Sibelius Pitch Bends (OT)

This is a tuning list, and this is about 'tuning' a instrument,. albeit
electronic.

Why doesn't the first number work for me, on my Roland SC 88?

I wish those fine PB numbers would work. The best accuracy I can get is
0.75 cent with a +-PB of 1 (the minimum setting for PB)

...we can use the following pitch bend commands in Sibelius:

~B0,64 normal, use that after *any* pitch bends to get pitches back
~B56,69 12th tone high = ^
~B71,74 6th tone high = >
~B0,80 quartertone high = ]

~B72,58 12th tone low = v
~B57,53 6th tone low = <
~B0,48 quartertone low = [

I think Kyle meant he has a 61key 12-ET keyboard, and reassigns the notes.

Oh for a lego style erv wilson / generalised Bosanquet keyboard kit....

M

> I think Kyle meant he has a 61key 12-ET keyboard, and reassigns the notes.
>
> Oh for a lego style erv wilson / generalised Bosanquet keyboard kit....
>

Yep, that's what I meant. And amen to the second comment.

Kyle

--- In tuning@y..., "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_38658.html#38658

> This is a tuning list, and this is about 'tuning' a instrument,
albeit electronic.

***Hi Mark!

Although I agree that my post on Sibelius would be better put on
the "MakeMicroMusic" list, it so happens that Kyle Gann is *not* on
that list. This is the kind of thing that happens when there are so
many lists. We *used* to post *all kinds* of different material on
this list.

>
> Why doesn't the first number work for me, on my Roland SC 88?
>

***Are you referring to the 12th tone high?? These numbers work with
my Soundblaster sound card and, hopefully, they will work with any
MIDI synth that accepts the MIDI bend spec., but maybe there is some
complication like the resolution limit of your synth...

Anybody know more about this?? I imagine you could also e-mail Pete
Walton whose "temperaments plug in" generated the fine PB numbers.
He *might* know how the MIDI bends are implemented in various synths.

> I wish those fine PB numbers would work. The best accuracy I can
get is 0.75 cent with a +-PB of 1 (the minimum setting for PB)
>

***Again, I imagine this is "device dependent" and only pertains to
instruments that can accept the resolution of that MIDI spec.

I wonder, in fact, what the resolution is of the Soundblaster 128
card. Anybody know?? Anyway, it *sounds* like I'm getting the
correct 72-tET pitches, or close enough for *me* to differentiate,
anyway... :)

>
>
> ...we can use the following pitch bend commands in Sibelius:
>
> ~B0,64 normal, use that after *any* pitch bends to get pitches
back
> ~B56,69 12th tone high = ^
> ~B71,74 6th tone high = >
> ~B0,80 quartertone high = ]
>
> ~B72,58 12th tone low = v
> ~B57,53 6th tone low = <
> ~B0,48 quartertone low = [
>
> I think Kyle meant he has a 61key 12-ET keyboard, and reassigns the
notes.
>

***Why, of course. But, I was just pointing out another way that he
could work with the standard Halberstadt keyboard to affect 72-tET,
and I happen to know that he works with Sibelius. He also mentioned
that he appreciated the comments.

> Oh for a lego style erv wilson / generalised Bosanquet keyboard
kit....
>

***Possibly. We'll see how those work, but as somebody who was, at
one point, a fairly accomplished Halberstadt pianist, I must say
there would be a significant learning curve.

Joe Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
>
> > Oh for a lego style erv wilson / generalised Bosanquet keyboard
kit....
> >
>
> ***Possibly. We'll see how those work, but as somebody who was, at
> one point, a fairly accomplished Halberstadt pianist, I must say
> there would be a significant learning curve.
>
> Joe Pehrson

As someone who had the experience of learning to play a generalized
Bosanquet keyboard (in 1975), I must say that the learning curve is
very, very (did I say very?) gentle compared to what it takes to
navigate the Halberstadt keyboard in all of its mere 12 keys.

