New Blackjack piece up on mp3.com

My latest effort, my first in Blackjack, is now up at

www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith

I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since it is a reaction to his criticisms of the Clinton Variations piece.

>My latest effort, my first in Blackjack, is now up at
>
>www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
>
>I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since
>it is a reaction to his criticisms of the Clinton
>Variations piece.

Have a message number on that? I'd like to know what
Paul's criticisms were, since I think the Clinton Vars.
are perhaps your (Gene's) strongest material.

-Carl

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

> >I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since
> >it is a reaction to his criticisms of the Clinton
> >Variations piece.
>
> Have a message number on that? I'd like to know what
> Paul's criticisms were, since I think the Clinton Vars.
> are perhaps your (Gene's) strongest material.

Here it is:

/makemicromusic/topicId_3732.html#3772

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40527

> My latest effort, my first in Blackjack, is now up at
>
> www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
>
> I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since it is a reaction
to his criticisms of the Clinton Variations piece.

***Great work, Gene!

Actually, it almost sounds like a "suite" of *separate* Blackjack
pieces, since the timbres are so different. Rachmaninoff is,
seemingly, only the *first* one.

Anyway, the pieces seem to touch on the fascinating aspect of
Blackjack harmony: not quite Occidental, not quite Oriental...
driving the harmonies in a certain direction, with maybe a bit less
flexibility than our traditional diatonic vocabulary, but with a
distinct style and sound of its own...

Joseph Pehrson

>>Have a message number on that? I'd like to know what Paul's
>>criticisms were, since I think the Clinton Vars. are perhaps
>>your (Gene's) strongest material.
>
>Here it is:
>
>/makemicromusic/topicId_3732.html#3772

Thanks.

-Carl

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

> ***Great work, Gene!

Thanks. Now maybe one of these days someone will collect together a Blackjack group and we can be part of a Blackjack concert.

> Actually, it almost sounds like a "suite" of *separate* Blackjack
> pieces, since the timbres are so different. Rachmaninoff is,
> seemingly, only the *first* one.

I thought since the thematic and harmonic links were so strong, this wouldn't be how it was heard. Hmmm...

> Anyway, the pieces seem to touch on the fascinating aspect of
> Blackjack harmony: not quite Occidental, not quite Oriental...
> driving the harmonies in a certain direction, with maybe a bit less
> flexibility than our traditional diatonic vocabulary, but with a
> distinct style and sound of its own...

It is interesting to compare the mapping for meantone, [1,4], to the mapping for (septimal) miracle, [6,-7,-2]. We see 3/2 is basic to meantone, whereas 7/4 is central to miracle. We can look at where all of the consonances are mapped to, and get an even better "spectrum" of the linear temperament.

Miracle: X 8/7 X X 7/5 3/2 8/5 12/7 X X X X 6/5

(Septimal) meantone: 3/2 X 5/3 5/4 X 7/5 X X 7/6 7/4

Orwell: 7/6 X 8/5 X X X 3/2 7/4 X 6/5 7/5

And so forth...

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40533

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > ***Great work, Gene!
>
> Thanks. Now maybe one of these days someone will collect together a
Blackjack group and we can be part of a Blackjack concert.
>

***Ummm, actually, we could, for the time being, make an mp3.com
*RADIO STATION* of exclusively Blackjack pieces.

Just give me the "go ahead" and I'll put that together for you...

best,

Joseph

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

> ***Ummm, actually, we could, for the time being, make an mp3.com
> *RADIO STATION* of exclusively Blackjack pieces.
>
> Just give me the "go ahead" and I'll put that together for you...

Why not? Only we still need more Blackjack pieces.

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40536

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Ummm, actually, we could, for the time being, make an mp3.com
> > *RADIO STATION* of exclusively Blackjack pieces.
> >
> > Just give me the "go ahead" and I'll put that together for you...
>
> Why not? Only we still need more Blackjack pieces.

***Hi Gene,

I guess you're right. I have three online, and I believe your
Rachmaninoff is your first online, so that makes only four... not
much of a station yet...

