pacheljack

since monz's et page now provides a link to herman's page:

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

i listened to the blackjack renditions again. what a gas! the 'microstep' version in particular should inspire those looking for unique melodic possibilities in blackjack . . .

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:

http://www.midicode.com/tunings/index.shtml

> since monz's et page now provides a link to herman's page:
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html
>
> i listened to the blackjack renditions again. what a gas!
the 'microstep' version in particular should inspire those looking
for unique melodic possibilities in blackjack . . .

***It's been a while since I've listened to this, and I have (I
think) considerable more experience now with Blackjack than I did at
that time (which was, *none* as I recall..)

This *is* surprising. It seems most of these examples do not follow
the harmonic 7-limit lattice structures at all, or at least
minimally. Most probably that's a result of trying to "shoehorn"
this particular melody into that scale, yes? Obviously a canon not,
specifically, designed for Blackjack's harmonic palette...

If anybody has time, it might be fun for me to look at a short
segment of one of these in "standard" Blackjack notation... maybe
that's asking a lot.

Very interesting...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
>
> http://www.midicode.com/tunings/index.shtml
>
> > since monz's et page now provides a link to herman's page:
> >
> > http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html
> >
> > i listened to the blackjack renditions again. what a gas!
> the 'microstep' version in particular should inspire those looking
> for unique melodic possibilities in blackjack . . .
>
>
> ***It's been a while since I've listened to this, and I have (I
> think) considerable more experience now with Blackjack than I did
at
> that time (which was, *none* as I recall..)
>
> This *is* surprising. It seems most of these examples do not
follow
> the harmonic 7-limit lattice structures at all, or at least
> minimally.

this is not true, joseph -- read herman's description!

> Most probably that's a result of trying to "shoehorn"
> this particular melody into that scale, yes?

the melody is badly distorted in most of the versions -- seems like
the opposite of what you're suggesting!

> If anybody has time, it might be fun for me to look at a short
> segment of one of these in "standard" Blackjack notation... maybe
> that's asking a lot.

the translation from graham breed's notation should be
straightforward . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_34497.html#34506

> >
> > This *is* surprising. It seems most of these examples do not
> follow the harmonic 7-limit lattice structures at all, or at least
> > minimally.
>
> this is not true, joseph -- read herman's description!
>

Hi Paul!

Well, I know it *says* it does, as in "otonal..." but it sure doesn't
*sound* that way! Maybe it's the choice of particular intervals that
get "translated" into Blackjack...

> > Most probably that's a result of trying to "shoehorn"
> > this particular melody into that scale, yes?
>
> the melody is badly distorted in most of the versions -- seems like
> the opposite of what you're suggesting!
>

***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted at all!
Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the particular
Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."

??

> > If anybody has time, it might be fun for me to look at a short
> > segment of one of these in "standard" Blackjack notation... maybe
> > that's asking a lot.
>
> the translation from graham breed's notation should be
> straightforward . . .

****I never got the "hang" of that...I'd much prefer the "standard
notation" that I'm *used* to... :)

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34497.html#34506
>
> > >
> > > This *is* surprising. It seems most of these examples do not
> > follow the harmonic 7-limit lattice structures at all, or at
least
> > > minimally.
> >
> > this is not true, joseph -- read herman's description!
> >
>
> Hi Paul!
>
> Well, I know it *says* it does, as in "otonal..." but it sure
doesn't
> *sound* that way!

it does to me . . . very strange . . .

> > > Most probably that's a result of trying to "shoehorn"
> > > this particular melody into that scale, yes?
> >
> > the melody is badly distorted in most of the versions -- seems
like
> > the opposite of what you're suggesting!
> >
>
> ***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted at
all!
> Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the particular
> Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."

exactly . . . that's why i was disagreeing with you when you said the
blackjack versions try to "shoehorn" the melody into blackjack . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_34497.html#34510

> > ***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted at
> all!
> > Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the
particular Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."
>
> exactly . . . that's why i was disagreeing with you when you said
the blackjack versions try to "shoehorn" the melody into
blackjack . . .