Quick question: how many times did you have to learn the major scale
on the Halberstadt? Answer: 24 times; 12 each for the left and right
hands. On the Bosanquet you would learn it 6 times (using best
ratios of 5): one pattern for 12/19/31 (for each of the two hands),
one pattern for 22, and one pattern for 41/53/Helmholtzian
temperament.

However, you can't map 72-ET onto the Bosanquet, because it doesn't
have a series of fifths that passes through all 72 tones. The best
you could do is use either a 72-ET (or Miracle temperament) subset
mapped onto either 31 (as canasta) or 41 (as stud-loco). (Come to
think of it, that wouldn't be half bad, would it?)

But if you want a keyboard that will do justice to 72-ET, then you
would need something like this:

/tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/KbDec72.zip

With the Decimal keyboard you would not be restricted to 72-ET. You
could also have 31 and 41 or any just system that could be mapped
onto 31, 41, or 72 (including Partch's 43-JI). The learning curve
would be a little steeper than with the Bosanquet for 31, but 41
would be better (compared to the Bosanquet), because everything is
more easily reached.

The major scale would need to be learned only 4 times -- the
Pythagorean and best-ratios-of-5 patterns for each hand would be
unaltered in changing from 31 to 41 to 72.

I think the real problem is the economic curve.

So dream on ...

--George

In-Reply-To: <ah1cef+v259@eGroups.com>
gdsecor wrote:

> Quick question: how many times did you have to learn the major scale
> on the Halberstadt? Answer: 24 times; 12 each for the left and right
> hands. On the Bosanquet you would learn it 6 times (using best
> ratios of 5): one pattern for 12/19/31 (for each of the two hands),
> one pattern for 22, and one pattern for 41/53/Helmholtzian
> temperament.

That 41&53 temperament is called schismic or skhismatic.

> However, you can't map 72-ET onto the Bosanquet, because it doesn't
> have a series of fifths that passes through all 72 tones. The best
> you could do is use either a 72-ET (or Miracle temperament) subset
> mapped onto either 31 (as canasta) or 41 (as stud-loco). (Come to
> think of it, that wouldn't be half bad, would it?)

You mean plot out the 31 or 41 notes as a chain of fifths, then break it
to give the miracle subset? I don't like the idea of that. It loses the
transpositional invariance.

> But if you want a keyboard that will do justice to 72-ET, then you
> would need something like this:
>
> /tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/KbDec72.zip

You could fit something like that on a Bosanquet keyboard. You may find
it veers off the top or bottom because the upward drift is corrected every
2/7 notes instead of every 10.

> With the Decimal keyboard you would not be restricted to 72-ET. You
> could also have 31 and 41 or any just system that could be mapped
> onto 31, 41, or 72 (including Partch's 43-JI). The learning curve
> would be a little steeper than with the Bosanquet for 31, but 41
> would be better (compared to the Bosanquet), because everything is
> more easily reached.

But not Wilson's d'Alessandro because some notes that should be distinct
map to the same key.

> The major scale would need to be learned only 4 times -- the
> Pythagorean and best-ratios-of-5 patterns for each hand would be
> unaltered in changing from 31 to 41 to 72.
>
> I think the real problem is the economic curve.
>
> So dream on ...

I've got my ZTar set up to play a decimal scale. It covers a lot,
although not as much as your picture. It isn't _that_ expensive. If
you'd saved $10 every month since you discovered miracle you could easily
afford one. I don't think economics are that important at all. Rather
that not enough musicians actually want alternative keyboards.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <ah1cef+v259@e...>
> gdsecor wrote:
>
> > However, you can't map 72-ET onto the Bosanquet, because it
doesn't
> > have a series of fifths that passes through all 72 tones. The
best
> > you could do is use either a 72-ET (or Miracle temperament)
subset
> > mapped onto either 31 (as canasta) or 41 (as stud-loco). (Come
to
> > think of it, that wouldn't be half bad, would it?)
>
> You mean plot out the 31 or 41 notes as a chain of fifths, then
break it
> to give the miracle subset? I don't like the idea of that. It
loses the
> transpositional invariance.

