retuned Mahler 7th

hi Gene and everyone,

> From: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@svpal.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:38 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Announcing xenharmony.org
>
>
> This is the official announcement that my web site
>
> http://www.xenharmony.org
>
> is open for business. There is some theory discussion there, and will
> be more, but it is also a large and growing collection of retuned
> classical repertoire, as ogg files. If you, like me, have been having
> trouble dealing with 12-et music because it sounds too far out of
> tune, this might be just what you need. I think the best way to
> listen to these files is to download them, convert them to wav
> files, and burn a CD.
>
> So far we have:
>
> <snip>
>
> Bifrost:
>
> Joe Monzo's Mahler #7, first movement
>
> <snip>

i've corrected a couple of bad-sounding audio errors
and also removed the awkward silences which were a
result of the original MIDIs being in separate files.

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7v-ratwolf-reverb.ogg

this is 26 Megs, so it will take awhile, even
with a broadband connection.

now, Gene ... i see that i included "ratwolf" in
the filename, and i must have gotten that from
*somewhere*. but you said it was "bifrost".
which is correct?

anyway, this is by far the best version of my
Mahler interpretation done to date. enjoy!

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > Bifrost:
> >
> > Joe Monzo's Mahler #7, first movement
> >
> > <snip>
>
>
> i've corrected a couple of bad-sounding audio errors
> and also re
moved the awkward silences which were a
> result of the original MIDIs being in separate files.
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7v-ratwolf-reverb.ogg
>
> this is 26 Megs, so it will take awhile, even
> with a broadband connection.

Can I stick it up on my site?

>
> now, Gene ... i see that i included "ratwolf" in
> the filename, and i must have gotten that from
> *somewhere*. but you said it was "bifrost".
> which is correct?

Bifrost.

hi Gene

> From: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@svpal.org]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > Bifrost:
> > >
> > > Joe Monzo's Mahler #7, first movement
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> >
> > i've corrected a couple of bad-sounding audio errors
> > and also removed the awkward silences which were a
> > result of the original MIDIs being in separate files.
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7v-ratwolf-reverb.ogg
> >
> > this is 26 Megs, so it will take awhile, even
> > with a broadband connection.
>
> Can I stick it up on my site?

that's what i wanted all along. but it's
too big to email to you. even zipping it
wouldn't have made it small enough to mail.

this sounds really terrific!

... but it's mono, isn't it? i'd like to
redo it in a nice stereo.

> > now, Gene ... i see that i included "ratwolf" in
> > the filename, and i must have gotten that from
> > *somewhere*. but you said it was "bifrost".
> > which is correct?
>
> Bifrost.

OK, then please change the filename and
i'll do the same as soon as i get a chance.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> this sounds really terrific!
>
> ... but it's mono, isn't it? i'd like to
> redo it in a nice stereo.

I don't know what your editing did to it as yet, but my version was
stereo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@svpal.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 3:02 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > this sounds really terrific!
> >
> > ... but it's mono, isn't it? i'd like to
> > redo it in a nice stereo.
>
> I don't know what your editing did to it as yet,
> but my version was stereo.

hmmm ... well, that's why i asked about it.

i didn't do any software testing to see if it
was stereo or mono, but it seemed to me that
i only heard a small bit of stereo separation
occasionally, and i dismissed that as my imagination
since most of it seemed to be mono.

so i guess i was hearing it in stereo after all,
but the separation seemed minimal to my ears, and
that was in headphones, which tend to make any
separation more pronounced.

-monz

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

> so i guess i was hearing it in stereo after all,
> but the separation seemed minimal to my ears, and
> that was in headphones, which tend to make any
> separation more pronounced.

It occurs to me that the best way of fixing this up would be for you
to first produce a fixed-up version of the 12-et midi. You could,
among other things, adjust the panning with control message 10 to
give a lot of stereo separation.

hello all,

i've finally made an mp3 version of my
computer realization of Mahler's 7th Symphony,
1st movement, in Gene's "bifrost" tuning:

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7-1-bifrost.mp3

it's big: 23.75 megabytes

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> hello all,
>
>
> i've finally made an mp3 version of my
> computer realization of Mahler's 7th Symphony,
> 1st movement, in Gene's "bifrost" tuning:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7-1-bifrost.mp3
>
> it's big: 23.75 megabytes

If you converted ogg to mp3, you should be aware that this degrades
the sound quality.

hi Gene,

> From: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@svpal.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:02 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > hello all,
> >
> >
> > i've finally made an mp3 version of my
> > computer realization of Mahler's 7th Symphony,
> > 1st movement, in Gene's "bifrost" tuning:
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7-1-bifrost.mp3
> >
> > it's big: 23.75 megabytes
>
> If you converted ogg to mp3, you should be aware
> that this degrades the sound quality.

i converted from .ogg to .wav, then from .wav to mp3.
so i'm sure there's a *double* degradation.

but i figured, a lot of people don't have and/or
don't want to bother with .ogg players, and mp3 is
sort of an internet standard, so there it is.

anyway, the quality you got from your rendering is
so good (i'm talking here mainly about the nice
orchestral sound), that i'm happy to listen to it.
... and it's my version of the piece.

in fact, i like it so much that i'm going to
burn a CD of it which i can record onto cassette
to play in the car, instead of the one from 1999
which i'm currently listening to.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

> anyway, the quality you got from your rendering is
> so good (i'm talking here mainly about the nice
> orchestral sound), that i'm happy to listen to it.
> ... and it's my version of the piece.

Thanks. This is much less depressing to hear than "F".

> in fact, i like it so much that i'm going to
> burn a CD of it which i can record onto cassette
> to play in the car, instead of the one from 1999
> which i'm currently listening to.

Did you try the Titan yet, and if so, with what verdict?

