C

This, then, leads to an utonal tetrad through common tones:

F:Ab^:C:D>

And then, finally, through common tones to the "resolving" otonal
tetrad:

C:D>:Gb^:A>

Now, why do I think this is so "good" in musical terms?

Well, in the first place, the two "tetrady-looking" chords are a
great "setup." They both seem, to me at least, to have relatively
the same level of consonance.

Then, after this "preparation"... essentially similar to the
traditional "preparation of the dissonance" comes the otonal
tetradic "dissonance."

Then it fully resolves to the otonal tetrad in its full glory.

I'll try to see if I can post this progression as an .mp3 to
the "Files" section.

Joseph

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

> Then it fully resolves to the otonal tetrad in its full glory.
>
> I'll try to see if I can post this progression as an .mp3 to
> the "Files" section.
>
> Joseph

I didn't notice that you had put it up, but someone e-mailed me about
it . . . Joseph, are you sure about these chords? The first and last
chords in the progression don't sound right at all!

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> (for this exercise I'm still using the "old" F-C-G
> blackjack key)

Why?!!! I thought that was the point of the standardisation effort, to
come up with a common language that we could all use in our
communications on the subject, even if we used a different notation
privately. Now it seems you've converted your keyboard but not your
communications! I gave you the translation table. Is there something
else you need? I offered to translate any reference files you send me
(that includes Paul's chord charts). So far you haven't sent me any.

I've translated Paul's lattice, my keyboard colouring and Manuel's
chord list. How come you couldn't translate a few chords for us?

An author only has to translate once. If s/he doesn't, then _all_ the
readers have to do their own translation. Most wont bother. I'm not.
But I'd love to see those chord's in standard notation.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

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

/tuning/topicId_30989.html#31028

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Then it fully resolves to the otonal tetrad in its full glory.
> >
> > I'll try to see if I can post this progression as an .mp3 to
> > the "Files" section.
> >
> > Joseph
>
>
> I didn't notice that you had put it up, but someone e-mailed me
about it . . . Joseph, are you sure about these chords? The first and
last chords in the progression don't sound right at all!

Well, how about that.

As it turns out I made mistakes! It was very late last night, he
says...

THIS IS GOOD NEWS! It's not the Blackjack setup or anything of the
kind. So there's nothing "wrong" with the trombone piece.

I just can't believe, Paul, that you could actually hear these
errors. From now on you will be called "The Incredible Paul
Erlich..." !!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Erlich is, without a doubt, a microtonal composer's best friend!

He actually *hears* this new stuff. As Monz says, "Jheez!"

I will post the corrected audio chords for the progression
posthaste... (post with haste)

I am impressed... I am impressed...

I think the comments I posted, though, about the
dissonance "preparation" and resolution earlier, still pretty much
pertain to the corrected progression...

Thanks!

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> THIS IS GOOD NEWS! It's not the Blackjack setup or anything of the
> kind. So there's nothing "wrong" with the trombone piece.
>
> I just can't believe, Paul, that you could actually hear these
> errors. From now on you will be called "The Incredible Paul
> Erlich..." !!!!!!!!!!!

No sir. Someone else -- who may speak if he or she wished -- pointed
it out to me.

> I think the comments I posted, though, about the
> dissonance "preparation" and resolution earlier, still pretty much
> pertain to the corrected progression...

More so, I would imagine . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_30989.html#31056

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > THIS IS GOOD NEWS! It's not the Blackjack setup or anything of
the
> > kind. So there's nothing "wrong" with the trombone piece.
> >
> > I just can't believe, Paul, that you could actually hear these
> > errors. From now on you will be called "The Incredible Paul
> > Erlich..." !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> No sir. Someone else -- who may speak if he or she wished --
pointed it out to me.
>

Now I really want to know who it was! Come on, somebody, out with it!

Actually, the more I think about it, I should have heard that the
otonal tetrad was wrong. It was much too muddy.

What I found more amazing is that somebody found the error in
the "magic" chord... Well, I guess I haven't been listening to
the "magic" chords enough.

Good going, somebody. Can I keep you in my pocket (not a Mae West, I
assure you) to be used for further accuracy assistance??

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> What I found more amazing is that somebody found the error in
> the "magic" chord...

That was me. It's supposed to be like a 12-tET French augmented sixth
chord. You had a half-diminished seventh chord there.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Now I really want to know who it was! Come on, somebody, out with
> it!

Thanks, Joe, the second version sounds much better. The final chord
is 'stable', much as a destination should/could be. I, myself, don't
happen to care too much for the first chord, but that is personal
taste, and I'm *assuming* this time it's correct, not like I heard it
the first time. :)

And, really, I'm much more proud of the fact that I correctly
identified a particular single malt scotch (while in Scotland) by
only sampling the aroma of the malted barley from which it is
distilled. Well, that and 2nd place finish in the Pinewood Derby in
3rd grade...

<g>

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_30989.html#31061

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Now I really want to know who it was! Come on, somebody, out
with
> > it!
>
> Thanks, Joe, the second version sounds much better. The final chord
> is 'stable', much as a destination should/could be. I, myself,
don't
> happen to care too much for the first chord, but that is personal
> taste, and I'm *assuming* this time it's correct, not like I heard
it the first time. :)
>
> And, really, I'm much more proud of the fact that I correctly
> identified a particular single malt scotch (while in Scotland) by
> only sampling the aroma of the malted barley from which it is
> distilled. Well, that and 2nd place finish in the Pinewood Derby in
> 3rd grade...
>
> <g>
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

That's great work, Jon. Good to know when it's time to "micromanage"
that one can distinguish micromalts as well as micromusic!

best,

Joe

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

/tuning/topicId_30989.html#31060

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > What I found more amazing is that somebody found the error in
> > the "magic" chord...
>
> That was me. It's supposed to be like a 12-tET French augmented
sixth chord.

