Music for your ears

While mp3.com ponders if my latest offerings I worthy, you can find them
anyway at this alternative site:

http://zebox.com/genewardsmith/

The star.mp3 piece starts out in the 126/125 planar temperament, then
"hypermodally" (unless you have a better word?) transforms itself and
lands in the 64/63 planar temperament, where it noodles around on various
keyboard instruments until finding a bell-like canon for harpsichord,
which then "hypermodulates" back to 126/125.

This is charming, quite compelling stuff and fascinating, Gene. It
does indeed aim for the ears, and quite refreshingly so. Thank you
and congratulations! I hope to hear more like this in the future.

Sincerely,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> While mp3.com ponders if my latest offerings I worthy, you can find
them
> anyway at this alternative site:
>
> http://zebox.com/genewardsmith/
>
> The star.mp3 piece starts out in the 126/125 planar temperament,
then
> "hypermodally" (unless you have a better word?) transforms itself
and
> lands in the 64/63 planar temperament, where it noodles around on
various
> keyboard instruments until finding a bell-like canon for
harpsichord,
> which then "hypermodulates" back to 126/125.

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> This is charming, quite compelling stuff and fascinating, Gene. It
> does indeed aim for the ears, and quite refreshingly so. Thank you
> and congratulations! I hope to hear more like this in the future.

Thanks for the comments, Bob. For those who had trouble getting the piece, it is now up on mp3.com:

mp3.com/Gene_Ward_Smith

It's beginning to be a nice collection of music illustrating the possibilities of various tuning systems, and I plan to add more. As someone remarked recently, getting music above some minimum level of complexity written in various tunings is probably the best single thing we can do to understand how these things sound in practice, so you might say I'm working on it.

--- In tuning@y..., Gene W Smith <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36894.html#36894

> While mp3.com ponders if my latest offerings I worthy, you can find
them
> anyway at this alternative site:
>
> http://zebox.com/genewardsmith/
>
> The star.mp3 piece starts out in the 126/125 planar temperament,
then
> "hypermodally" (unless you have a better word?) transforms itself
and
> lands in the 64/63 planar temperament, where it noodles around on
various
> keyboard instruments until finding a bell-like canon for
harpsichord,
> which then "hypermodulates" back to 126/125.

***I think Gene could be a serious contender as an "algo-type"
composer... well, at least his efforts are more interesting than a
*lot* of the stuff I hear.

Now the next step, to be taken seriously I believe, is to do
something about the sound processing and timbres. Unfortunately,
this probably involves some "gear purchase."

I recommend studying at the Jacky Ligon school of sound processing.

Regrettably, I *also* have more work to do in this arena, which is
one reason I am presently "retreating" back to acoustic instruments
for a while... :)

Congrats, Gene!

Joseph Pehrson

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

> ***I think Gene could be a serious contender as an "algo-type"
> composer... well, at least his efforts are more interesting than a
> *lot* of the stuff I hear.

How am I doing as a neo-Renaissance-type composer, do you think?

> Now the next step, to be taken seriously I believe, is to do
> something about the sound processing and timbres. Unfortunately,
> this probably involves some "gear purchase."

Help. As in what sort of gear?

I was thinking if I wanted to be taken seriously I should learn how to make microtonal scores that people actually would consider playing.
How do you do that expeditiously?

> Congrats, Gene!

Thanks.

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> How am I doing as a neo-Renaissance-type composer, do you think?

Quite well, I'd say! Gene, I haven't had time to listen except for about twice, and they were a tad distracted. My initial impressions were that I liked the first temperment best (I believe it returns?), but maybe it is just a matter of context. I *did*, however, like your first motive very well, and the variations that came to it.

> Help. As in what sort of gear?

I won't jump in too much here. One of the problems is with extended intonations, where you need to access more than 12 steps per octave, our current lineup of hardware/software are still far from ideal. However, there are a good number of people over at MMM that could counsel you well in this area.

That said, read on...

> I was thinking if I wanted to be taken seriously I should learn
> how to make microtonal scores that people actually would consider
> playing. How do you do that expeditiously?

Take this the right way, I hope, as I mean it sincerely! When I listen to music (and I'm speaking only for myself), I do just that: listen to the music - and all that conveys it. I *don't* listen to simply an intonational scheme, and I don't listen to a 'chord progression' (and similar items). So the actual sound of a piece, the chosen timbres and 'orchestration' becomes very bound up in the experience. This is where sound cards can be... difficult.

I can *hear* the emulations of any number of instruments, and bravo for writing a piece that varies the ensemble, not only for variety but for the differing 'moods' of the tuning and harmonies. But as I mentioned (and others, as well) to Joseph on a number of occasions, the sonic limitations of these 'emulations' can be, to those who are around fine instrumental sounds on a daily basis, like that of fingernails on a chalkboard.