This is indeed one of the best sounding midi files I've heard-- I have some critiques
about the tempos though. I think they should be faster: when the exposition theme
finally comes in (this is sometimes humorously called the "star wars theme") the
tempo should probably be almost twice as fast as in the file. That's surely a matter of
my personal taste, but we know from historical recordings that tempos were faster
generally around the turn of the last century (although this might have had more to
do with the recording technology than actual preferences)-- but even in the Bertini,
Abbado and Boulez recordings, the exposition theme is considerably faster. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Gene,
>
>
>
> > From: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@s...]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:02 PM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > hello all,
> > >
> > >
> > > i've finally made an mp3 version of my
> > > computer realization of Mahler's 7th Symphony,
> > > 1st movement, in Gene's "bifrost" tuning:
> > >
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7-1-bifrost.mp3
> > >
> > > it's big: 23.75 megabytes
> >
> > If you converted ogg to mp3, you should be aware
> > that this degrades the sound quality.
>
>
>
> i converted from .ogg to .wav, then from .wav to mp3.
> so i'm sure there's a *double* degradation.
>
> but i figured, a lot of people don't have and/or
> don't want to bother with .ogg players, and mp3 is
> sort of an internet standard, so there it is.
>
> anyway, the quality you got from your rendering is
> so good (i'm talking here mainly about the nice
> orchestral sound), that i'm happy to listen to it.
> ... and it's my version of the piece.
>
> in fact, i like it so much that i'm going to
> burn a CD of it which i can record onto cassette
> to play in the car, instead of the one from 1999
> which i'm currently listening to.
>
>
> -monz

hi Justin (and Gene),

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:12 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > hello all,
> >
> >
> > i've finally made an mp3 version of my
> > computer realization of Mahler's 7th Symphony,
> > 1st movement, in Gene's "bifrost" tuning:
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/mahler/7th/mah7-1-bifrost.mp3
> >
> > it's big: 23.75 megabytes
>
>
> This is indeed one of the best sounding midi files
> I've heard

thanks. i've put an incredible amount of work into it
... and Gene's retuning and rendering into .ogg
made it even better.

> -- I have some critiques about the tempos though.
> I think they should be faster: when the exposition theme
> finally comes in (this is sometimes humorously called the
> "star wars theme") the tempo should probably be almost
> twice as fast as in the file.
>
> That's surely a matter of my personal taste, but we
> know from historical recordings that tempos were faster
> generally around the turn of the last century (although
> this might have had more to do with the recording
> technology than actual preferences)-- but even in the
> Bertini, Abbado and Boulez recordings, the exposition
> theme is considerably faster. -Justin

how interesting that you should comment so much on the
tempos! i also posted a notice to the Mahler List
about this file, along with some comments referring
specifically to my slow tempos.

my guide in this was Mahler himself. from my intensive
and decades-long research into both Mahler's compositions
and conducting, i have come to the conclusion that the
primary charateristic of his performance style was
_molto rubato_, i.e., an extreme flexibility of tempo.

and Mahler himself said that if the music is too complex
for the acoustics of the hall to allow the different
polyphonic lines to be heard distinctly, then the
tempo is too fast and must be slowed down.

Mahler also famously reserved the right to change his
mind from day to day about any number of performance
decisions, and of course one of those parameters would
be tempo.

he stated that "everything depends on the initial choice
of tempo, as all tempo changes occurring subsequently
are in relation to that initial choice".

i've been working on the MIDI-files of Mahler's 7th/1
since 1988, and over the course of those 15 years, the
total timing for my version of that movement has increased
drastically: the original 1988 version was 19 minutes,
now it's 26 minutes!

i simply can no longer accept what i feel are the
typical "rushed" performances of this piece. and that
goes for many other interpretations of other Mahler
symphonies too. IOW, i think the notorious length of
Mahler's symphonies is generally *shorter* than it
*should* be! ;-)

PS to Gene -- i plan to make a webpage describing
this bifrost retuning of Mahler. did you use "C" as
your reference pitch for this Mahler 7th? does the
reference change with key signatures? please elaborate.

-monz

> my guide in this was Mahler himself. from my intensive
> and decades-long research into both Mahler's compositions
> and conducting, i have come to the conclusion that the
> primary charateristic of his performance style was
> _molto rubato_, i.e., an extreme flexibility of tempo.

I agree completely that the tempo should be very flexible. The contemporary reports
on Mahler's conducting, as you know, were that he had a "bad beat" -- I think that
just means he was tweaking the tempo within the bar, which players didn't like.

>
> and Mahler himself said that if the music is too complex
> for the acoustics of the hall to allow the different
> polyphonic lines to be heard distinctly, then the
> tempo is too fast and must be slowed down.

That's surely true as well, but how slow is too slow? I think the idea of playing slowly
100 years ago was much quicker than we imagine today.

>
> Mahler also famously reserved the right to change his
> mind from day to day about any number of performance
> decisions, and of course one of those parameters would
> be tempo.

Yes, that's why there can be no definitive version. I just go by what seems to sound
the best to my own ears-- music appreciation is, of course, an inherently ego-centric
pursuit.

> i've been working on the MIDI-files of Mahler's 7th/1
> since 1988, and over the course of those 15 years, the
> total timing for my version of that movement has increased
> drastically: the original 1988 version was 19 minutes,
> now it's 26 minutes!

This has always been my favorite of the symphonies, no. 9 coming close behind. I
think when you work on a piece so long the tendency is to want to slow it down so
that you can appreciate every nuance you've discovered along the way-- it's hard to
recapture the experience of what it's like to hear the 7th for the first time.

>
> i simply can no longer accept what i feel are the
> typical "rushed" performances of this piece.

Boulez is definitely rushed, but it works for the Nachtmusik movements, which can
really drag. Most other recordings I actually find too slow!

