new applet on Blackjack page

i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
it shows where those chords are on that lattice.

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

(near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963

> i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
>
> (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
>
>
>
> -monz
> "all roads lead to n^0"

***This is great, Monz! I guess the only "downside" is that the
people using Blackjack these days are using the scale based on the
key of *G*. It was a hard transition for *me* to make, but I did it,
as well as several other people... I believe Alison as well.

best,

Joe P.

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963

> i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
>
> (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
>
>
>
> -monz
> "all roads lead to n^0"

***Oh, Monz... I should also add that I don't believe *any* study of
Blackjack is complete without the two graphics the Paul Erlich made
for us, "G-based" Blackjack people:

the lattices in the *STANDARD* Blackjack ascii notation that we all
decided upon ( :) )

and the colorful chart of Blackjack *INTERVALS* that Paul did.

Surely, the *lattice* one should be up there: it's an essential tool
for anybody working with the scale...

best,

Joe Pehrsone

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963
>
> > i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> > a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> > mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> > Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> > it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> >
> > (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> > showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> > the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
> > "all roads lead to n^0"
>
>
> ***This is great, Monz!

i wish i could see the applet . . . any web gurus out there want to
help me out, offlist?

> I guess the only "downside" is that the
> people using Blackjack these days are using the scale based on the
> key of *G*.

specifically, the center of the tuning has been transposed, from C
down to B quarter-tone low. in other words, the central fifth has
been transposed from A quarter-tone low - E quarter-tone low, down to
G - D.

> It was a hard transition for *me* to make, but I did it,
> as well as several other people... I believe Alison as well.

she's a person too :)

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963
>
> > i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> > a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> > mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> > Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> > it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> >
> > (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> > showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> > the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
> > "all roads lead to n^0"
>
>
> ***Oh, Monz... I should also add that I don't believe *any* study
of
> Blackjack is complete without the two graphics the Paul Erlich made
> for us, "G-based" Blackjack people:
>
> the lattices in the *STANDARD* Blackjack ascii notation that we all
> decided upon ( :) )
>
> and the colorful chart of Blackjack *INTERVALS* that Paul did.
>
> Surely, the *lattice* one should be up there: it's an essential
tool
> for anybody working with the scale...
>
> best,
>
> Joe Pehrsone

i believe monz will continue to reject these additions to his page,
because, as before, they don't use *his* 72-edo notation.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#40016

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963
> >
> > > i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> > > a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> > > mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> > > Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> > > it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
> > >
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> > >
> > > (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> > > showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> > > the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -monz
> > > "all roads lead to n^0"
> >
> >
> > ***This is great, Monz!
>
> i wish i could see the applet . . . any web gurus out there want to
> help me out, offlist?
>
> > I guess the only "downside" is that the
> > people using Blackjack these days are using the scale based on
the
> > key of *G*.
>
> specifically, the center of the tuning has been transposed, from C
> down to B quarter-tone low. in other words, the central fifth has
> been transposed from A quarter-tone low - E quarter-tone low, down
to
> G - D.
>
> > It was a hard transition for *me* to make, but I did it,
> > as well as several other people... I believe Alison as well.
>
> she's a person too :)

***Heh. Come to think of it, was there *anybody* besides myself,
Alison and I believe Gene who has written any pieces in Blackjack??

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#40017

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963
> >
> > > i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> > > a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> > > mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> > > Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> > > it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
> > >
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> > >
> > > (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> > > showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> > > the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -monz
> > > "all roads lead to n^0"
> >
> >
> > ***Oh, Monz... I should also add that I don't believe *any* study
> of
> > Blackjack is complete without the two graphics the Paul Erlich
made
> > for us, "G-based" Blackjack people:
> >
> > the lattices in the *STANDARD* Blackjack ascii notation that we
all
> > decided upon ( :) )
> >
> > and the colorful chart of Blackjack *INTERVALS* that Paul did.
> >
> > Surely, the *lattice* one should be up there: it's an essential
> tool
> > for anybody working with the scale...
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Joe Pehrsone
>
> i believe monz will continue to reject these additions to his page,
> because, as before, they don't use *his* 72-edo notation.

***Perhaps Gardner Read's general notational pessimism is well
placed... :)

JP

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

> ***This is great, Monz! I guess the only "downside" is that the
> people using Blackjack these days are using the scale based on the
> key of *G*.

I dunno, Monz. I just finished a Blackjack piece, and have started on a second one, and it never occurred to me that they were in G or any other key with a letter name attached to it.

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

Sorry, Joe, for calling you Monz. I didn't stop my finger in time when I posted.

Anyone want to make a Blackjack page with links to any Blackjack music currently available?

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

> ***Heh. Come to think of it, was there *anybody* besides myself,
> Alison and I believe Gene who has written any pieces in Blackjack??

Paging Jacky Ligon...