Mind you, I've written and recorded quite a bit of stuff with sounds that now make me wince in pain - sometimes at the time the sounds were all I had. But at this point in the game, when I start making a piece, and I have a desire to have it heard, I can't bear to let it go any farther if I don't find the actual Sound of it compelling as well. It, in my book, can't end up any less important than interesting harmonic schemes or fetching melodies and motives.

But it is clear where you are going, and especially if you were to really pinpoint an 'orchestration' for a piece - say, a woodwind quintet or something - then you can get your information going as you have, and then find someone with more outboard gear to do a 'realization' for you that would come closer to acoustic renditions.

If that is what you are shooting for, that is.

But these are all stepwise refinements, and given a choice I'd rather have music that does something that may fall a little short in the sonic category then have someone with racks and racks of great sounding equipment that can't find a decent phrase with a GPS mapping device. You are already beyond half-way there, and the latter person just has good gear and no clues. Happens all the time, from what I hear.

That's all from me, congrats and any follow-ups I can do at MMM...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36894.html#36906

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***I think Gene could be a serious contender as an "algo-type"
> > composer... well, at least his efforts are more interesting than
a
> > *lot* of the stuff I hear.
>
> How am I doing as a neo-Renaissance-type composer, do you think?
>

*** I didn't realize that was your objective! Besides, Margo's got
that "market" cornered... :)

> > Now the next step, to be taken seriously I believe, is to do
> > something about the sound processing and timbres. Unfortunately,
> > this probably involves some "gear purchase."
>
> Help. As in what sort of gear?
>

***Well, that's a good question, and possibly best addressed on
MakeMicroMusic.

Actually, since you're so sharp as a mathematician and programmer,
you might be able to plumb the depths of CSOUND and get something
that way, as Prent Rodgers does... That would be a *free* utility.

The *other* way involves some kind of "rack-mounted" gear which
almost *always* sounds better than software synths, except for CSOUND
and some of the high-end ones (Kyma??).

Anyway, Jacky Ligon is the "litmus test" for acoustic sound with rack
mounted MIDI stuff. I would suggest listening to some of his "tunes"
and the obvious question is: "Why doesn't *my* stuff sound like
that???" :)

It doesn't involved spending a fortune, and maybe even a
special "high-end" sound card would do the trick, but I really think
you could take some of your "theoretical" ideas to a different
dimension that would make them a little more "authoritative" on the
composing front.

> I was thinking if I wanted to be taken seriously I should learn how
to make microtonal scores that people actually would consider playing.
> How do you do that expeditiously?
>

***That's *another* good question. My *own* personal solution is 72-
tET, as everybody probably knows by now. I feel that's practical.
However, it is only a small sector of all the tunings that *you* are
interested in.

Maybe you need some kind of "generalized" notation such as George
Secor and Dave Keenan are working on in the Math group...

However, there still has been no testing as to whether performers are
going to be interested in performing that notation.

From my *own* personal experience, it is difficult enough for them to
learn 72-tET which is, of course, *very* 12-equal based.

Composer Tristan Mureil says it's even hard to get them to play
quartertones! :)

Good luck!

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_36894.html#36907

>
> I can *hear* the emulations of any number of instruments, and bravo
for writing a piece that varies the ensemble, not only for variety
but for the differing 'moods' of the tuning and harmonies. But as I
mentioned (and others, as well) to Joseph on a number of occasions,
the sonic limitations of these 'emulations' can be, to those who are
around fine instrumental sounds on a daily basis, like that of
fingernails on a chalkboard.
>

****This is really a MakeMicroMusic topic, so we should continue the
discussion over there. One short comment, though:

Jon's comment has also been made by some other people who have
listened to my "electronic music." Believe it or not, when I wrote
for electronic "clarinet" or "flute" I wasn't really thinking of the
*real* instruments at all! I was using the sound that came out of
the machine as if I had never heard anything like it before.
Really. I mean for *me* the sound was so different from the "real"
acoustic instruments anyway, there was no real comparison. I was
just using it "as is."

HOWEVER, people came along and said: "Hey man, why that cheesy
clarinet... etc., etc." More than *one* person, in fact. It became
a little embarassing.

So, from this point on, I have been consciously avoiding *anything*
electronic that has acoustic instrument implications. Sometimes it's
impossible in the context of what I'm doing to avoid all of them, but
at least I'm much more conscious of this potential "problem."

Hurrah for the "cheap imitation!"

