attacking it with what you know...

I'm finding that in working with Blackjack in a "freer" way than
always plotting lattices, that I'm sometimes just transfering some of
my "known" keyboard patterns (say major chords, and such like) in the
generation of the sounds, even though such patterns have, obviously,
very little to do with the scale.

They're simply a Halberstadt path of departure in exploring these
things. Then, of course, the sounds are accepted or rejected
independent of the patternings.

I think there is a general tendency to want to "attack" something new
with something that one already knows... keyboard patterns and such
like, even though they may be somewhat irrelevant to the scale.

Anybody have any comment on that? Or sometimes approach things that
way? Ever try to play a "major triad" on a "prepared" piano?? :)

Personally, I find one aspect of Blackjack to be somewhat of a
challenge: the fact that it can be *clearly* and
*unequivocably* "out of tune" sometimes.... i.e. there is a "correct"
note sometimes in the very close vicinity to an "incorrect" one for a
given chord... not unsurprising since the "small" interval of
blackjack is only 33 cents (like a septimal comma) so therefore one
must check carefully to make sure the "right" note applies...

If one were to make a "fetish" of that, it might get in the way of
composing a bit, but it's just an aspect of Blackjack that requires
special care... more than many scales, I believe... (But then that
situation is more than made up for by Blackjack's many "miracles...")

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> I'm finding that in working with Blackjack in a "freer" way than
> always plotting lattices, that I'm sometimes just transfering some
of
> my "known" keyboard patterns (say major chords, and such like) in
the
> generation of the sounds, even though such patterns have,
obviously,
> very little to do with the scale.
>
> They're simply a Halberstadt path of departure in exploring these
> things. Then, of course, the sounds are accepted or rejected
> independent of the patternings.
>
> I think there is a general tendency to want to "attack" something
new
> with something that one already knows... keyboard patterns and such
> like, even though they may be somewhat irrelevant to the scale.
>
> Anybody have any comment on that? Or sometimes approach things
that
> way? Ever try to play a "major triad" on a "prepared" piano?? :)
>
> Personally, I find one aspect of Blackjack to be somewhat of a
> challenge: the fact that it can be *clearly* and
> *unequivocably* "out of tune" sometimes.... i.e. there is
a "correct"
> note sometimes in the very close vicinity to an "incorrect" one for
a
> given chord... not unsurprising since the "small" interval of
> blackjack is only 33 cents (like a septimal comma) so therefore one
> must check carefully to make sure the "right" note applies...
>
> If one were to make a "fetish" of that, it might get in the way of
> composing a bit, but it's just an aspect of Blackjack that requires
> special care... more than many scales, I believe... (But then that
> situation is more than made up for by Blackjack's
many "miracles...")
>
> Joseph Pehrson

this is one reason that blackjack did not appear among the big list
of periodicity blocks, most with 19 or 22 but some with 14, 15, 18,
26, or 27 notes, that i posted back when you were a committed just
intonationalist. one constraint i used when i generated those blocks
was that the minimum step should be no less that *35* cents. funny,
isn't it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41926

<>
> this is one reason that blackjack did not appear among the big list
> of periodicity blocks, most with 19 or 22 but some with 14, 15, 18,
> 26, or 27 notes, that i posted back when you were a committed just
> intonationalist. one constraint i used when i generated those
blocks was that the minimum step should be no less that *35* cents.
funny, isn't it?

***Hi Paul,

Well, there is a certain irony in this... and the small step size
can't be considered one of the "superior" aspects of Blackjack, I
believe. However, the ease of notation in 72 and all the
possibilities for quasi-just sonorities certainly still makes it
a "winner..."

One just needs to take a certain special care when working with it...
to make sure things are tuned "correctly..." But, that's not an
insurmountable challenge, although it could be a momentary
distraction, if one let it be one.

Quite frankly, it's better for *me* to go ahead in the "free" way,
and make the necessary "adjustments" later, if I find they sound
better, guided by the theoretical framework...