I don't know if I understand you correctly, because the way I have it
transpositional capability is preserved. I take 31 or 41 tones as a
series of secors, arrange them in order of pitch within an octave,
and then treat them as if they were an ET and map that onto the
keyboard. If you provide a sufficient number of duplicate keys, then
the chain of secors can be picked up near the farther edge of the
keyboard wherever it begins to run off the nearer edge (and vice
versa).

It is true that like patterns on the keyboard will not invariably
produce the same intervals in tranposition. However, if two
intervals or chords in the subset are the same, then they can be
played on the keyboard using the same interval pattern. So I would
call this transpositional uniformity but not transpositional
invariance. It's not the best of all possible worlds, but it's
better than anything the Halberstadt keyboard has to offer.

> > But if you want a keyboard that will do justice to 72-ET, then
you
> > would need something like this:
> >
> > /tuning-
math/files/secor/kbds/KbDec72.zip
>
> You could fit something like that on a Bosanquet keyboard. You may
find
> it veers off the top or bottom because the upward drift is
corrected every
> 2/7 notes instead of every 10.

I don't like that. It renders the color-coding of the Bosanquet
keyboard meaningless, not to mention the aches that might be caused
by playing with the octaves going off on a diagonal.

> > With the Decimal keyboard you would not be restricted to 72-ET.
You
> > could also have 31 and 41 or any just system that could be mapped
> > onto 31, 41, or 72 (including Partch's 43-JI). The learning
curve
> > would be a little steeper than with the Bosanquet for 31, but 41
> > would be better (compared to the Bosanquet), because everything
is
> > more easily reached.
>
> But not Wilson's d'Alessandro because some notes that should be
distinct
> map to the same key.

I'm not familiar with that tuning. (Until recently I was away from
the microtonal scene for a couple of decades, and I still have some
catching up to do.)

> > The major scale would need to be learned only 4 times -- the
> > Pythagorean and best-ratios-of-5 patterns for each hand would be
> > unaltered in changing from 31 to 41 to 72.
> >
> > I think the real problem is the economic curve.
> >
> > So dream on ...
>
> I've got my ZTar set up to play a decimal scale. It covers a lot,
> although not as much as your picture.

I don't remember if I saw that on the internet not too long ago. (If
I did, perhaps I wasn't very impressed, because I don't remember if
it was that or something else. The name is familiar to me, because
Joe Monzo mentioned it in a private correspondence late last year.)

> It isn't _that_ expensive. If
> you'd saved $10 every month since you discovered miracle you could
easily
> afford one. I don't think economics are that important at all.
Rather
> that not enough musicians actually want alternative keyboards.

When I said "economic curve" that's very much what I had in mind --
the quantity manufactured brings down the price per unit.

So I think it's rather that not enough musicians know enough about
alternative tunings to generate sufficient demand for alternative
keyboards.

It looks like we have our work cut out for us.

--George

gdsecor wrote:

> I don't know if I understand you correctly, because the way I have it
> transpositional capability is preserved. I take 31 or 41 tones as a
> series of secors, arrange them in order of pitch within an octave,
> and then treat them as if they were an ET and map that onto the
> keyboard. If you provide a sufficient number of duplicate keys, then
> the chain of secors can be picked up near the farther edge of the
> keyboard wherever it begins to run off the nearer edge (and vice
> versa).

That's what I thought you meant, yes.

> It is true that like patterns on the keyboard will not invariably
> produce the same intervals in tranposition. However, if two
> intervals or chords in the subset are the same, then they can be
> played on the keyboard using the same interval pattern. So I would
> call this transpositional uniformity but not transpositional
> invariance. It's not the best of all possible worlds, but it's
> better than anything the Halberstadt keyboard has to offer.

I suppose it'll work but it's not the way you'd design a keyboard from
scratch. And 11-limit chords that are simple on a decimal keyboard will
be much harder to reach.

> > You could fit something like that on a Bosanquet keyboard. You may
> find
> > it veers off the top or bottom because the upward drift is
> corrected every
> > 2/7 notes instead of every 10.
>
> I don't like that. It renders the color-coding of the Bosanquet
> keyboard meaningless, not to mention the aches that might be caused
> by playing with the octaves going off on a diagonal.