>>> i think the notorious length of
> Mahler's symphonies is generally *shorter* than it
> *should* be! ;-)

Do you know the "Gothic Symphony" of Havergal Brian. I bet that would sound
interesting in an alternative tuning. Since the piece can only be performed in a few
concert halls in the world, it seldom sees the light of day-- a good MIDI realization in
a number of tunings might be interesting.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

> PS to Gene -- i plan to make a webpage describing
> this bifrost retuning of Mahler. did you use "C" as
> your reference pitch for this Mahler 7th? does the
> reference change with key signatures? please elaborate.

You cut the movement up into various parts, and for each part, I
tried to pick what I thought was a good choice for reference. I have
some stuff archived on Linux part of this computer which I can check
on when I boot Linux.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:

> Do you know the "Gothic Symphony" of Havergal Brian. I bet that
would sound
> interesting in an alternative tuning. Since the piece can only be
performed in a few
> concert halls in the world, it seldom sees the light of day-- a
good MIDI realization in
> a number of tunings might be interesting.

Well, get to work on one. :)

I'm assuming you know the piece, and realize why getting to work on it might be a
problem... ! -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
>
> > Do you know the "Gothic Symphony" of Havergal Brian. I bet that
> would sound
> > interesting in an alternative tuning. Since the piece can only be
> performed in a few
> > concert halls in the world, it seldom sees the light of day-- a
> good MIDI realization in
> > a number of tunings might be interesting.
>
> Well, get to work on one. :)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:

> I'm assuming you know the piece, and realize why getting to work on
it might be a
> problem... ! -Justin

Brian *has* written shorter symphonies, with smaller forces.

hi Justin,

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:38 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
>
>
> Do you know the "Gothic Symphony" of Havergal Brian.
> I bet that would sound interesting in an alternative
> tuning. Since the piece can only be performed in a
> few concert halls in the world, it seldom sees the
> light of day-- a good MIDI realization in a number
> of tunings might be interesting.

Brian's "Gothic Symphony" has obvious links to Mahler
in its length and orchestral size, and in general its
massive conception.

i've only read about it, still never heard it.
but i'm not volunteering my time on it. i have
enough still ahead of me with other Mahler and
Schoenberg pieces and various microtonal stuff.

i've started work on Vyschnegrady's "Also Sprach
Zarathustra", and already have a big opening chunk
of Haba's 2nd Quartet (which i'd like to complete)
-- both are quarter-tone.

i just ordered a CD of the "Gothic Symphony" from
amazon.com, and judging from the audio samples here

http://tinyurl.com/id1u

it's already been given a fine microtonal rendition!

-monz

What, are you saying the Czecho-Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra and Slovakia
Philharmonic Orchestra can't play in tune?

Actually, I always find the claim that Western classical music is in 12TET amusing,
since, in practice, no one except keyboard-players can actually pull that off, even if
you have "perfect pitch" (a dubious category at best, but that's another thread, no?).

The Western orchestral setup is a recipe for outrageous mistunings, especially if you
add choir, organ and/or piano. Strive as they might for 12TET, the sections will
always be slightly out of tune with one another...at best.

What's fun about the Gothic is that Brian was afraid that ghosts were messing with the
score pages so he sealed them in an envelope with a beeswax stamp while he was
working on it. At night, as he was composing, he'd see the ghosts of dead
composers roaming around outside his window. In the morning when he'd open the
sealed envelope all the score pages would be in the wrong order.

This seems to be absolute proof that writing for a triple-sized string section, winds in
8 and 9, four brass bands and choristers by the hundreds will drive you insane.

-Justin

>
> i just ordered a CD of the "Gothic Symphony" from
> amazon.com, and judging from the audio samples here
>
> http://tinyurl.com/id1u
>
> it's already been given a fine microtonal rendition!
>
>
>
> -monz

In a message dated 7/29/2003 10:55:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, improvist@usa.net writes:

> Actually, I always find the claim that Western classical music is in 12TET amusing,
> since, in practice, no one except keyboard-players can actually pull that off, even if
> you have "perfect pitch" (a dubious category at best, but
> that's another thread, no?).

Rather, no one wants to play orchestral music in perfect equal temperament. It is as easy to play in equal temperament as it would be to play in any tuning. However, there are predisposition leanings by instrument construction (brass towards just, strings toward Pythagorean, winds towards modal).

best, Johnny Reinhard

Yes, that's a certainty. I do think the players *believe* they are striving to play in
12tet, but they defintely aren't succeeding. Brass definitely sound best in just but the
late 19th century modifications to the instruments do place the 'center' of the pitch
closer to 12tet (that's an oversimplification, of course). I actually think strings tend to
play in JI because they have near-infinite choice in the finest pitch selection, which
allows the ear to do its work. Although the open strings are tuned in perfect fifths
(and not always), there is a lot of room to breathe. -Justin

>
> Rather, no one wants to play orchestral music in perfect equal temperament. It is
as easy to play in equal temperament as it would be to play in any tuning. However,
there are predisposition leanings by instrument construction (brass towards just,
strings toward Pythagorean, winds towards modal).
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

hi Justin,

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:56 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: retuned Brian "Gothic Symphony" (was: RE: [tuning]
> Re: retuned
> Mahler 7th)
>
>
> What, are you saying the Czecho-Slovak Radio Symphony
> Orchestra and Slovakia Philharmonic Orchestra can't
> play in tune?

umm ... well, what i'm saying is that in the "Gothic
Symphony" audio samples from that CD, my ears hear
intervals that are definitely *not* 12edo!

that's all i'm saying ... if you choose to draw
further implications from that, that's your decision.
:)