****I think this is a matter of *semantics*, Paul, no?

My guess is that the Pachelbel could be "reorchestrated" starting on
different Blackjack notes in a different "key" or using different
Blackjack notes so it didn't come out *anywhere* near as distorted.

My impression is that Graham Breed's program that does
these "conversions" is a somewhat "mechanical" affair... yes?

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_34497.html#34510
>
> > > ***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted at
> > all!
> > > Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the
> particular Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."
> >
> > exactly . . . that's why i was disagreeing with you when you said
> the blackjack versions try to "shoehorn" the melody into
> blackjack . . .
>
> ****I think this is a matter of *semantics*, Paul, no?
>
> My guess is that the Pachelbel could be "reorchestrated" starting
on
> different Blackjack notes in a different "key" or using different
> Blackjack notes so it didn't come out *anywhere* near as distorted.

right, the melody wouldn't be anywhere near as distorted.

but the harmonic lattice configuration of the *harmonic progression*
would become mangled beyond recognition.

herman miller's versions of blackjack preserve the lattice
configuration of the *harmonic progression* while reassigning the
axes to different consonant (or in the third or "dissonant" case,
dissonant) intervals. when you wrote,

> This *is* surprising. It seems most of these examples do not
> follow the harmonic 7-limit lattice structures at all, or at least
> minimally.

it therefore appeared to me that you were almost stating the
*opposite* of the truth. so if not, i'm wondering what you really
meant . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_34497.html#34516

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_34497.html#34510
> >
> > > > ***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted
at
> > > all!
> > > > Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the
> > particular Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."
> > >
> > > exactly . . . that's why i was disagreeing with you when you
said
> > the blackjack versions try to "shoehorn" the melody into
> > blackjack . . .
> >
> > ****I think this is a matter of *semantics*, Paul, no?
> >
> > My guess is that the Pachelbel could be "reorchestrated" starting
> on
> > different Blackjack notes in a different "key" or using different
> > Blackjack notes so it didn't come out *anywhere* near as
distorted.
>
> right, the melody wouldn't be anywhere near as distorted.
>
> but the harmonic lattice configuration of the *harmonic
progression*
> would become mangled beyond recognition.
>
> herman miller's versions of blackjack preserve the lattice
> configuration of the *harmonic progression* while reassigning the
> axes to different consonant (or in the third or "dissonant" case,
> dissonant) intervals. when you wrote,
>
> > This *is* surprising. It seems most of these examples do not
> > follow the harmonic 7-limit lattice structures at all, or at
least
> > minimally.
>
> it therefore appeared to me that you were almost stating the
> *opposite* of the truth. so if not, i'm wondering what you really
> meant . . .

****All I'm saying, Paul, is that 5 or 7-limit Blackjack sonorities
from the lattices are *very* consonant, as you know. So, the amount
of dissonance in *all* of these examples must just reflect the
particular pitch choice from the otonal lattices... and they don't
work out with the original melody...

??

JP

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

> ****All I'm saying, Paul, is that 5 or 7-limit Blackjack sonorities
> from the lattices are *very* consonant, as you know.

right, so those are the chords you hear in three of herman's four
examples.

> So, the amount
> of dissonance in *all* of these examples must just reflect the
> particular pitch choice from the otonal lattices...

not sure what you mean by that.

> and they don't
> work out with the original melody...

well that's correct, since you're often substituting a consonant
interval of a considerably different size for a given consonant
interval in the original 5-limit lattice. but i really like what
happens to the melody in the "microstep" example. it's still
recognizable, in a way . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_34497.html#34522

>
> > and they don't
> > work out with the original melody...
>
> well that's correct, since you're often substituting a consonant
> interval of a considerably different size for a given consonant
> interval in the original 5-limit lattice. but i really like what
> happens to the melody in the "microstep" example. it's still
> recognizable, in a way . . .