This is, of course, a *far* different way of working right now than
slavishly creating progessions with the lattice. I enjoyed that, but
I want to try another "tack" at the moment...

Anyway, it's interesting what I'm thinking/discovering about the
scale after working with it awhile. New piece for soprano and
electronics in Blackjack underway at the moment...

best,

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_41922.html#41926
>
> <>
> > this is one reason that blackjack did not appear among the big
list
> > of periodicity blocks, most with 19 or 22 but some with 14, 15,
18,
> > 26, or 27 notes, that i posted back when you were a committed
just
> > intonationalist. one constraint i used when i generated those
> blocks was that the minimum step should be no less that *35* cents.
> funny, isn't it?
>
>
> ***Hi Paul,
>
> Well, there is a certain irony in this... and the small step size
> can't be considered one of the "superior" aspects of Blackjack, I
> believe.

well, you may remember that i hoped you'd give the 31-tone "canasta"
superset of blackjack a go, and that has the same smallest step size
as blackjack -- no smaller. however, you wanted about 19 notes, and
it seemed that the regularity, the linearity, of "canasta" (as well
as a decent number of its "just intonation" structures) was worth
preserving in whatever i directed you towards, and thus blackjack.

anyhow, i absolutely encourage any efforts to play around freely in
the scale -- and again i don't think one can overemphasize the
importance of *ear training* in this context -- how could anything be
more important to a composer than developing a connection between
one's aural imagination and the instrument / tuning system one is
composing with? at the same time, given the complexity of a 21-note
system, it's worthwhile to map out the occurence of powerful
sonorities of various kinds, as we've done to a small extent, to
provide aurally provocative seeds for one's imagination.

Paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> i don't think one can overemphasize the importance of *ear
> training* in this context -- how could anything be
> more important to a composer than developing a connection between
> one's aural imagination and the instrument / tuning system one is
> composing with? at the same time, given the complexity of a 21-note
> system, it's worthwhile to map out the occurence of powerful
> sonorities of various kinds, as we've done to a small extent, to
> provide aurally provocative seeds for one's imagination.

One of the best paragraphs on the yin/yang of study vs. intuition I've seen in quite a while. Nicely done!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus >

> well, you may remember that i hoped you'd give the 31-
tone "canasta" superset of blackjack a go, and that has the same
smallest step size as blackjack -- no smaller. however, you wanted
about 19 notes, and it seemed that the regularity, the linearity,
of "canasta" (as well as a decent number of its "just intonation"
structures) was worth preserving in whatever i directed you towards,
and thus blackjack.
>

***Hi Paul,

Well, at the moment it seems as though 31 is too many notes. At
least the way I'm working here with the keyboard. It's just a matter
of "getting used" to the particular "challenges" of Blackjack.

> anyhow, i absolutely encourage any efforts to play around freely in
> the scale -- and again i don't think one can overemphasize the
> importance of *ear training* in this context -- how could anything
be
> more important to a composer than developing a connection between
> one's aural imagination and the instrument / tuning system one is
> composing with? at the same time, given the complexity of a 21-note
> system, it's worthwhile to map out the occurence of powerful
> sonorities of various kinds, as we've done to a small extent, to
> provide aurally provocative seeds for one's imagination.

***I agree with Jon that this is well put. (I read ahead for a
change...)

Actually, I've been doing something of the kind by now just *looking*
at the lattice while I'm working, rather than slavishly plotting
everything out.

However, I would be interested in some more *training* exercises if
you could provide them.

What I really need are exercises in 6 voices (that's the maximum I
use on the particular channel I use for "chords.." :)

I would like these 6 voice exercises ranging from the very most
consonant... well maybe you can use just the 3-voice triads or 4-
voice tetrads for that, to the very most dissonant. (Or at least a
number of them that is practical to do).

Of course, this is using the lattice for the "Standard" Blackjack
key...

Do you have time to do that??

I know I have my notes from when we were doing this before, but
they're all confused since some of them are in the *old* key and
they're not systematically displayed. It's kinda a mess to sort out.