> <snip>
>
> What's fun about the Gothic is that Brian was afraid
> that ghosts were messing with the score pages so he
> sealed them in an envelope with a beeswax stamp while
> he was working on it. At night, as he was composing,
> he'd see the ghosts of dead composers roaming around
> outside his window. In the morning when he'd open the
> sealed envelope all the score pages would be in the
> wrong order.
>
> This seems to be absolute proof that writing for a
> triple-sized string section, winds in 8 and 9, four
> brass bands and choristers by the hundreds will
> drive you insane.

yes, well, some critics did say that about Mahler too!

but seriously, due to a very unnerving experience i
had back around 1988, i can't simply dismiss Brian's
story as easily as you can.

i had spent the night with a girlfriend in a motel
near Keesville, NY (way "upstate", about 60 miles or
so south of the Quebec border), and had been reading
some maps at the table the night before. when i got
up from the table, i pushed the chair i had been
sitting in back towards the table, but not all the way.
the left side was all way against the table, but the
right side was about 3 inches away, so that the
chair was not exactly parallel to the table as it
would be when the maid fixes it.

the next morning, i was ready to go and was watching
the Phil Donahue show on TV while i waited for my
girlfriend to finish putting on her makeup etc.
i was sitting on the bed, up against the wall on
the far side of the room from the table, and she
was in front of and to the left of me, at the
dresser next to the TV. IOW, neither of us was
close enough to the table to touch it.

then the chair moved all by itself -- straightened
itself out so that it was exactly parallel to and
up against the table.

we both saw it happen, and i even heard the bottom
of the chair scrape against the carpet, which was
important for me, because i always trust my ears
more than my eyes.

it was the weirdest experience i've ever had, and
because of it, now i can't simply dismiss ghost stories.
i have to grant the possibility that maybe what
Brian said is what really happened.

so, who were the dead composers whose ghosts were
haunting his "Gothic Symphony"?

-monz

I'm not dismissing Brian either, except to use humor ironically... There are "receivers"
in my family for whom the psychological experience of contact with the afterlife has
definitely been real-- as for what "real" means, I don't know...the brain is a weird
thing.

I don't remember which ghosts Brian saw outside the window-- a professor read that
quip to me out of a book about the Gothic symphony in a class on eccentric music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
>i can't simply dismiss ghost stories.
> i have to grant the possibility that maybe what
> Brian said is what really happened.
>
> so, who were the dead composers whose ghosts were
> haunting his "Gothic Symphony"?
>
>
>
>
> -monz

it's interesting how different threads come together ...

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:50 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: retuned Brian "Gothic Symphony"
>
>
> Yes, that's a certainty. I do think the players
> *believe* they are striving to play in 12tet,
> but they defintely aren't succeeding. Brass
> definitely sound best in just but the late 19th
> century modifications to the instruments do place
> the 'center' of the pitch closer to 12tet (that's
> an oversimplification, of course).

how interesting that you should be writing just now
about the intonation of the brass instruments.

before i read your post this morning, i finally
sat down and calculated the theoretical intonation
of the standard valved trumpet.

this is something i've been wanting to know for
years, and just never gave enough thought to it
to figure out exactly how it worked. and i've
never seen anything like this published anywhere
either.

my source (Christopher W. Monk, "The Older Brass
Instruments: Cornett, Trombone, Trumpet", chapter 11
of _Musical Instruments Through The Ages_, ed.
Anthony Baines, 1973 reprint of 1969 3rd edition)
says that the valves lower the pitch of the "natural"
harmonics available on the trumpet, by adding extra
lengths of tubing as follows:

1st valve = 1/8 of the main tube
2nd valve = 1/15 of the main tube
3rd valve = 1/5 of the main tube

this mechanism obviously has a JI basis, so that
the 1st valve lowers the pitch by a 9:8 ratio
(-~204 cents = "2 semitones"), the 2nd by a 16:15
(-~112 cents = "1 semitone"), and the 3rd by a 6:5
(-~316 cents = "3 semitones").

but as Monk points out (describing it differently,
but it means the same as what i say here), these
ratios only apply when the player uses a *single*
valve. when 2 or 3 are used in combination, the
ratios become much more complex, as follows:

valves ratio ~cents

1 and 2 143:120 -304
1 and 3 53:40 -487
2 and 3 95:75 -409
1, 2, and 3 167:120 -572

so i calculated all of the notes which are available
by lowering the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
natural harmonics of the trumpet. making "C" the
beginning of each ascending 8ve and designating
"middle-C" as C4, these are respectively the notes
C4, G4, C5, E5, G5, Bb<5, and C6 ("high-C").

(i'm using the "less-than" sign as per my 72edo HEWM
notation, to indicate the ~31 cent lowering of the
7th harmonic from the 12edo Bb.)

these are the notes as written for the trumpet.
for the standard Bb trumpet, the actual sounding
pitch will be one "whole-step" lower, and for the
small F trumpet, a "perfect-4th" higher.

one last _caveat_: the way the player uses his lips
has a *tremendous* affect on trumpet intonation.
these cents-values are only theoretical, and may
vary widely. also, i know nothing about variabilities
of tube-length for the valves among different makes
and models of trumpet.

