Groven Piano

How does the system cope with errors of performance?

How does this system cope with enharmonic shifts? Dim 7ths being the most
obvious example?

How does this system cope with deliberate artefacts of ET as compositional
tool: Voiles from Book I for example?

Maybe these questions are answered easily, but if comma alteration is part
of the plan of the Groven piano, then ultimately occasion for commatic drift
(or worse) could occur.

I suppose the music is preprogrammed and so the electronics knows in advance
whether it should be playing an Eflat or a Dsharp. But, the slightest
performer error is going to upset it surely? To shich piano does it direct
the erroneous note(s)?

Mark

> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: 31 Oct 2002 19:21:01 -0000
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Digest Number 2293
>
> Subject: Re: Re: comma shifts in performance
>
> By the way, the Groven piano project's website has
> MP3 samples now, don't know if it was mentioned yet.

In a message dated 11/1/02 2:15:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mark.gould@argonet.co.uk writes:

> I suppose the music is preprogrammed and so the electronics knows in advance
> whether it should be playing an Eflat or a Dsharp.

Exactly. The Groven piano is preset for each piece. Johnny Reinhard

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

> How does this system cope with enharmonic shifts? Dim 7ths being
the most
> obvious example?

as i described in a recent post, enharmonic shifts are exactly the
same size as comma shifts in this system. as comma shifts didn't
appear to disturb groven, neither would enharmonic shifts.

> How does this system cope with deliberate artefacts of ET as
compositional
> tool: Voiles from Book I for example?

can you clarify?

> Maybe these questions are answered easily, but if comma alteration
is part
> of the plan of the Groven piano, then ultimately occasion for
commatic drift
> (or worse) could occur.

yes, like commatic shift for example. i agree with you that this is,
therefore, not one of the better adaptive JI schemes that have been
proposed, though that's just my opinion.

> How does the system cope with errors of performance?
>
> How does this system cope with enharmonic shifts? Dim 7ths being
> the most obvious example?
>
> How does this system cope with deliberate artefacts of ET as
> compositional tool: Voiles from Book I for example?

It isn't smart enough to be confused. It doesn't attempt to guess
diatonic key. It uses the moving history approach, 12 notes deep,
so one wrong note only pulls a little bit.

The algorithm is fairly complicated, and was ingeniously implemented
in the original organ using analog electronics. The Max version
used on the piano is described in some detail in Code's recent CMJ
article. We have it on his word that it is functionally isomorphic
to Groven's version. Of course, the diagrams in Groven's book are
available for anyone to check...

>Maybe these questions are answered easily, but if comma alteration
>is part of the plan of the Groven piano, then ultimately occasion
>for commatic drift (or worse) could occur.

The problem is that he's using schismic instead of meantone.
Except the musicians and audiences at the concerts don't seem to
think it's a problem!

To be honest, it does bother me a little bit, in terms of an
ultimate common-practice adaptive solution, because the piano is
such an attack-based timbre. Probably worked much better on the
organ. I still like the effect, though.

-Carl

[I wrote...]
> The problem is that he's using schismic instead of meantone.
> Except the musicians and audiences at the concerts don't seem to
> think it's a problem!

Actually, I see Code plans to implement a 36-out-of-72 version,
per Paul's idea of wayback, and suggests it will be superior to
the schismic version!

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> [I wrote...]
> > The problem is that he's using schismic instead of meantone.
> > Except the musicians and audiences at the concerts don't seem to
> > think it's a problem!
>
> Actually, I see Code plans to implement a 36-out-of-72 version,
> per Paul's idea of wayback, and suggests it will be superior to
> the schismic version!
>
> -Carl

per my idea??? some other paul?

>>Actually, I see Code plans to implement a 36-out-of-72 version,
>>per Paul's idea of wayback, and suggests it will be superior to
>>the schismic version!
>>
>> -Carl
>
>per my idea??? some other paul?

Your idea of tuning three keyboards 15 cents apart.

-Carl

>>How does the system cope with errors of performance?
>>
>>How does this system cope with enharmonic shifts? Dim 7ths being
>>the most obvious example?
>>
>>How does this system cope with deliberate artefacts of ET as
>>compositional tool: Voiles from Book I for example?
>
>It isn't smart enough to be confused. It doesn't attempt to guess
>diatonic key. It uses the moving history approach, 12 notes deep,
>so one wrong note only pulls a little bit.