JP

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

> I guess you're right. I have three online, and I believe your
> Rachmaninoff is your first online, so that makes only four... not
> much of a station yet...

I'll have another up pretty soon at that will make five. I think it would be worth it as a place to link to, but didn't someone (Monz?) have a Blackjack page which was going to have links on it? I would be nice to have something up on Blackjack, with links to music

> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:35 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: New Blackjack piece up on mp3.com
>
>
> ... didn't someone (Monz?) have a Blackjack page
> which was going to have links on it? I would be nice
> to have something up on Blackjack, with links to music

i do have a blackjack page:

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

and i probably did say that i'd put links to music
on it, but they got lost in the shuffle. i have Gene's
link ... Joe, please post yours again. anyone else?
Alison?

(links to music are at the very bottom of the webpage)

-monz

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

> (links to music are at the very bottom of the webpage)

I'm afraid
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
won't work. It seems to me combining the ideas would be best--create an mp3 radio station, and link your page to that.

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > (links to music are at the very bottom of the webpage)
>
> I'm afraid
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
> won't work.

oops . . . monz, it appears you need an absolute, rather than
relative, URL reference there?

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

> I guess you're right. I have three online, and I believe your
> Rachmaninoff is your first online, so that makes only four... not
> much of a station yet...

If being in a subset of Blackjack of less than half the notes still counts as Blackjack, you can add Saxfare. Add in my next piece, and now we are up to six. I say go for it.

--- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> My latest effort, my first in Blackjack, is now up at
>
> www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
>
> I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since it is a reaction
> to his criticisms of the Clinton Variations piece.

nice stuff, gene! though there wasn't a lot of modulation (which was
my criticism of the other piece), the chord changes were interesting,
charming, even organic, so i had no complaints there.

please keep up the good work!

one idea for your next piece along these lines would be to include a
greater variety of chords, such as the 9-limit ASSes and the "magic"
chord (unrelated to magic temperament, it's 0 23 35 58 in 72-equal,
all six intervals approximate 9-limit consonances). but i heard a
nice use of non-harmonic tones in this piece, so the harmonic variety
was already pleasant.

notice that, when the 7-limit major tetrads are played on the piano
timbre, the tuning is so close to just (max. error 2.5 cents in 175-
equal) that one doesn't hear the separate notes, one hears a single,
unusual timbre. at least i do. there is no way i could possibly tell
these chords were tempered, and not in just intonation. electric
guitars with ratio-based fret positions regularly end up with larger
deviations from just than this.

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

> one idea for your next piece along these lines would be to include a
> greater variety of chords, such as the 9-limit ASSes and the "magic"
> chord (unrelated to magic temperament, it's 0 23 35 58 in 72-equal,
> all six intervals approximate 9-limit consonances). but i heard a
> nice use of non-harmonic tones in this piece, so the harmonic variety
> was already pleasant.

Thanks; while tetrads are central to Blackjack, I *was* thinking I should expland the palette a bit sometime.

there is no way i could possibly tell
> these chords were tempered, and not in just intonation. electric
> guitars with ratio-based fret positions regularly end up with larger
> deviations from just than this.

I'm with Pauline in thinking an error of about this size pretty nice, but I think with many timbres the difference between this and the almost gothic, granite-slab quality of JI is still discernable.

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

> nice stuff, gene! though there wasn't a lot of modulation (which was
> my criticism of the other piece), the chord changes were interesting,
> charming, even organic, so i had no complaints there.

Thanks! I thought your main criticism was a lack of tunes you could whistle. :)

> please keep up the good work!

I'll try.

> one idea for your next piece along these lines would be to include a
> greater variety of chords, such as the 9-limit ASSes and the "magic"
> chord (unrelated to magic temperament, it's 0 23 35 58 in 72-equal,
> all six intervals approximate 9-limit consonances). but i heard a
> nice use of non-harmonic tones in this piece, so the harmonic variety
> was already pleasant.

Hey, that is a nifty chord--self-invertible, like an ASS; and Blackjack is well-supplied with them.