(on the Yahoo web interface, view in "Expand Messages"
mode for proper alignment)

note harmonic valves 8ve cents

C6 C6 0 3 0
B5 C6 2 2 1088
A#/Bb5 C6 1 2 996
A#/Bb5 Bb<5 0 2 969
A5 C6 1-2 2 896
A5 C6 3 2 884
A5 Bb<5 2 2 857
G#/Ab5 C6 2-3 2 791
G#/Ab5 Bb<5 1 2 765
G5 C6 1-3 2 713
G5 G5 0 2 702
G5 Bb<5 1-2 2 665
G5 Bb<5 3 2 653
F#/Gb5 C6 1-2-3 2 628
F#/Gb5 G5 2 2 590
F#/Gb5 Bb<5 2-3 2 560
F5 G5 1 2 498
F5 Bb<5 1-3 2 482
E5 G5 1-2 2 398
E5 Bb<5 1-2-3 2 397
E5 E5 0 2 386
E5 G5 3 2 386
D#/Eb5 G5 2-3 2 293
D#/Eb5 E5 2 2 275
D5 G5 1-3 2 215
D5 E5 1 2 182
C#/Db5 G5 1-2-3 2 130
C#/Db5 E5 1-2 2 83
C#/Db5 E5 3 2 71
C5 C5 0 2 0
C5 E5 2-3 1 1177
B4 E5 1-3 1 1099
B4 C5 2 1 1088
A#/Bb4 E5 1-2-3 1 1014
A#/Bb4 C5 1 1 996
A4 C5 1-2 1 896
A4 C5 3 1 884
G#/Ab4 C5 2-3 1 791
G4 C5 1-3 1 713
G4 G4 0 1 702
F#/Gb4 C5 1-2-3 1 628
F#/Gb4 G4 2 1 590
F4 G4 1 1 498
E4 G4 1-2 1 398
E4 G4 3 1 386
D#/Eb4 G4 2-3 1 293
D4 G4 1-3 1 215
C#/Db4 G4 1-2-3 1 130
C4 C4 0 1 0
B3 C4 2 0 1088
A#/Bb3 C4 1 0 996
A3 C4 1-2 0 896
A3 C4 3 0 884
G#/Ab3 C4 2-3 0 791
G3 C4 1-3 0 713
F#/Gb3 C4 1-2-3 0 628

-monz

This is wonderful information. Thanks-- I printed it out. As you noted, it's important
to realize that brass players can lip almost any microtone humanly imaginable, so
there's no reason to limit what we write for the brass to just the theoretical valve
pitches. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> one last _caveat_: the way the player uses his lips
> has a *tremendous* affect on trumpet intonation.
> these cents-values are only theoretical, and may
> vary widely. also, i know nothing about variabilities
> of tube-length for the valves among different makes
> and models of trumpet.
>
>
>

> before i read your post this morning, i finally
> sat down and calculated the theoretical intonation
> of the standard valved trumpet.

keyword: theoretical ; )

Of interest on this topic are Martin Vogel's enharmonic valved
brass instruments which are optimised for JI. They may be seen
in his book 'On the Relations of Tone'.

This quartertone trumpet is also interesting:

http://home.teleport.com/~mmpco/tptcat/tptcat15.htm

Aaron

> From: monz@attglobal.net [mailto:monz@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] valve trumpet intonation - table
>
>
> <snip>
>
> but as Monk points out (describing it differently,
> but it means the same as what i say here), these
> ratios only apply when the player uses a *single*
> valve. when 2 or 3 are used in combination, the
> ratios become much more complex, as follows:
>
> valves ratio ~cents
>
> 1 and 2 143:120 -304
> 1 and 3 53:40 -487
> 2 and 3 95:75 -409
> 1, 2, and 3 167:120 -572

duh. of course, valves 2+3 lower the pitch by
a 19:15 ratio. i forgot to reduce.

-monz

hi Justin,

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:44 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: valve trumpet intonation - table
>
>
> This is wonderful information. Thanks-- I printed it out.

glad you found it useful. i'm going to expand it
into a webpage which also gives the prime-factor vector
(which Gene has dubbed a "monzo", and which, of course,
i will not hesitate to employ!) and a lattice-diagram
graphing the precise theoretical tuning for each note
of the trumpet in prime-space.

here is a tabulation for all valve-combinations:

valves ratio monzo ~cents "semitones"
2 3 5 11 13 19 53 167

2 15:16 [-4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] -112 -1
1 8:9 [ 3 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] -204 -2
1-2 120:143 [ 3 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 0 ] -304 -3
3 5:6 [-1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] -316 -3
2-3 15:19 [ 0 1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 ] -409 -4
1-3 40:53 [ 3 0 1 0 0 0 -1 0 ] -487 -5
1-2-3 120:167 [ 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 ] -572 -6

(use "Expand Messages" mode to view properly on Yahoo)

> As you noted, it's important to realize that
> brass players can lip almost any microtone
> humanly imaginable,

amen. how about the work of brass players with
great imaginations? ... for example, Louis Armstrong.
a master microtonalist for sure (in his younger days).
:)

> so there's no reason to limit what we write for
> the brass to just the theoretical valve pitches.

right, of course i agree with you there.

but it's very useful to have a table which shows
exactly what the instrument is supposed to produce
under "ideal" conditions. i found it very illuminating,
having thought all this time that trumpets were being
mass-produced these days with a fairly solid version
of 12edo built into them. if Monk's assessment of
the length of tubing for each valve is correct, then
my previous misconception is way off the mark.

in fact, quite a few of the trumpet's pitches are about
10 cents sharp, 30 cents sharp, 20 cents flat, and
40 cents flat in comparision to 12edo.

of course, most of the ones which really deviate far
from 12edo are those that are produced in conjunction
with the lips sounding the 7th harmonic, which i call
Bb<5 . and most players probably don't regularly use
that harmonic as a basis for valved notes; only those
who are microtone-savvy would be interested, the others
hearing them as "out of tune".

and certainly good players could also use the 9th,
11th, and 13th harmonics for microtonal high notes.
i'll include those in my webpage charts. for now,
i figured that the table i posted covers most "typical"
instances of trumpet playing, inclding the microtonalist
who would use the 7th harmonic.

-monz

oops again ...