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Heh. Come to think of it, was there *anybody* besides myself,
> > Alison and I believe Gene who has written any pieces in
Blackjack??
>
> Paging Jacky Ligon...

his piece may have been *written* in blackjack, but it certainly
didn't come out that way . . . unless he's done more since then . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> his piece may have been *written* in blackjack, but it certainly
> didn't come out that way . . . unless he's done more since then

Should a piece be considered 'of' a particular tuning only if it applies certain properties of said tuning? This question is only partly rhetorical...

Cheers,
Jon

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

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#40032

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Joe, for calling you Monz. I didn't stop my finger in time
when I posted.
>
> Anyone want to make a Blackjack page with links to any Blackjack
music currently available?

***Hi Gene.

No problem. Actually most of these Blackjack developments were in
the Spring of 2001 when Blackjack was "invented." You will find
almost the entire history here on the list. We had come to a kind
of "consensus" on some of this stuff, with the assistance of Dave
Keenan but, of course, no one is obligated to adhere to it. There
just was a kind of compelling logic to it that even won *me* over,
eventually (I had to resticker my entire keyboard and retune
everything with a different Scala file...)

I don't have a recording yet of my live Blackjack trombone piece, but
I *do* have a "synthetic" one here, as well as a prototype of the new
cello piece which is yet to be performed:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html

And, I have an *electronic* piece in Blackjack on the Tuning Punks:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/72/the_tuning_punks.html

Monz can add any links to *real* music that he wishes, but it should
be clear that the "prototypes" are not the "final" acoustic version.

J. Pehrson

hi Joe,

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:43 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: new applet on Blackjack page
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_39963.html#39963
>
> > i've created a new applet which shows blackjack on
> > a 5-limit 72edo bingo-card-lattice, and when you
> > mouse-over the numbers designating the chords in
> > Graham Breed's "blackjack comma-pump" chord progression
> > it shows where those chords are on that lattice.
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
> >
> > (near the bottom of the page. click on the graphic
> > showing the pitch-height of Graham's chords to hear
> > the mp3, then do the mouse-over to see the lattices.)
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
> > "all roads lead to n^0"
>
>
> ***This is great, Monz! I guess the only "downside" is that the
> people using Blackjack these days are using the scale based on the
> key of *G*. It was a hard transition for *me* to make, but I did it,
> as well as several other people... I believe Alison as well.

ahh ... i had expected that if there was *one* person who
responded to this, it would be you!

yes, eventually someday i should redo all my blackjack stuff
to have it conform to the standards of G-centricity as well
as the modified-Sims notation. but i have so much work to do...

-monz

> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:15 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: new applet on Blackjack page
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
>
> Anyone want to make a Blackjack page with links to
> any Blackjack music currently available?

give me the links and i'll put 'em on my blackjack page!

-monz

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

> And, I have an *electronic* piece in Blackjack on the Tuning Punks:
>
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/72/the_tuning_punks.html

the one called 'blect', right? it doesn't say . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#40049

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > And, I have an *electronic* piece in Blackjack on the Tuning
Punks:
> >
> > http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/72/the_tuning_punks.html
>
> the one called 'blect', right? it doesn't say . . .

***That's it! I had asked John Starrett to add that information, but
he's been so busy with his dissertation that, apparently, he hasn't
gotten around to it...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > his piece may have been *written* in blackjack, but it certainly
> > didn't come out that way . . . unless he's done more since then
>
> Should a piece be considered 'of' a particular tuning only if it
>applies certain properties of said tuning? This question is only
>partly rhetorical...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

as far as i'm concerned, even a random smattering of notes would
be 'in' blackjack, if it used all or most of those 21 pitches, in any
transposition . . .

. . . and note that i said 'in' and not 'of'.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > > his piece may have been *written* in blackjack, but it certainly
> > > didn't come out that way
>
> as far as i'm concerned, even a random smattering of notes would
> be 'in' blackjack, if it used all or most of those 21 pitches, in any transposition . . .

Reconcile your two statements: what do you mean "didn't come out that way" if all it takes is to use the pitches contained in the tuning? What was the reason for "but"?

> . . . and note that i said 'in' and not 'of'.

You wrote "in" Blackjack and I referred to the properties "of" Blackjack. I think we're getting a bit semantical at this point; maybe if you clarify the "but" (as I state above) it would help.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > > > his piece may have been *written* in blackjack, but it
certainly
> > > > didn't come out that way
> >
> > as far as i'm concerned, even a random smattering of notes would
> > be 'in' blackjack, if it used all or most of those 21 pitches, in
> > any transposition . . .
>
> Reconcile your two statements: what do you mean "didn't come out
>that way" if all it takes is to use the pitches contained in the
>tuning?

the rendition didn't conform to the composition (the latter is what i
meant by "his piece may have been *written* in blackjack" -- what did
you *think* i meant by that?).