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40544

>
> > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:35 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: New Blackjack piece up on mp3.com
> >
> >
> > ... didn't someone (Monz?) have a Blackjack page
> > which was going to have links on it? I would be nice
> > to have something up on Blackjack, with links to music
>
>
> i do have a blackjack page:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm
>
>
> and i probably did say that i'd put links to music
> on it, but they got lost in the shuffle. i have Gene's
> link ... Joe, please post yours again. anyone else?
> Alison?
>
>
> (links to music are at the very bottom of the webpage)
>

***Hi Monz!

Here are my links, but there will soon also be a link to a Blackjack
*radio station* on mp3.com which will have all of them, and Gene's
too, so that may be easier...:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/2267/2267223.html

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/1831/1831747.html

http://artists.mp3s.com/artist_song/2526/2526344.html

Thanks!

Joe

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40546

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > (links to music are at the very bottom of the webpage)
> >
> > I'm afraid
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
> > won't work.
>
> oops . . . monz, it appears you need an absolute, rather than
> relative, URL reference there?

***Yes, that's just a mistake, since the page is not part of Monz'
site but on mp3.com...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40547

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > I guess you're right. I have three online, and I believe your
> > Rachmaninoff is your first online, so that makes only four... not
> > much of a station yet...
>
> If being in a subset of Blackjack of less than half the notes still
counts as Blackjack, you can add Saxfare. Add in my next piece, and
now we are up to six. I say go for it.

***Yes, *I* would say it's in "Blackjack" even if you don't use all
the notes... any dissenting opinions??

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40553

> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > nice stuff, gene! though there wasn't a lot of modulation (which
was
> > my criticism of the other piece), the chord changes were
interesting,
> > charming, even organic, so i had no complaints there.
>
> Thanks! I thought your main criticism was a lack of tunes you could
whistle. :)
>
> > please keep up the good work!
>
> I'll try.
>
> > one idea for your next piece along these lines would be to
include a
> > greater variety of chords, such as the 9-limit ASSes and
the "magic"
> > chord (unrelated to magic temperament, it's 0 23 35 58 in 72-
equal,
> > all six intervals approximate 9-limit consonances). but i heard a
> > nice use of non-harmonic tones in this piece, so the harmonic
variety
> > was already pleasant.
>
> Hey, that is a nifty chord--self-invertible, like an ASS; and
Blackjack is well-supplied with them.

***Yes, we went "crazy" over this one... I used several of
these "magic chords" in my pieces...

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40558

> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40527.html#40547
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > I guess you're right. I have three online, and I believe your
> > > Rachmaninoff is your first online, so that makes only four...
not
> > > much of a station yet...
> >
> > If being in a subset of Blackjack of less than half the notes
still
> counts as Blackjack, you can add Saxfare. Add in my next piece, and
> now we are up to six. I say go for it.
>
>
> ***Yes, *I* would say it's in "Blackjack" even if you don't use all
> the notes... any dissenting opinions??
>
> J. Pehrson

***I guess, though, that would mean that when I write a piece in 12-
equal, I'm really writing in 72-tET.

Actually, I tell people that these days... :)

Either that, or I say it's in 1/11th comma meantone...

JP

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:14 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: New Blackjack piece up on mp3.com
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > (links to music are at the very bottom of the webpage)
> >
> > I'm afraid
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/www.mp3.com/gene_ward_smith
> > won't work.
>
> oops . . . monz, it appears you need an absolute, rather than
> relative, URL reference there?

oops is right! my *very* bad!

check it out now -- should work fine:
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/blackjack/blackjack.htm

-monz

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40533

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > ***Great work, Gene!
>
> Thanks. Now maybe one of these days someone will collect together a
Blackjack group and we can be part of a Blackjack concert.
>
> > Actually, it almost sounds like a "suite" of *separate* Blackjack
> > pieces, since the timbres are so different. Rachmaninoff is,
> > seemingly, only the *first* one.
>
> I thought since the thematic and harmonic links were so strong,
this wouldn't be how it was heard. Hmmm...
>

***Personally, for what it's worth, since it seems like other people
are playing along in the other pieces, I would entitle the
work "Rachmininov and *friends* play blackjack..."

But, that's *your* business, of course....