> From: monz@attglobal.net [mailto:monz@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:28 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] valve trumpet intonation - table
>
>
> so i calculated all of the notes which are available
> by lowering the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
> natural harmonics of the trumpet. making "C" the
> beginning of each ascending 8ve and designating
> "middle-C" as C4, these are respectively the notes
> C4, G4, C5, E5, G5, Bb<5, and C6 ("high-C").
>
> (i'm using the "less-than" sign as per my 72edo HEWM
> notation, to indicate the ~31 cent lowering of the
> 7th harmonic from the 12edo Bb.)

since i'm using my HEWM notation for the 7th harmonic,
i should also be using it for the 5th harmonic, which
should be notated E-5 .

all occurences of E5 in the second column of the
big table should also be changed to E-5 .

the notes in the first column are a sort of generalized
12edo-ish notation.

-monz

> From: monz@attglobal.net [mailto:monz@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:04 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: valve trumpet intonation - table
>
>
> hi Justin,
>
>
> > From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:44 PM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: valve trumpet intonation - table
> >
> >
> > This is wonderful information. Thanks-- I printed it out.
>
>
> glad you found it useful. i'm going to expand it
> into a webpage which also gives the prime-factor vector
> (which Gene has dubbed a "monzo", and which, of course,
> i will not hesitate to employ!) and a lattice-diagram
> graphing the precise theoretical tuning for each note
> of the trumpet in prime-space.

no lattices yet, but everything else is here:

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/trumpet/trumpet-intonation.htm

-monz

Monz-
I have had fairly good luck adjusting this valves to my needs as they can be tuned up and down almost a quartertone. The french horn really can give
one lots of options. In fact i noticed that it is unfortunate that Partch's diamond was not more closely related to Bb where valve instruments could
be dropped in easier.

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> no lattices yet, but everything else is here:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/trumpet/trumpet-intonation.htm
>
> -monz
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

----- Original Message -----
From: "kraig grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

> Monz-
> I have had fairly good luck adjusting this valves to my
> needs as they can be tuned up and down almost a
>quartertone. The french horn really can give
> one lots of options. In fact i noticed that it is
>unfortunate that Partch's diamond was not more
>closely related to Bb where valve instruments could
> be dropped in easier.

Humm...Bb...60 cycles...Four Dreams of China....interesting.

* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

hi Kraig,

> From: kraig grady [mailto:kraiggrady@anaphoria.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:00 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] new webpage: valve trumpet intonation
>
>
> Monz-
> I have had fairly good luck adjusting this valves to
> my needs as they can be tuned up and down almost a
> quartertone. The french horn really can give one
> lots of options.

thanks for pointing that out.

i mentioned in several of my posts on this, and in
the webpage, that there is great variability from
the numbers i've calculated, particularly because
of the player's ability to "lip" the intonation.

but i didn't mention anything at all about the
"tuning slides" on the tubing connected to the
1st and 3rd valves, and that's an important oversight.

by means of adjusting these slides, the player can
change the length of tubing associated with those
valves quite drastically.

> In fact i noticed that it is unfortunate
> that Partch's diamond was not more closely related to Bb
> where valve instruments could
> be dropped in easier.
>
> tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> >
> > no lattices yet, but everything else is here:
> >
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/trumpet/trumpet-intonation.htm
> >
> > -monz

yes, that's a good point. Partch never really
bothered much with any wind instruments, obviously
making strings and percussion the core of his
instrumental universe.

the only prominent use of winds in his work
which i can think of is in _Revelation in the
Courthouse Park_, and those are just regular old
clarinets and such. Partch notated their music
in such a way as to coax pseudo-JI out of the
instruments, but there's no systematic JI
intonational structure involved, as there is
with the instruments he built himself.

-monz

> yes, that's a good point. Partch never really
> bothered much with any wind instruments, obviously
> making strings and percussion the core of his
> instrumental universe.

...and voices

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> it's interesting how different threads come together ...
>
> > From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@u...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:50 AM
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: retuned Brian "Gothic Symphony"
> >
> > Yes, that's a certainty. I do think the players
> > *believe* they are striving to play in 12tet,
> > but they defintely aren't succeeding. Brass
> > definitely sound best in just but the late 19th
> > century modifications to the instruments do place
> > the 'center' of the pitch closer to 12tet (that's
> > an oversimplification, of course).
>
> how interesting that you should be writing just now
> about the intonation of the brass instruments.
>
> before i read your post this morning, i finally
> sat down and calculated the theoretical intonation
> of the standard valved trumpet.
>
> this is something i've been wanting to know for
> years, and just never gave enough thought to it
> to figure out exactly how it worked. and i've
> never seen anything like this published anywhere
> either.
>
> my source (Christopher W. Monk, "The Older Brass
> Instruments: Cornett, Trombone, Trumpet", chapter 11
> of _Musical Instruments Through The Ages_, ed.
> Anthony Baines, 1973 reprint of 1969 3rd edition)
> says that the valves lower the pitch of the "natural"
> harmonics available on the trumpet, by adding extra
> lengths of tubing as follows:
>
> 1st valve = 1/8 of the main tube
> 2nd valve = 1/15 of the main tube
> 3rd valve = 1/5 of the main tube
>
> this mechanism obviously has a JI basis, so that
> the 1st valve lowers the pitch by a 9:8 ratio
> (-~204 cents = "2 semitones"), the 2nd by a 16:15
> (-~112 cents = "1 semitone"), and the 3rd by a 6:5
> (-~316 cents = "3 semitones").

Monz, at best these are approximations. (Also see my next comment,
below.)

> but as Monk points out (describing it differently,
> but it means the same as what i say here), these
> ratios only apply when the player uses a *single*
> valve. when 2 or 3 are used in combination, the
> ratios become much more complex, as follows:
>
> valves ratio ~cents
>
> 1 and 2 143:120 -304
> 1 and 3 53:40 -487
> 2 and 3 95:75 -409
> 1, 2, and 3 167:120 -572

The first and third valves on most trumpets have trigger mechanisms
attached to the valve tubing that allow the player to move the slides
outward and back in on the fly, effectively lengthening the overall
tube length in order to compensate for the error (or shortfall)
resulting from valves used in combination. The amount of pitch
adjustment possible is not much more than a comma, so this technique
is not extremely useful for producing microtones.