>What was the reason for "but"?

i'm not sure of the reason, but i suspect the initial set of pitch
bend messages did not get implemented for whatever reason -- so the
beginning of the piece didn't come out right, but by the end, i think
everything was 'in' the intended blackjack.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> the rendition didn't conform to the composition (the latter is what
> i meant by "his piece may have been *written* in blackjack" -- what
> did you *think* i meant by that?).

I wasn't sure at all, since Jacky, unlike Joe P. and others, tends to not do written compositions! I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't find any scores at Jacky's house!!

> >What was the reason for "but"?
>
> i'm not sure of the reason, but i suspect the initial set of pitch
> bend messages did not get implemented for whatever reason -- so the
> beginning of the piece didn't come out right, but by the end, i
> think everything was 'in' the intended blackjack.

See, here is the confusion: in one sense you are talking composition, in another you are talking 'performance' (or, actually, implementation). If the problem existed in a non- or mis-functioning implementation, I'd try and make it clear. As you originally stated, it came off sounding like a "composer" attempting to "compose" a piece in a given tuning (Blackjack), and somehow mucking it up so much that it came out as if it wasn't in Blackjack at all.

Which is probably the result I'd get if I ever tried it! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> give me the links and i'll put 'em on my blackjack page!

In a week or two mp3.com should have determined if it is worthy to appear.

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

As you originally stated, it came off sounding like a "composer" attempting to "compose" a piece in a given tuning (Blackjack), and somehow mucking it up so much that it came out as if it wasn't in Blackjack at all.
>
> Which is probably the result I'd get if I ever tried it! :)

Composing in Blackjack is da bomb. It has great resources, but it directs you to its own harmonic language, which Canasta would not do to nearly the same extent. I feel a lot less contrained by it harmonically, and while it has too many notes to really get a full sense of scale from it, its character comes through.

(By the way, Paul, I counted, and I did use all the notes.)

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

/tuning/topicId_39963.html#40076

> --- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> As you originally stated, it came off sounding like a "composer"
attempting to "compose" a piece in a given tuning (Blackjack), and
somehow mucking it up so much that it came out as if it wasn't in
Blackjack at all.
> >
> > Which is probably the result I'd get if I ever tried it! :)
>
> Composing in Blackjack is da bomb. It has great resources, but it
directs you to its own harmonic language,

***Well, yes, but that's part of the "joy" of it... the fact that it
*has* a harmonic language that's clearly definable and yet *not* our
traditional functional harmony! At least, that's one of the things
I "dig" about it...

J. Pehrson

hi Gene,

> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:50 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: new applet on Blackjack page
>
>
> Composing in Blackjack is da bomb.

:) it amuses me to see that written by you.

> It has great resources, but it directs you to its
> own harmonic language, which Canasta would not
> do to nearly the same extent.

hmmm ... please say more about this! back when all
these MIRACLE scales were rediscovered a year and
a half ago, i played around with them for a little
while and decided pretty quickly that canasta was
the one i wanted to explore, and the main reason
was because it seemed to me like it offered so much
more harmonically than blackjack.

i could see how blackjack "directs you to its
own harmonic language" more than canasta, because
it's more limited and thus has a more pronounced
"flavor".

... unfortunately, this is all theoretical speculation
for me. i haven't actually played much music in these
scales yet. hopefully soon ...

> I feel a lot less contrained by it harmonically,

you feel less constrained by blackjack than you do
by canasta? how's that? with 10 more notes, all with
multiple "senses", i thought canasta offered numerous
more harmonic possibilites?

-monz

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

>
> ***Heh. Come to think of it, was there *anybody* besides myself,
> Alison and I believe Gene who has written any pieces in Blackjack??
>
> JP

And my unfinished piece is stillon the back burner!

Regards

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> you feel less constrained by blackjack than you do
> by canasta? how's that? with 10 more notes, all with
> multiple "senses", i thought canasta offered numerous
> more harmonic possibilites?

It certainly does; I was even touting a Canasta organ for that reason. What I meant was that Blackjack was far less constraining than the smaller scales I've been using; so I think I may try some other larger MOS.

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_39963.html#40076
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> >
> > As you originally stated, it came off sounding like a "composer"
> attempting to "compose" a piece in a given tuning (Blackjack), and
> somehow mucking it up so much that it came out as if it wasn't in
> Blackjack at all.
> > >
> > > Which is probably the result I'd get if I ever tried it! :)
> >
> > Composing in Blackjack is da bomb. It has great resources, but it
> directs you to its own harmonic language,
>
> ***Well, yes, but that's part of the "joy" of it... the fact that
it
> *has* a harmonic language that's clearly definable and yet *not*
our
> traditional functional harmony! At least, that's one of the things
> I "dig" about it...
>
> J. Pehrson

this would be a good thing to point out to readers of julia's paper,
who may get the incorrect impression that a just intonation harmonic
basis necessarily leads one to sounds reminiscent of traditional
functional harmony . . .