I think MicroZones, which are the only commercially available Bosanquet
keyboards, allow you to move the key tops to get different colour coding.

> > But not Wilson's d'Alessandro because some notes that should be
> distinct
> > map to the same key.
>
> I'm not familiar with that tuning. (Until recently I was away from
> the microtonal scene for a couple of decades, and I still have some
> catching up to do.)

It's in Xenharmonikon. As it's based around a Bosanquet layout, it isn't
really important for it to work in a different one. But as there are so
few historically significant 11-limit scales it is worth looking at.

> > I've got my ZTar set up to play a decimal scale. It covers a lot,
> > although not as much as your picture.
>
> I don't remember if I saw that on the internet not too long ago. (If
> I did, perhaps I wasn't very impressed, because I don't remember if
> it was that or something else. The name is familiar to me, because
> Joe Monzo mentioned it in a private correspondence late last year.)

That's probably the one. It's from Starr Labs along with the MicroZone.
Try <http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/>. I suppose neither would be ideal
for transferring existing keyboard skills.

Graham

>

Hello George!
There are a few Xenharmonikon articles that show that the Hanson keyboard pattern works for 72. It is for this reason than Hanson's keyboard was met by such praise by Erv.
you can see it http://www.anaphoria.com/starr.PDF
with some background
here http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF

BTW in your article here
http://www.anaphoria.com/secor.PDF

I understand you had a correction put in a later issue as to some figure. If you wish i can add this to this page if you can direct me to it.

>
> From: "gdsecor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: 72-tET implementation
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Mark Gould" <mark.gould@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh for a lego style erv wilson / generalised Bosanquet keyboard
> kit....
> > >
> >
> > ***Possibly. We'll see how those work, but as somebody who was, at
> > one point, a fairly accomplished Halberstadt pianist, I must say
> > there would be a significant learning curve.
> >
> > Joe Pehrson
>
> As someone who had the experience of learning to play a generalized
> Bosanquet keyboard (in 1975), I must say that the learning curve is
> very, very (did I say very?) gentle compared to what it takes to
> navigate the Halberstadt keyboard in all of its mere 12 keys.
>
> Quick question: how many times did you have to learn the major scale
> on the Halberstadt? Answer: 24 times; 12 each for the left and right
> hands. On the Bosanquet you would learn it 6 times (using best
> ratios of 5): one pattern for 12/19/31 (for each of the two hands),
> one pattern for 22, and one pattern for 41/53/Helmholtzian
> temperament.
>
> However, you can't map 72-ET onto the Bosanquet, because it doesn't
> have a series of fifths that passes through all 72 tones. The best
> you could do is use either a 72-ET (or Miracle temperament) subset
> mapped onto either 31 (as canasta) or 41 (as stud-loco). (Come to
> think of it, that wouldn't be half bad, would it?)
>
> But if you want a keyboard that will do justice to 72-ET, then you
> would need something like this:
>
> /tuning-math/files/secor/kbds/KbDec72.zip
>
> With the Decimal keyboard you would not be restricted to 72-ET. You
> could also have 31 and 41 or any just system that could be mapped
> onto 31, 41, or 72 (including Partch's 43-JI). The learning curve
> would be a little steeper than with the Bosanquet for 31, but 41
> would be better (compared to the Bosanquet), because everything is
> more easily reached.
>
> The major scale would need to be learned only 4 times -- the
> Pythagorean and best-ratios-of-5 patterns for each hand would be
> unaltered in changing from 31 to 41 to 72.
>
> I think the real problem is the economic curve.
>
> So dream on ...
>
> --George
>
> ____________

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

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

In-Reply-To: <3D35082C.5058A008@anaphoria.com>
Kraig Grady wrote:

> There are a few Xenharmonikon articles that show that the Hanson
> keyboard pattern works for 72. It is for this reason than Hanson's
> keyboard was met by such praise by Erv.
> you can see it http://www.anaphoria.com/starr.PDF
> with some background
> here http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF

That doesn't fit a Bosanquet keyboard, and is more complex then miracle
when you go beyond the 5-limit. So why is it important?