If you can, I would prefer doing this exercise here on the "big" list
rather than over on the Miracle list. That list is pretty "boring"
since it only gets about one post per year, and I can't say that, at
the moment, *this* list is exactly overwhelming with activity...

Thanks, Paul!

Joseph, Joe, whatever...

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

> Actually, I've been doing something of the kind by now just
*looking*
> at the lattice while I'm working, rather than slavishly plotting
> everything out.
>
> However, I would be interested in some more *training* exercises if
> you could provide them.
>
> What I really need are exercises in 6 voices (that's the maximum I
> use on the particular channel I use for "chords.." :)
>
> I would like these 6 voice exercises ranging from the very most
> consonant... well maybe you can use just the 3-voice triads or 4-
> voice tetrads for that, to the very most dissonant. (Or at least a
> number of them that is practical to do).
>
> Of course, this is using the lattice for the "Standard" Blackjack
> key...
>
> Do you have time to do that??

if anyone doesn't want this discussion here, please speak now and
we'll move this to the miracle tuning list.

why don't we start with those "chord charts" i made for you -- 4-
voice tetrads with the "keyboard note-names" -- and proceed from
there? you first exercise is to play through each set of 21 tetrads
with the same "keyboard semitones" pattern. this may seem trivial,
but you're getting the sounds of the chords into your heard. now play
each set of tetrads in various "cycles" -- every second tetrad, every
third tetrad, . . . -- always completing the cycle of 21 and coming
back to the first one (which you should choose according to the day
of the week and the week of the month -- you get three weeks of work
a month, until you've made it through all of the sets of tetrads . . .

:)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41942

> if anyone doesn't want this discussion here, please speak now and
> we'll move this to the miracle tuning list.
>
> why don't we start with those "chord charts" i made for you -- 4-
> voice tetrads with the "keyboard note-names" -- and proceed from
> there? you first exercise is to play through each set of 21 tetrads
> with the same "keyboard semitones" pattern. this may seem trivial,
> but you're getting the sounds of the chords into your heard. now
play each set of tetrads in various "cycles" -- every second tetrad,
every third tetrad, . . . -- always completing the cycle of 21 and
coming back to the first one (which you should choose according to
the day of the week and the week of the month -- you get three weeks
of work a month, until you've made it through all of the sets of
tetrads . . .
>
> :)

***Hi Paul,

I agree this should be a good place to start, and I really love that
chart you made for me. I imagine if I have a really good command of
these tetrads it would be a real "kernal" of knowledge that I could
use in Blackjack composing.

The big problem is that the chart, which I have here, of course, was
made for the "old" Blackjack key, regrettably, and it would take me
forever to convert it.

That's what we get for "changing" the key of Blackjack. I never
wanted to do it, but Dave Keenan kept at it relentlessly and finally
I relented!

I vaguely remember you doing a "search and replace" in Word and
changing some of my materials, but I don't believe you ever converted
all these tetrads... Otherwise I would *certainly* have a print out
of it in my "Blackjack--STANDARD key" folder, and I don't...

I guess that might take a long time to convert... dunno. It's a
shame to waste that terrific chart just because the "key" of
Blackjack was changed... with not a lot of difference in the sound...
(in fact, I guess *none*, right??)

Thanks!

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> I vaguely remember you doing a "search and replace" in Word and
> changing some of my materials, but I don't believe you ever
converted
> all these tetrads... Otherwise I would *certainly* have a print
out
> of it in my "Blackjack--STANDARD key" folder, and I don't...
>
> I guess that might take a long time to convert... dunno. It's a
> shame to waste that terrific chart just because the "key" of
> Blackjack was changed... with not a lot of difference in the
sound...
> (in fact, I guess *none*, right??)
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joseph

i thought dave keenan had done the conversion himself. didn't he?

i could try this search and replace again -- what's the latest
version of the list you have (send me the file)?

p.s. some of the cycles won't go through all 21 tetrads of a
given "fingering" -- sometimes you'll get trapped in a "cycle of 3"
or a "cycle of 7" since 21 = 3*7. in that case, just transpose the
smaller cycle enough times until you've covered all 21.

p.p.s. connecting chords of *different* "fingering-types is going to
be even more interesting than connecting chords of the
same "fingering-type" -- but the possibilities there just seem so
vast -- where to begin?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41950
>
> i thought dave keenan had done the conversion himself. didn't he?
>

***Hi Paul,

Dave had promised me that he would convert all my Blackjack
materials, but then he got "busy" and disappeared from the lists.
I'm sure this work was never done since I have neither the files or a
print out of the converted new key for the tetrads...