J. Pehrson

In a message dated 5/14/02 2:16:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> So, from this point on, I have been consciously avoiding *anything*
> electronic that has acoustic instrument implications. Sometimes it's
> impossible in the context of what I'm doing to avoid all of them, but
> at least I'm much more conscious of this potential "problem."
>
>

This is what caused me to suggest doing "acoustifications" of Wendy Carlos'
"Afterlife." By subtracting electronic patches of instruments (and vocals)
which are indeed electronic emulations, AFMM musicians played live against
the remaining electronics for a superior product. Next MicroFest NY concert
on May 25th at Roulette will demonstrate the results.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 5/14/02 2:06:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> From my *own* personal experience, it is difficult enough for them to
> learn 72-tET which is, of course, *very* 12-equal based.
>
> Composer Tristan Mureil says it's even hard to get them to play
> quartertones! :)
>
>

Joseph, Tristan is working with students most of the time. And it is Murail.
Should I suggest that you have difficulty spelling so that we should have
"safer" spellings for words? ; )

Clearly, if you believe that people will have trouble playing microtones,
they will. If you have confidence that players will be able to hear what you
the composer hears, they will accommodate. Keep in mind that Murail creates
his music first in Just Intonation and then "reduces" these intervals to
quartertones for safety reasons.

best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 5/14/02 12:07:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
genewardsmith@juno.com writes:

> I was thinking if I wanted to be taken seriously I should learn how to make
> microtonal scores that people actually would consider playing.
> How do you do that expeditiously?
>
>

If you do make a microtonal score for musical instruments, send it out my
way. We are always looking for new and exciting microtonal works in
different tunings. Don't worry about how we will be able to play it.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36894.html#36914

> In a message dated 5/14/02 2:06:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jpehrson@r...
> writes:
>
>
> > From my *own* personal experience, it is difficult enough for
them to
> > learn 72-tET which is, of course, *very* 12-equal based.
> >
> > Composer Tristan Mureil says it's even hard to get them to play
> > quartertones! :)
> >
> >
>
> Joseph, Tristan is working with students most of the time. And it
is Murail.
> Should I suggest that you have difficulty spelling so that we
should have
> "safer" spellings for words? ; )
>
> Clearly, if you believe that people will have trouble playing
microtones,
> they will. If you have confidence that players will be able to
hear what you
> the composer hears, they will accommodate. Keep in mind that
Murail creates
> his music first in Just Intonation and then "reduces" these
intervals to
> quartertones for safety reasons.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

Hey Johnny!

Well, it's the "safety reasons" that interest me. Frankly, I think
these cats should *at least* use 72-tET for JI. Quartertones
don't "cut it" in *my* book!

JP

In a message dated 5/14/02 3:06:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> Frankly, I think
> these cats should *at least* use 72-tET for JI.

I agree with you on this, Joseph. 72 makes much more sense for the spectral
composers. JR

jpehrson2 wrote:

> The *other* way involves some kind of "rack-mounted" gear which
> almost *always* sounds better than software synths, except for CSOUND
> and some of the high-end ones (Kyma??).

Yes, software synthesisers aren't generally very good, except for the good
ones. Kyma's good enough for Lucasfilm, so ordinary mortals needn't
complain. Whether it's software or rack-mounted is debatable. My
Capybara's mounted in a rack right next to me, and it will keep going
after the PC shuts down. But it still needs software to work.

I thought Gigasampler was recognised as the most powerful sampler in
existence. No specific microtonal support, but Mary did say it works well
with pitch bends.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> If you do make a microtonal score for musical instruments, send it out my
> way. We are always looking for new and exciting microtonal works in
> different tunings. Don't worry about how we will be able to play it.

Thanks, Johnny. It would be illuminating to see some image files of pages from the sort of scores you prefer; certainly, using cents would allow a much greater range of possibilities.

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 5/14/02 2:16:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@rcn.com writes:
>
>
>
>> So, from this point on, I have been consciously avoiding *anything*
>> electronic that has acoustic instrument implications. Sometimes
>> it's
>> impossible in the context of what I'm doing to avoid all of them,
>> but
>> at least I'm much more conscious of this potential "problem."
>
> This is what caused me to suggest doing "acoustifications" of Wendy
> Carlos' "Afterlife." By subtracting electronic patches of instruments
> (and vocals) which are indeed electronic emulations, AFMM musicians
> played live against the remaining electronics for a superior product.
> Next MicroFest NY concert on May 25th at Roulette will demonstrate the
> results.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

This is similar to a compositional technique that I'm trying to find
time to work on whereby I realise the music electronically using a
Doepfer analogue synth/sequencer system and then attempt to score the
best results for conventional acoustic instruments. The challenge seems
to be in listening out for the random harmonics that often result from
using complex waveforms with LFOs and envelopes and choosing how to
assign these to instrument groups.

Kind Regards

Alison, what made our project so facile was that the music Wendy played could
produce actual paper parts. She had not considered printing them out before.
Once we agreed on the acoustifications, parts were printed out and the
electronic emulations were removed. Wendy did a new mix of the remaining
material as well.

Of course we did have 9 timpani, and a choir of 8 singing in 15-tET. It was
a real joy.

johnny reinhard