> BTW in your article here
> http://www.anaphoria.com/secor.PDF
>
> I understand you had a correction put in a later issue as to some
> figure. If you wish i can add this to this page if you can direct me to
> it.

Wasn't it that the value for the secor should be the 11-limit minimax of
116.72 cents, not 116.69? I think the erratum is in the following edition
of Xenharmonikon.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>
> Hello George!
> There are a few Xenharmonikon articles that show that the
Hanson keyboard pattern works for 72. It is for this reason than
Hanson's keyboard was met by such praise by Erv.
> you can see it http://www.anaphoria.com/starr.PDF
> with some background
> here http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF

Hi, Kraig!

I remember this from way back when. Larry Hanson had a set of
tubulongs with a 19-tone subset of 53, a MOS scale generated by 14
degrees (the best 6:5) of 53.

The family of ET's possible on this keyboard include 19, 34, 53, 72,
and 87. I guess that one reason Erv liked it is that it handled both
53 and 72.

> BTW in your article here
> http://www.anaphoria.com/secor.PDF
>
> I understand you had a correction put in a later issue as to some
figure. If you wish i can add this to this page if you can direct me
to it.

I made a mistake in the calculation of the generating interval (now
known as a "secor") and issued a correction in Xenharmonikon 5 on
page 2 of my first article in that issue, Spring 1976, which covered
a whole bunch of things, so I would suggest copying just the
applicable part (which is under its own heading) and appending that
to the XH3 article. (BTW, you have my belated permission to post the
material on your web site -- and thank you for doing so!)

As the article stated, the correct value was to be an interval that,
when carried out to nineteen places, would generate a just 5:18
(i.e., 5:9 increased by an octave). I gave the revised value in
cents as "(1017.596288 + 1200)/19 = 116.7155941. This makes the
intervals 8:9 and 4:5 false by 3.323 cents; altering the value
slightly will improve one and worsen the other. No other primary
interval in Partch's 11-limit has a greater error, making this the
optimum value for the generating interval."

Say hello to Erv for me then next time you see him. I'll have to
write him soon.

--George

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> gdsecor wrote:
>
> [regarding a 72-ET subset on a Bosanquet generalized keyboard]
> > I don't know if I understand you correctly, because the way I
have it
> > transpositional capability is preserved. I take 31 or 41 tones
as a
> > series of secors, arrange them in order of pitch within an
octave,
> > and then treat them as if they were an ET and map that onto the
> > keyboard. If you provide a sufficient number of duplicate keys,
then
> > the chain of secors can be picked up near the farther edge of the
> > keyboard wherever it begins to run off the nearer edge (and vice
> > versa).
>
> That's what I thought you meant, yes.
>
> > It is true that like patterns on the keyboard will not invariably
> > produce the same intervals in tranposition. However, if two
> > intervals or chords in the subset are the same, then they can be
> > played on the keyboard using the same interval pattern. So I
would
> > call this transpositional uniformity but not transpositional
> > invariance. It's not the best of all possible worlds, but it's
> > better than anything the Halberstadt keyboard has to offer.
>
> I suppose it'll work but it's not the way you'd design a keyboard
from
> scratch.

I agree with you completely. The above would apply only if you
already happened to have a Bosanquet keyboard or were planning to
acquire one for other purposes.

> And 11-limit chords that are simple on a decimal keyboard will
> be much harder to reach.

No question about it!

> > > You could fit something like that on a Bosanquet keyboard. You
may
> > find
> > > it veers off the top or bottom because the upward drift is
> > corrected every
> > > 2/7 notes instead of every 10.
> >
> > I don't like that. It renders the color-coding of the Bosanquet
> > keyboard meaningless, not to mention the aches that might be
caused
> > by playing with the octaves going off on a diagonal.
>
> I think MicroZones, which are the only commercially available
Bosanquet
> keyboards, allow you to move the key tops to get different colour
coding.