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40529

> --- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > >I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since
> > >it is a reaction to his criticisms of the Clinton
> > >Variations piece.
> >
> > Have a message number on that? I'd like to know what
> > Paul's criticisms were, since I think the Clinton Vars.
> > are perhaps your (Gene's) strongest material.
>
> Here it is:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_3732.html#3772

***The more I think about it, Paul has quite a good idea here... it
might make for a refreshing change from just slavishly following
around the lattice with *harmonic* generation...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40533

>
> It is interesting to compare the mapping for meantone, [1,4], to
the mapping for (septimal) miracle, [6,-7,-2]. We see 3/2 is basic to
meantone, whereas 7/4 is central to miracle. We can look at where all
of the consonances are mapped to, and get an even better "spectrum"
of the linear temperament.
>
> Miracle: X 8/7 X X 7/5 3/2 8/5 12/7 X X X X 6/5
>
> (Septimal) meantone: 3/2 X 5/3 5/4 X 7/5 X X 7/6 7/4
>
> Orwell: 7/6 X 8/5 X X X 3/2 7/4 X 6/5 7/5
>
> And so forth...

***I missed this on the first read... The 7/4 business really seems
*crucial* to Blackjack, specifically. The "seventh chord" tetrads
really seem to be the "defining" nature of the lattice. One can work
against them, but it seems to be "going against the grain" of
Blackjack in so doing...

J. Pehrson

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40553

> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
wrote:
>
> > nice stuff, gene! though there wasn't a lot of modulation (which
was
> > my criticism of the other piece), the chord changes were
interesting,
> > charming, even organic, so i had no complaints there.
>
> Thanks! I thought your main criticism was a lack of tunes you could
whistle. :)
>

***Upon rereading Paul's comments it seems he is more concerned with
the idea of using melody as a *harmonic generator* rather than the
other way around... Or so it seems to me...

JP

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

> ***Personally, for what it's worth, since it seems like other people
> are playing along in the other pieces, I would entitle the
> work "Rachmininov and *friends* play blackjack..."

I admit I only pictured Sergei and his great big hands on the piano.
Celeste? Flute? I dunno...

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40584

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Personally, for what it's worth, since it seems like other
people
> > are playing along in the other pieces, I would entitle the
> > work "Rachmininov and *friends* play blackjack..."
>
> I admit I only pictured Sergei and his great big hands on the piano.
> Celeste? Flute? I dunno...

"Sergei plays blackjack with guests..."

JP

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

> I'm with Pauline in thinking an error of about this size pretty
>nice, but I think with many timbres the difference between this and
>the almost gothic, granite-slab quality of JI is still discernable.

definitely -- just not with this timbre! (was the inharmonicity of
the piano sound interacting with the tuning to create some more
nearly beatless intervals?)

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

> > one idea for your next piece along these lines would be to
include a
> > greater variety of chords, such as the 9-limit ASSes and
the "magic"
> > chord (unrelated to magic temperament, it's 0 23 35 58 in 72-
equal,
> > all six intervals approximate 9-limit consonances). but i heard a
> > nice use of non-harmonic tones in this piece, so the harmonic
variety
> > was already pleasant.
>
> Hey, that is a nifty chord--self-invertible, like an ASS; and
>Blackjack is well-supplied with them.

it's also like an ASS in that all the intervals approximate 9-limit
consonances, and you can't add any more notes to the chord while
maintaining this property. it's just that there's no JI analogue.
dave keenan called chords like this TITS (Theoretically Indispensably-
Tempered Saturations). he was being tongue-in-cheek, of course . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_40527.html#40529
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > >I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since
> > > >it is a reaction to his criticisms of the Clinton
> > > >Variations piece.
> > >
> > > Have a message number on that? I'd like to know what
> > > Paul's criticisms were, since I think the Clinton Vars.
> > > are perhaps your (Gene's) strongest material.
> >
> > Here it is:
> >
> > /makemicromusic/topicId_3732.html#3772
>
>
> ***The more I think about it, Paul has quite a good idea here... it
> might make for a refreshing change from just slavishly following
> around the lattice with *harmonic* generation...
>
> JP

work at it, man! don't let the "naysayers" get you down!