****Yes, basically, that's all I was saying. I guess it wasn't too
clear.

I'm not saying I didn't *like* the effect, and the versions. I *do!*

I was just a little surprised how much "odder" it seems, even when
fully otonal as compared with the full 72-tET set.

Of course, I guess the more I think about it, that shouldn't be so
strange, yes? Since 72 contains the original 12-tET in it, yes?? So
those are probably the pitches being used, correct??

JP

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

> I was just a little surprised how much "odder" it seems, even when
> fully otonal as compared with the full 72-tET set.
>
> Of course, I guess the more I think about it, that shouldn't be so
> strange, yes? Since 72 contains the original 12-tET in it, yes??
So
> those are probably the pitches being used, correct??

almost -- it's actually the 'just scale' in 72.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I was just a little surprised how much "odder" it seems, even
when
> > fully otonal as compared with the full 72-tET set.
> >
> > Of course, I guess the more I think about it, that shouldn't be
so
> > strange, yes? Since 72 contains the original 12-tET in it, yes??
> So
> > those are probably the pitches being used, correct??
>
> almost -- it's actually the 'just scale' in 72.

****Hmmm. Actually, I just see this now on Herman's page. I don't
remember him having all this tuning detail on the page... I'll have
to go through this carefully...

JP

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

> ****Hmmm. Actually, I just see this now on Herman's page. I don't
> remember him having all this tuning detail on the page... I'll have
> to go through this carefully...

cool . . . perhaps then you'll reconsider your opinion that the size
of the individual scale step in an equal division of the octave might
strike listeners as its most important musical characteristic.

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

/tuning/topicId_34497.html#34527

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ****Hmmm. Actually, I just see this now on Herman's page. I
don't
> > remember him having all this tuning detail on the page... I'll
have
> > to go through this carefully...
>
> cool . . . perhaps then you'll reconsider your opinion that the
size
> of the individual scale step in an equal division of the octave
might
> strike listeners as its most important musical characteristic.c

****Well, I gotta say that just *listening* to Herman's page belies
that opinion...

JP

On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:37:24 -0000, "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
wrote:

>> ***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted at
>all!
>> Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the particular
>> Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."
>
>exactly . . . that's why i was disagreeing with you when you said the
>blackjack versions try to "shoehorn" the melody into blackjack . . .

The only one that attempts to "shoehorn" the melody into blackjack is the
"beating" version -- where to get even a close approximation of the melody
and preserve the structure of the harmonic progressions, I had to harmonize
it with discordant 1/1 : 11/9 : 32/21 triads! The "microstep" version also
preserves the basic shape of the melody, but the tiny steps give a very
distinct melodic effect.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

--- In tuning@y..., Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_34497.html#34582

> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:37:24 -0000, "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
>
> >> ***In some, like the "regular" 72-tET it's hardly distorted at
> >all!
> >> Surely you've heard *that* version, Paul! So, it's the
particular
> >> Blackjack pitches that are "missing it..."
> >
> >exactly . . . that's why i was disagreeing with you when you said
the
> >blackjack versions try to "shoehorn" the melody into
blackjack . . .
>
> The only one that attempts to "shoehorn" the melody into blackjack
is the
> "beating" version -- where to get even a close approximation of the
melody
> and preserve the structure of the harmonic progressions, I had to
harmonize
> it with discordant 1/1 : 11/9 : 32/21 triads! The "microstep"
version also
> preserves the basic shape of the melody, but the tiny steps give a
very
> distinct melodic effect.
>

***Thanks so much, Herman, for your response on this. Your page is a
veritable "tuning tutorial." Paul Erlich is right... it really
changes preconceptions about scales. But, when do I get to
meet "Teamouse??" I met Santa Claus once, or at least somebody who
*said* he was Santa Claus...

J. Pehrson