> i could try this search and replace again -- what's the latest
> version of the list you have (send me the file)?
>

***I almost lost this file, since I had a computer crash a year ago
or so. We did this work some time ago. FORTUNATELY, I found it
buried away on an auxiliary drive at work as a backup...

I'll send it to you momentarily.

> p.s. some of the cycles won't go through all 21 tetrads of a
> given "fingering" -- sometimes you'll get trapped in a "cycle of 3"
> or a "cycle of 7" since 21 = 3*7. in that case, just transpose the
> smaller cycle enough times until you've covered all 21.
>
> p.p.s. connecting chords of *different* "fingering-types is going
to
> be even more interesting than connecting chords of the
> same "fingering-type" -- but the possibilities there just seem so
> vast -- where to begin?

***Well, essentially you're taking the "known Halberstadt" approach
that I was advocating previously, although perhaps you're approaching
it in a more systematic manner...

I see no problem in this, even if the Halberstadt has almost
*nothing* to do with the scale... :)

HOWEVER, since it *is* the means I am using to physically access the
scale, it makes sense that studies using it would be practical for
composing, even though *theoretically* there's no meaningful
correlation...

Thanks!

Joseph

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

> ***Well, essentially you're taking the "known Halberstadt" approach
> that I was advocating previously, although perhaps you're
approaching
> it in a more systematic manner...
>
> I see no problem in this, even if the Halberstadt has almost
> *nothing* to do with the scale... :)
>
> HOWEVER, since it *is* the means I am using to physically access
the
> scale, it makes sense that studies using it would be practical for
> composing, even though *theoretically* there's no meaningful
> correlation...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joseph

you have the 21 notes of the scale in order -- that's the important
thing. as long as you can effectively ignore the physical
differentation of black vs. white keys, and instead orient yourself
around the blackjack-related markings you've added, then there's no
problem, in theory or in practice.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41959

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Well, essentially you're taking the "known Halberstadt"
approach
> > that I was advocating previously, although perhaps you're
> approaching
> > it in a more systematic manner...
> >
> > I see no problem in this, even if the Halberstadt has almost
> > *nothing* to do with the scale... :)
> >
> > HOWEVER, since it *is* the means I am using to physically access
> the
> > scale, it makes sense that studies using it would be practical
for
> > composing, even though *theoretically* there's no meaningful
> > correlation...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joseph
>
> you have the 21 notes of the scale in order -- that's the important
> thing. as long as you can effectively ignore the physical
> differentation of black vs. white keys, and instead orient yourself
> around the blackjack-related markings you've added, then there's no
> problem, in theory or in practice.

***Well, that makes sense, Paul but, still, old habits die hard. I
do enjoy the correlation between the Halberstadt "diminished seventh
chord" and the "quasi-diatonic" of Blackjack. Is that
the "Mohajira??"

JP

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

> ***Well, that makes sense, Paul but, still, old habits die hard.
>I
> do enjoy the correlation between the Halberstadt "diminished
seventh
> chord" and the "quasi-diatonic" of Blackjack. Is that
> the "Mohajira??"
>
> JP

yup, if, using this pattern, you go through all 7 notes per octave,
using B[ (or two other possibilities which you determined at one
point) as the tonic, that's "Mohajira" -- apparently a rare arabic
scale.

of course, there are other, less arabic-sounding "quasi-diatonic"
possibilities, such as the "central decad" which emulates a 5-limit
JI scale around the G-D fifth, if you recall . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41962
>
> yup, if, using this pattern, you go through all 7 notes per octave,
> using B[ (or two other possibilities which you determined at one
> point) as the tonic, that's "Mohajira" -- apparently a rare arabic
> scale.