> so i calculated all of the notes which are available
> by lowering the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
> natural harmonics of the trumpet. making "C" the
> beginning of each ascending 8ve and designating
> "middle-C" as C4, these are respectively the notes
> C4, G4, C5, E5, G5, Bb<5, and C6 ("high-C").

Brass players normally avoid the 7th (and 11th, 13th, etc.) harmonic
since it is regarded as being "out of tune."

> (i'm using the "less-than" sign as per my 72edo HEWM
> notation, to indicate the ~31 cent lowering of the
> 7th harmonic from the 12edo Bb.)
>
> these are the notes as written for the trumpet.
> for the standard Bb trumpet, the actual sounding
> pitch will be one "whole-step" lower, and for the
> small F trumpet, a "perfect-4th" higher.
>
> one last _caveat_: the way the player uses his lips
> has a *tremendous* affect on trumpet intonation.
> these cents-values are only theoretical, and may
> vary widely. also, i know nothing about variabilities
> of tube-length for the valves among different makes
> and models of trumpet.

Yes, adjustments in lip tension (embouchure) and also the position of
the back part of the tongue (which changes the size of the player's
mouth cavity) may also be used in order to adjust intonation, and the
amount of adjustment possible is greater than with valve slide (or
trigger) adjustments. However, embouchure adjustments also affect
tone quality, and as you would suspect, the greater the adjustment,
the greater the deterioration in quality and the greater the amount
of skill required to control the tone. So if you want microtones,
this technique also has limitations.

Being a brass player (among other things), I've been thinking about
the problem of microtones on valved brass instruments for quite a
long time, and many years ago I came to the conclusion that having
instruments specially built to play in multiple tunings would
ultimately be the best way to go.

A spreadsheet, which I made for Patrick Ozzard-Low, gives a valve
plan for 21st-century (microtonal) valved brass instruments, and it
may be seen here:

/tuning/files/secor/Brass.xls

A few words of explanation are in order.

1) My plan for valved brass instruments involves only equal divisions
of the octave for the simple reason that the advantages of
temperaments far outweigh the limitations when one considers
instruments of flexible pitch -- and my valve plan accommodates
divisions up to 41-ET, so the distinction of a comma may be made.

2) I have added a fourth valve that is operated by the thumb rather
than the little finger. For 26-ET and up this is to be a 3-position
valve, with the rest position at the center of travel. Bending the
thumb lowers the pitch by 1 system degree, and unbending the thumb
(from the rest position) *raises* the pitch by 1 system degree.
There are several benefits resulting from this arrangement:

a) The thumb has greater strength and independence than the little
finger, making microtonal fingering easier to execute;

b) A 3-position valve offers more valve combinations than a 2-
position valve, so more tones in the octave are possible;

c) For divisions up to 36-ET the first and second-finger valves are
allowed to retain the same function that they have in a conventional
instrument (i.e., lowering by a major and minor 2nd, respectively),
so that many conventional fingerings are retained, resulting in a
much gentler learning curve;

d) For instruments (such as the tuba and piccolo trumpet) that
require enough valve combinations to fill out the range between the
fundamental and 2nd harmonic (i.e., an entire octave), an additional
valve could be operated by the little finger (and is included in my
spreadsheet).

3) A compensating mechanism is intended to be employed when the 3rd
valve is used in combination with other valves, which brings into
play a second (longer) set of slide tubing that corrects most of the
shortfall in length. (My spreadsheet gives the error in cents for
each valve combination in each division.)

4) For the larger divisions the thumb valve must need to alter the
pitch by a relatively small amount. Since there is a practical limit
on how little tubing can be added by a conventional valve, the thumb
valve mechanism will instead *swap* lengths of tubing, so that the
pitch alteration is determined by the *difference* in length between
the valve slides employed for each position, so that there is no
limitation to how small the pitch alteration can be.

5) In order to convert the instrument from one tuning to another, it
would be a simple matter to adjust or swap out lengths of valve
tubing, so the player would need only a single instrument to play in
many different tunings.

6) As an alternative to a 3-position thumb valve, it would probably
be less expensive to think analog rather than digital by giving the
thumb the ability to control the position of a second tuning slide
for continuously variable adjustment of pitch. This could also
eliminate the necessity (and expense) of a 3rd-valve compensating
mechanism by also allowing fine adjustments in pitch at the player's
discretion. (Shhh! Don't tell anybody that I happen to know that
such an instrument is presently under construction.)

I hope this has given you more food for thought.

--George

wow, George, thanks for your in-depth comments.
can i add this post to the bottom of my webpage?