The same could be done with the generalized keyboard Scalatron keys.
(However, on the Scalatron keyboard the octaves were hard-wired, so
what you suggested would not have been possible.)

But considering how quickly the tuning can be changed, it would seem
most inconvenient to have to go to the trouble of moving key tops
around. No matter how you do it, as you said, it would be much
better to have the right keyboard in the first place.

> > > But not Wilson's d'Alessandro because some notes that should be
> > distinct
> > > map to the same key.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with that tuning. (Until recently I was away
from
> > the microtonal scene for a couple of decades, and I still have
some
> > catching up to do.)
>
> It's in Xenharmonikon. As it's based around a Bosanquet layout, it
isn't
> really important for it to work in a different one. But as there
are so
> few historically significant 11-limit scales it is worth looking at.
>
>
> > > I've got my ZTar set up to play a decimal scale. It covers a
lot,
> > > although not as much as your picture.
> >
> > I don't remember if I saw that on the internet not too long ago.
(If
> > I did, perhaps I wasn't very impressed, because I don't remember
if
> > it was that or something else.

Now I see that the reason was that I wasn't interested in an
instrument that required a guitar technique.

> > The name is familiar to me, because
> > Joe Monzo mentioned it in a private correspondence late last
year.)
>
> That's probably the one. It's from Starr Labs along with the
MicroZone.
> Try <http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/>. I suppose neither would be
ideal
> for transferring existing keyboard skills.

Anyway, I'm not in the market for any new microtonal hardware.

--George

> From: <graham@microtonal.co.uk>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:31 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 72-tET implementation
>
>
> gdsecor wrote:
>
> > > [Graham:]
> > > You could fit something like that on a Bosanquet
> > > keyboard. You may find it veers off the top or
> > > bottom because the upward drift is corrected every
> > > 2/7 notes instead of every 10.
> >
> > I don't like that. It renders the color-coding of
> > the Bosanquet keyboard meaningless, not to mention
> > the aches that might be caused by playing with the
> > octaves going off on a diagonal.
>
> I think MicroZones, which are the only commercially
> available Bosanquet keyboards, allow you to move the
> key tops to get different colour coding.

yes, Graham, that's correct -- the MicroZone key-tops
can be arranged in any pattern that can be fitted to
the honeycomb layout ... in fact, Harold Fortuin ordered
his with all white key-tops, because he uses his own
labeling system. StarrLabs can sell MicroZone key-tops
in several different colors, to make it easy to create
patterns to fit many different tuning systems.

BTW, i stopped in and said hello to Harvey Starr a
few days ago, and he informed me that he has completely
redesigned the MicroZone construction, eliminating
several of the hardware bugs that the old ones had
(and all of which had to be redone yet again). any
buyers out there? ... only $8,800 US.

> > > I've got my ZTar set up to play a decimal scale.
> > > It covers a lot, although not as much as your
> > > picture.
> >
> > I don't remember if I saw that on the internet not
> > too long ago. (If I did, perhaps I wasn't very
> > impressed, because I don't remember if it was that
> > or something else. The name is familiar to me,
> > because Joe Monzo mentioned it in a private
> > correspondence late last year.)
>
> That's probably the one. It's from Starr Labs along with
> the MicroZone. Try <http://www.catalog.com/starrlab/>.
> I suppose neither would be ideal for transferring
> existing keyboard skills.

i still don't own either a MicroZone or Ztar, but
have played on both, and would agree that regular
Halberstadt-keyboard skills would not translate
very easily to either of the StarrLabs instruments.

i haven't been following the tuning lists regularly
for several months, so perhaps you've already covered
it here and i've missed it ... but i'm very interested
to know your Ztar MIRACLE mapping, Graham, and also
how your progress on the Ztar is coming along.

i'm still convinced that the Ztar would give magnificent
mappings of both the full 72edo and Canasta tunings.
(see list archives from May 2001 for details.)

-monz

>
> From: graham@microtonal.co.uk
> Subject: Re: 72-tET implementation
>
>
>
> That doesn't fit a Bosanquet keyboard, and is more complex then miracle
> when you go beyond the 5-limit. So why is it important?