>it's also like an ASS in that all the intervals approximate 9-limit
>consonances, and you can't add any more notes to the chord while
>maintaining this property. it's just that there's no JI analogue.

The tempered version didn't sound any juster to me than JI.
Anybody else care to chime in?

If there is a sort of Erlich effect going on here, it must
be that the JI version is already smoother than it should be
(say, on the Tenney scale).

-Carl

>>Hey, that is a nifty chord--self-invertible, like an ASS; and
>>Blackjack is well-supplied with them.

Hey, Gene, surely you remember the "SSS" thread. You gave a
whole series of 5- and 6-note scale/chords in 31 (and other
tunings)...

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >it's also like an ASS in that all the intervals approximate 9-
limit
> >consonances, and you can't add any more notes to the chord while
> >maintaining this property. it's just that there's no JI analogue.
>
> The tempered version didn't sound any juster to me than JI.

JI what?

> Anybody else care to chime in?

hey, this is just theory.

> If there is a sort of Erlich effect going on here,

?

> it must
> be that the JI version is already smoother than it should be
> (say, on the Tenney scale).

what's the tenney scale?

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>Hey, that is a nifty chord--self-invertible, like an ASS; and
> >>Blackjack is well-supplied with them.
>
> Hey, Gene, surely you remember the "SSS" thread.

what's the difference between "SSS" and "TITS"?

>>>Hey, that is a nifty chord--self-invertible, like an ASS; and
>>>Blackjack is well-supplied with them.
>>
>>Hey, Gene, surely you remember the "SSS" thread.
>
>what's the difference between "SSS" and "TITS"?

Nothing, except that SSS is a better acronym.

-C.

>>The tempered version didn't sound any juster to me than JI.
>
>JI what?

1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4

>>Anybody else care to chime in?
>
>hey, this is just theory.

?

>>If there is a sort of Erlich effect going on here,
>
> ?

I've taken to calling (as of 15 minutes ago) anything where
temperament is more 'natural' than JI an "Erlich effect",
since you've done so much for our understanding of such things.

>>it must be that the JI version is already smoother than it
>>should be (say, on the Tenney scale).
>
> what's the tenney scale?

D'oh! Stupid word burnout. Howabout "Tenney metric"?

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>The tempered version didn't sound any juster to me than JI.
> >
> >JI what?
>
> 1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4

well of course that sounds juster, it's got lots of just intervals
and chords in it!

> I've taken to calling (as of 15 minutes ago) anything where
> temperament is more 'natural' than JI an "Erlich effect",
> since you've done so much for our understanding of such things.

i don't know if it's more natural, but especially in some 5-limit
cases like these, i might say more consonant.

> >>it must be that the JI version is already smoother than it
> >>should be (say, on the Tenney scale).
> >
> > what's the tenney scale?
>
> D'oh! Stupid word burnout. Howabout "Tenney metric"?

for tetrads? what is it?

>>>JI what?
>>
>> 1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4
>
>well of course that sounds juster, it's got lots of just
>intervals and chords in it!

What's the difference between juster and more consonant?

>>>>it must be that the JI version is already smoother than it
>>>>should be (say, on the Tenney scale).
>>>
>>>what's the tenney scale?
>>
>>D'oh! Stupid word burnout. Howabout "Tenney metric"?
>
>for tetrads? what is it?

The geometric mean of the numbers in the chord.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>>JI what?
> >>
> >> 1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4
> >
> >well of course that sounds juster, it's got lots of just
> >intervals and chords in it!
>
> What's the difference between juster and more consonant?

remember all those tetrads we listened to? remember how some of the
most consonant ones were tempered ones, while 9:11:13:15, which
sounds very "just" in many ways, sounded more dissonant?

> >>>>it must be that the JI version is already smoother than it
> >>>>should be (say, on the Tenney scale).
> >>>
> >>>what's the tenney scale?
> >>
> >>D'oh! Stupid word burnout. Howabout "Tenney metric"?
> >
> >for tetrads? what is it?
>
> The geometric mean of the numbers in the chord.

cool! where did he define this?