***Hi Paul,

I remember doing this now with the three "tonics..."

>
> of course, there are other, less arabic-sounding "quasi-diatonic"
> possibilities, such as the "central decad" which emulates a 5-limit
> JI scale around the G-D fifth, if you recall . . .

***Hmmm

What is that again?? Is it G,A,Bv,C,D,E>,F<... ?? or some such??

(Didn't get to 10! :)

Thanks!

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Hi Paul,
>
> I agree this should be a good place to start, and I really love that
> chart you made for me. I imagine if I have a really good command of
> these tetrads it would be a real "kernal" of knowledge that I could
> use in Blackjack composing.
>
> The big problem is that the chart, which I have here, of course, was
> made for the "old" Blackjack key, regrettably, and it would take me
> forever to convert it.
>
> That's what we get for "changing" the key of Blackjack. I never
> wanted to do it, but Dave Keenan kept at it relentlessly and finally
> I relented!

Dave Keenan doesn't remember it quite like that. He does however
remember going to the trouble of converting Paul's tetrad list for
you, about 2 years ago. Since you've apparently lost the copy he
emailed you, he's now put it up on his website at
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackTetrads.txt

:-)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan <d.keenan@u...>"

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41970

<d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
> <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > ***Hi Paul,
> >
> > I agree this should be a good place to start, and I really love
that
> > chart you made for me. I imagine if I have a really good command
of
> > these tetrads it would be a real "kernal" of knowledge that I
could
> > use in Blackjack composing.
> >
> > The big problem is that the chart, which I have here, of course,
was
> > made for the "old" Blackjack key, regrettably, and it would take
me
> > forever to convert it.
> >
> > That's what we get for "changing" the key of Blackjack. I never
> > wanted to do it, but Dave Keenan kept at it relentlessly and
finally
> > I relented!
>
> Dave Keenan doesn't remember it quite like that. He does however
> remember going to the trouble of converting Paul's tetrad list for
> you, about 2 years ago. Since you've apparently lost the copy he
> emailed you, he's now put it up on his website at
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackTetrads.txt

***Whoopsie...

Very sorry, Dave. Well, that saves Paul some work. I guess the copy
was lost upon my unexpected computer crash that wiped out my hard
drive...

Thanks so *very* much for making it available again: I really
appreciate it!!!

Joseph

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@r...>"
<jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus
>
> /tuning/topicId_41922.html#41950
> >
> > i thought dave keenan had done the conversion himself. didn't he?

Yes I had. The file is dated 5-Dec-2001. However ...

> ***Hi Paul,
>
> Dave had promised me that he would convert all my Blackjack
> materials, but then he got "busy" and disappeared from the lists.
> I'm sure this work was never done since I have neither the files or a
> print out of the converted new key for the tetrads...

My humble apologies Joseph!!!

Although I converted Paul's tetrad chart to the standard within days
of the standard being agreed upon, I can find no evidence that I
actually emailed it to you or posted it anywhere before now!

What other materials do you want converted? Please email them to me.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan <d.keenan@u...>"

/tuning/topicId_41922.html#41972

>
> My humble apologies Joseph!!!
>
> Although I converted Paul's tetrad chart to the standard within days
> of the standard being agreed upon, I can find no evidence that I
> actually emailed it to you or posted it anywhere before now!
>
> What other materials do you want converted? Please email them to me.

***Hi Dave!

Well, I have to admit I was surprised that I hadn't at least printed
out the "sucker..." I generally *always* do such things... or save
the file as a backup.

If I remember correctly, you had mentioned you *were* going to do it
and then you disappeared from the list for a while, and I didn't want
to bother you, thinking that, possibly, you might be having to do
some "gainful employ" or such like... not that that can happen to
anybody... ;)

Anyway, glad to get it now!!!!

best,

Joseph