I found it important for mapping the whole 72 as well as such an object as the hebdomekontany. This i think is important. I can't imagine wanting to use 72 in only a 5 limit
setting, but i guess one could.

>

>
>
> Graham
>

-- 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..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> i haven't been following the tuning lists regularly
> for several months...

If you find the time, I'd like to see you get to my postings on the 7-limit cubic lattice, which could use some good diagrams. This is somehting JI people in particular might find of interest if it could be presented in a palitible way.

In-Reply-To: <003501c22e21$09d44560$af48620c@dsl.att.net>
monz wrote:

> i haven't been following the tuning lists regularly
> for several months, so perhaps you've already covered
> it here and i've missed it ... but i'm very interested
> to know your Ztar MIRACLE mapping, Graham, and also
> how your progress on the Ztar is coming along.

What? Oh, yes. I split the keyboard into two zones and send them on two
MIDI channels. Then, the whole thing can be tuned in Kyma to a decimal
layout. The best way of splitting the keyboard is with 3 strings in each
zone, so that most chords cover both. Polyphony has to be allocated in
advance for Kyma. It might be better to have alternate strings on
different channels. I've had a 7-limit/neutral third lattice tuned up as
well I think.

For multitracking, I keep to one channel which means a few notes have to
be missing.

The way it's usually set up is in guitar mode with a multiple-29 tuning.
(I thought of calling this Mystery. Is that taken?) The fretting is to
29-equal and the open strings are tuned in neutral thirds.

If you go to <http://x31eq.com/tempered_lattice.htm> and search
for "Another simplification of the neutral-third lattice", it's really
a version of that lattice. So I should update the page to say it works
with 58- as well as 31-equal. Because I don't tune to exactly 58-equal,
only half the chords are in tune. But this isn't a problem so far as
there are plenty of them.

I've been playing with 8:11:13:16:22 chords. The fingering's all in
5-fret jumps, so I set up an alternative where the frets are to 5/29
instead of 1/29. It isn't as good melodically. I haven't investigated
the harmony, but it shows promise. 8:11:13 chords aren't wondrously
consonant, but are non-arbitrary enough that they might make sense if they
dominate. Intervals with 5 and 7 can still be played, and they're no more
difficult then 8:11:13 is with the usual setup.

With a real guitar, you should be able to get the best of both worlds
because it isn't so difficult to stretch a whole tone, however many frets
you're skipping. I think a 29-equal fretting makes a lot of sense, and is
worth considering alongside meantone and blackjack. I'll have to do some
serious work with it to see if it's really viable. It looks a lot more
complex than it feels, which may make it harder to fit real melodies and
harmonies to it, instead of noodling.

As to the ZTar in general, I'm getting on okay. I had the week of work to
receive it, and spent a few days of intensive work. Then I switched to
getting Stellar Floor Text done so I'd have something to show for the time
I spent. I haven't given music so much attention since (STF still needs
remixing) but I am finding I can play the ZTar more fluently. It's
getting easier to play the right hand key triggers. To start off, I was
very fast with the left hand, but there was a pause every time I changes
strings. I was expecting the new string to sound earlier. With practice,
you get over that like with any instrument.

I still think the key triggers are the weakest part of the instrument,
though. They don't always sound with a light touch, I still haven't
worked out strumming, and because there solid it's not so easy to play
expressively with them. The aftertouch is good, but there's a small
expressive range and for light touches the note retriggers. I might
switch to using two hands on the main keyboard, or expressing with the
right hand using the pads, which are much better. Treating the fretboard
like a normal keyboard is a problem because the keys are so thin. Perhaps
that will also improve with practice. A Mini-Z would be better if you're
going to play like this a lot.

> i'm still convinced that the Ztar would give magnificent
> mappings of both the full 72edo and Canasta tunings.
> (see list archives from May 2001 for details.)

I'll see if I can simplify it to Canasta so that I get more octaves and
some duplicated notes and it all fits in one channel.

Graham