Compare to my approach to non-realtime adaptive JI here:

http://lumma.org/stuff/adaptive.txt

This is basically a cleaner presentation of ideas I posted to this
forum in 1999.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>Actually, I see Code plans to implement a 36-out-of-72 version,
> >>per Paul's idea of wayback, and suggests it will be superior to
> >>the schismic version!
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >per my idea??? some other paul?
>
> Your idea of tuning three keyboards 15 cents apart.
>
> -Carl

oh yeah, that was my idea! and i still don't like the way it sounds,
even though the comma shifts are reduced to only 15 cents, that's
still too much for my ears. they're 20 cents in the groven and
helmholtz systems.

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> [I wrote...]
> > The problem is that he's using schismic instead of meantone.
> > Except the musicians and audiences at the concerts don't seem to
> > think it's a problem!
>
> Actually, I see Code plans to implement a 36-out-of-72 version,
> per Paul's idea of wayback, and suggests it will be superior to
> the schismic version!

he does? that would surprise me, since many people focus on the 2-
cent errors in 72-equal . . . though tiny, they're about 8 times
larger than the errors in schismic (groven's tuning). groven even got
away with calling the latter "just intonation"!

>>Actually, I see Code plans to implement a 36-out-of-72 version,
>>per Paul's idea of wayback, and suggests it will be superior to
>>the schismic version!
>
>he does? that would surprise me, since many people focus on the 2-
>cent errors in 72-equal . . . though tiny, they're about 8 times
>larger than the errors in schismic (groven's tuning). groven even
>got away with calling the latter "just intonation"!

Yes, he does...

The 12-tET fifths do bother me on a piano, as you know (with some
synth timbres they're a-okay).

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> >groven even
> >got away with calling the latter "just intonation"!
>
> Yes, he does...
>
> The 12-tET fifths do bother me on a piano, as you know (with some
> synth timbres they're a-okay).
>
> -Carl

one of the advisers of the sonic arts website now has webpages up
there prominently declaring that any claim to preference for just
intervals has been soundly disproven by recent psychoacoustics, which
has "proved" that the preference is instead for intervals *wider*
than the just ones. of course, he exaggerates the relevance of such
results by at least 100-fold.

>one of the advisers of the sonic arts website now has webpages up
>there prominently declaring that any claim to preference for just
>intervals has been soundly disproven by recent psychoacoustics,
>which has "proved" that the preference is instead for intervals
>*wider* than the just ones. of course, he exaggerates the relevance
>of such results by at least 100-fold.

Not sure what this has to do with our discussion, but I have
read, and heard in person, several versions of this diatribe
over the years. Brian exaggerates everything 100-fold, he's a
J with a capital J, never indecisive on anything. I read his
stuff in the fine tradition of punk zines and enjoy it endlessly.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Brian exaggerates everything 100-fold, he's a
> J with a capital J, never indecisive on anything. I read his
> stuff in the fine tradition of punk zines and enjoy it endlessly.

i doubt many of the readers of the sonic-arts website will be able to
appreciate it in such a "traditional" context . . .

>Brian exaggerates everything 100-fold, he's a
>J with a capital J, never indecisive on anything. I read his
>stuff in the fine tradition of punk zines and enjoy it endlessly.
>
>i doubt many of the readers of the sonic-arts website will be
>able to appreciate it in such a "traditional" context . . .

Let's start a petition to take it down!

-Carl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>

> Not sure what this has to do with our discussion, but I have
> read, and heard in person, several versions of this diatribe
> over the years. Brian exaggerates everything 100-fold, he's a
> J with a capital J, never indecisive on anything.

J? Jerkoff? Jackass? What are you getting at?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

>> Not sure what this has to do with our discussion, but I have
>> read, and heard in person, several versions of this diatribe
>> over the years. Brian exaggerates everything 100-fold, he's a
>> J with a capital J, never indecisive on anything.
>
> J? Jerkoff? Jackass? What are you getting at?

Sorry, Paul and I have been discussing the Myers-Briggs stuff,
where J stands for Judging.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Sorry, Paul and I have been discussing the Myers-Briggs stuff,
> where J stands for Judging.

Man, am I relieved: for a minute I thought it might stand for Jon...

:)

Have a nice weekend,
Jon