>>What's the difference between juster and more consonant?
>
>remember all those tetrads we listened to? remember how some of the
>most consonant ones were tempered ones, while 9:11:13:15, which
>sounds very "just" in many ways, sounded more dissonant?

Yep, okay. But this isn't one of those cases.

>>>>>what's the tenney scale?
>>>>
>>>>D'oh! Stupid word burnout. Howabout "Tenney metric"?
>>>
>>>for tetrads? what is it?
>>
>>The geometric mean of the numbers in the chord.
>
>cool! where did he define this?

Nowhere that I know of. I was referring to the generalized
Tenney metric which I thought we had all agreed on many, many,
many times in the past, at least until the validation exercise
was done.

-Ca.

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40598

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_40527.html#40529
> >
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >I'll be interested to hear what Paul thinks, since
> > > > >it is a reaction to his criticisms of the Clinton
> > > > >Variations piece.
> > > >
> > > > Have a message number on that? I'd like to know what
> > > > Paul's criticisms were, since I think the Clinton Vars.
> > > > are perhaps your (Gene's) strongest material.
> > >
> > > Here it is:
> > >
> > > /makemicromusic/topicId_3732.html#3772
> >
> >
> > ***The more I think about it, Paul has quite a good idea here...
it
> > might make for a refreshing change from just slavishly following
> > around the lattice with *harmonic* generation...
> >
> > JP
>
> work at it, man! don't let the "naysayers" get you down!

***Oh, of course!

Somebody is always ready to say "nay..."

I'm just wondering if, when I write my next piece using Blackjack, I
will use the lattice or try a more "touchy-feely" approach. I like
working with the lattice, though...

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40634

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >>>JI what?
> > >>
> > >> 1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4
> > >
> > >well of course that sounds juster, it's got lots of just
> > >intervals and chords in it!
> >
> > What's the difference between juster and more consonant?
>
> remember all those tetrads we listened to? remember how some of the
> most consonant ones were tempered ones, while 9:11:13:15, which
> sounds very "just" in many ways, sounded more dissonant?
>

***These are all still up on Tuning Lab, by the way. Those were
fun... particularly thinking about the utonal "wobblies" and such
like...

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

J. Pehrson

> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:17 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: New Blackjack piece up on mp3.com
>
>
> it's also like an ASS in that all the intervals approximate 9-limit
> consonances, and you can't add any more notes to the chord while
> maintaining this property. it's just that there's no JI analogue.
> dave keenan called chords like this TITS (Theoretically Indispensably-
> Tempered Saturations). he was being tongue-in-cheek, of course . . .

wow, now *that's* a new term for the Tuning Dictionary!

;-)

-monz

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

> > work at it, man! don't let the "naysayers" get you down!
>
>
> ***Oh, of course!
>
> Somebody is always ready to say "nay..."
>
> I'm just wondering if, when I write my next piece using Blackjack,
I
> will use the lattice or try a more "touchy-feely" approach. I like
> working with the lattice, though...
>
> JP

why not come up with some nice melodic ideas by "touchy feely", and
THEN survey the lattice for harmonization options? construct a few
different harmonizations using chords that contain your melody notes,
connecting the chords through common tones as much as possible (or
not so much), and then try the different harmonizations out and see
which ones sound the best to you . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_40527.html#40662

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> > > work at it, man! don't let the "naysayers" get you down!
> >
> >
> > ***Oh, of course!
> >
> > Somebody is always ready to say "nay..."
> >
> > I'm just wondering if, when I write my next piece using
Blackjack,
> I
> > will use the lattice or try a more "touchy-feely" approach. I
like
> > working with the lattice, though...
> >
> > JP
>
> why not come up with some nice melodic ideas by "touchy feely", and
> THEN survey the lattice for harmonization options? construct a few
> different harmonizations using chords that contain your melody
notes,
> connecting the chords through common tones as much as possible (or
> not so much), and then try the different harmonizations out and see
> which ones sound the best to you . . .

***Hi Paul...

Yes, indeed, that's more or less what I had in mind...

Joseph