Got it. I certainly know what *those* are... I'll have to listen to
the "magics" a bit more, obviously...

Thanks!

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_30989.html#31035

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > (for this exercise I'm still using the "old" F-C-G
> > blackjack key)
>
> Why?!!! I thought that was the point of the standardisation effort,
to
> come up with a common language that we could all use in our
> communications on the subject, even if we used a different notation
> privately. Now it seems you've converted your keyboard but not your
> communications!

OK... Dave... this is a good point, and I will "translate" the
progression for you and others.

No, my keyboard is still in F,C,G and will remain so, using Paul's
lattice until the electronic piece is done. I would imagine that
would be at least a couple of weeks... maybe I won't start the new
system until January...

>I gave you the translation table. Is there something
> else you need? I offered to translate any reference files you send
me (that includes Paul's chord charts). So far you haven't sent me
any.

That's very nice of you, Dave. Actually, I didn't know you were
willing to do that!

Yes, I *will* be sending them to you, particularly when I get things
set up for my next piece with cello and electronics... Right now, of
course, I was right in the middle of the electronic piece based on
the F,C,G key system...

>
> I've translated Paul's lattice, my keyboard colouring and Manuel's
> chord list. How come you couldn't translate a few chords for us?
>

Sorry, Dave. You are right. This is now the "de facto" standard for
Blackjack. I regressed.

> An author only has to translate once. If s/he doesn't, then _all_
the readers have to do their own translation. Most wont bother. I'm
not.
> But I'd love to see those chord's in standard notation.
>

I will do this for you (not much to it, actually)... but I'm behind
at the moment and other music stuff is happening, so probably I'll
need a couple more days to post it.

But you're right in insisting on the standard now, after we went to
the trouble of establishing it!

Joseph

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

/tuning/topicId_30989.html#30989

Here is a "translation" of the progression posted here as an .mp3

/tuning/files/Pehrson/

(blackjack progression1.mp3)

to our "standard" Blackjack notation:

> Well... it seems that progress is being made here on the blackjack
> theory front.
>
> Here is a great progression:
>
> Lets start with a chord Paul Erlich calls a "magic" chord:
>
> C<:E[:F]:A>
>
> This chord on the lattice is a kind of "tilted square" affair...
I'm sure there's a geometric name for it...
>
> Then, use common tone harmony to get a parallelogram, which is our,
> previously discussed "Ramos-influenced" chord:
>
> C<:E[:G<:B[
>
> This, then, leads to an utonal tetrad through common tones:
>
> E[:G<:B[:C#v
>
> And then, finally, through common tones to the "resolving" otonal
> tetrad:
>
> B[:C#v:F<:G#v
>
> Now, why do I think this is so "good" in musical terms?
>
> Well, in the first place, the two "tetrady-looking" chords are a
> great "setup." They both seem, to me at least, to have relatively
> the same level of consonance.
>
> Then, after this "preparation"... essentially similar to the
> traditional "preparation of the dissonance" comes the otonal
> tetradic "dissonance."
>
> Then it fully resolves to the otonal tetrad in its full glory.
>
>
> Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_unknown.html#31189

Unfortunately, Dave, as you can see... it's doing the same d*mn thing
it was doing for *me!*

I guess we'll always just have to put in extra "leading
characters..." in these charts now. What a pain.

I'm leaving the quoted section in because, believe it or not, when I
write a commenting post to it, *now* it looks right on the "edit"
screen in the Yahoo interface.

It even looks right when I "preview" it on the screen.

But, when it's finally *posted* it's left aligned.

So, let's try this again...

Joseph

> It seems that Yahoo have "upgraded" their software now and it
strips leading spaces. So it screws up all sorts of diagrams. At
least when you post via the web interface. I'm trying posting this as
email to see if the formatting survives.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> Thanks for that Joseph. I love it.
>
> Here's the progression on the chain of secors.
>
> Std Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<C#v D Eb^ E> F] G<G#v A Bb^
> FCG C> D[Eb< Ev F Gb^ G> A[Bb< Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
>
> So we can see that it would have more naturals in standard notation
if it was shifted down by 3 secors.
>
> It's interesting that at the end you're only one note different
from the starting chord shifted up a secor (except its not the same
voicing). So (if you're willing to have a note jump by an octave) you
could repeat the sequence a secor higher and crawl up the chain of
secors like this.
>
> Std Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<C#v D Eb^ E> F] G<G#v A Bb^
> FCG C> D[Eb< Ev F Gb^ G> A[Bb< Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> +--------------+-----+--------------+
> +-----------------+--+-----------------+
> +-----------------+-----+--------------+
> +--------------+-----+-----------------+
> Std Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<C#v D Eb^ E> F] G<G#v A Bb^
> FCG C> D[Eb< Ev F Gb^ G> A[Bb< Bv C Db^ D> E[ F<F#v G Ab^ A> B[ C<
>
> Regards,
> -- Dave Keenan
> Brisbane, Australia
> http://dkeenan.com
> -- A country which has dangled the sword of nuclear holocaust over
the world for half a century and claims that someone else invented
terrorism is a country out of touch with reality. --John K. Stoner