-monz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdsecor [mailto:gdsecor@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:25 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: valve trumpet intonation - table
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> > it's interesting how different threads come together ...
> >
> > > From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@u...]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:50 AM
> > > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: retuned Brian "Gothic Symphony"
> > >
> > > Yes, that's a certainty. I do think the players
> > > *believe* they are striving to play in 12tet,
> > > but they defintely aren't succeeding. Brass
> > > definitely sound best in just but the late 19th
> > > century modifications to the instruments do place
> > > the 'center' of the pitch closer to 12tet (that's
> > > an oversimplification, of course).
> >
> > how interesting that you should be writing just now
> > about the intonation of the brass instruments.
> >
> > before i read your post this morning, i finally
> > sat down and calculated the theoretical intonation
> > of the standard valved trumpet.
> >
> > this is something i've been wanting to know for
> > years, and just never gave enough thought to it
> > to figure out exactly how it worked. and i've
> > never seen anything like this published anywhere
> > either.
> >
> > my source (Christopher W. Monk, "The Older Brass
> > Instruments: Cornett, Trombone, Trumpet", chapter 11
> > of _Musical Instruments Through The Ages_, ed.
> > Anthony Baines, 1973 reprint of 1969 3rd edition)
> > says that the valves lower the pitch of the "natural"
> > harmonics available on the trumpet, by adding extra
> > lengths of tubing as follows:
> >
> > 1st valve = 1/8 of the main tube
> > 2nd valve = 1/15 of the main tube
> > 3rd valve = 1/5 of the main tube
> >
> > this mechanism obviously has a JI basis, so that
> > the 1st valve lowers the pitch by a 9:8 ratio
> > (-~204 cents = "2 semitones"), the 2nd by a 16:15
> > (-~112 cents = "1 semitone"), and the 3rd by a 6:5
> > (-~316 cents = "3 semitones").
>
> Monz, at best these are approximations. (Also see my next comment,
> below.)
>
> > but as Monk points out (describing it differently,
> > but it means the same as what i say here), these
> > ratios only apply when the player uses a *single*
> > valve. when 2 or 3 are used in combination, the
> > ratios become much more complex, as follows:
> >
> > valves ratio ~cents
> >
> > 1 and 2 143:120 -304
> > 1 and 3 53:40 -487
> > 2 and 3 95:75 -409
> > 1, 2, and 3 167:120 -572
>
> The first and third valves on most trumpets have trigger mechanisms
> attached to the valve tubing that allow the player to move the slides
> outward and back in on the fly, effectively lengthening the overall
> tube length in order to compensate for the error (or shortfall)
> resulting from valves used in combination. The amount of pitch
> adjustment possible is not much more than a comma, so this technique
> is not extremely useful for producing microtones.
>
> > so i calculated all of the notes which are available
> > by lowering the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
> > natural harmonics of the trumpet. making "C" the
> > beginning of each ascending 8ve and designating
> > "middle-C" as C4, these are respectively the notes
> > C4, G4, C5, E5, G5, Bb<5, and C6 ("high-C").
>
> Brass players normally avoid the 7th (and 11th, 13th, etc.) harmonic
> since it is regarded as being "out of tune."
>
> > (i'm using the "less-than" sign as per my 72edo HEWM
> > notation, to indicate the ~31 cent lowering of the
> > 7th harmonic from the 12edo Bb.)
> >
> > these are the notes as written for the trumpet.
> > for the standard Bb trumpet, the actual sounding
> > pitch will be one "whole-step" lower, and for the
> > small F trumpet, a "perfect-4th" higher.
> >
> > one last _caveat_: the way the player uses his lips
> > has a *tremendous* affect on trumpet intonation.
> > these cents-values are only theoretical, and may
> > vary widely. also, i know nothing about variabilities
> > of tube-length for the valves among different makes
> > and models of trumpet.
>
> Yes, adjustments in lip tension (embouchure) and also the position of
> the back part of the tongue (which changes the size of the player's
> mouth cavity) may also be used in order to adjust intonation, and the
> amount of adjustment possible is greater than with valve slide (or
> trigger) adjustments. However, embouchure adjustments also affect
> tone quality, and as you would suspect, the greater the adjustment,
> the greater the deterioration in quality and the greater the amount
> of skill required to control the tone. So if you want microtones,
> this technique also has limitations.
>
> Being a brass player (among other things), I've been thinking about
> the problem of microtones on valved brass instruments for quite a
> long time, and many years ago I came to the conclusion that having
> instruments specially built to play in multiple tunings would
> ultimately be the best way to go.
>
> A spreadsheet, which I made for Patrick Ozzard-Low, gives a valve
> plan for 21st-century (microtonal) valved brass instruments, and it
> may be seen here:
>
> /tuning/files/secor/Brass.xls
>
> A few words of explanation are in order.
>
> 1) My plan for valved brass instruments involves only equal divisions
> of the octave for the simple reason that the advantages of
> temperaments far outweigh the limitations when one considers
> instruments of flexible pitch -- and my valve plan accommodates
> divisions up to 41-ET, so the distinction of a comma may be made.
>
> 2) I have added a fourth valve that is operated by the thumb rather
> than the little finger. For 26-ET and up this is to be a 3-position
> valve, with the rest position at the center of travel. Bending the
> thumb lowers the pitch by 1 system degree, and unbending the thumb
> (from the rest position) *raises* the pitch by 1 system degree.
> There are several benefits resulting from this arrangement:
>
> a) The thumb has greater strength and independence than the little
> finger, making microtonal fingering easier to execute;
>
> b) A 3-position valve offers more valve combinations than a 2-
> position valve, so more tones in the octave are possible;
>
> c) For divisions up to 36-ET the first and second-finger valves are
> allowed to retain the same function that they have in a conventional
> instrument (i.e., lowering by a major and minor 2nd, respectively),
> so that many conventional fingerings are retained, resulting in a
> much gentler learning curve;
>
> d) For instruments (such as the tuba and piccolo trumpet) that
> require enough valve combinations to fill out the range between the
> fundamental and 2nd harmonic (i.e., an entire octave), an additional
> valve could be operated by the little finger (and is included in my
> spreadsheet).
>
> 3) A compensating mechanism is intended to be employed when the 3rd
> valve is used in combination with other valves, which brings into
> play a second (longer) set of slide tubing that corrects most of the
> shortfall in length. (My spreadsheet gives the error in cents for
> each valve combination in each division.)
>
> 4) For the larger divisions the thumb valve must need to alter the
> pitch by a relatively small amount. Since there is a practical limit
> on how little tubing can be added by a conventional valve, the thumb
> valve mechanism will instead *swap* lengths of tubing, so that the
> pitch alteration is determined by the *difference* in length between
> the valve slides employed for each position, so that there is no
> limitation to how small the pitch alteration can be.
>
> 5) In order to convert the instrument from one tuning to another, it
> would be a simple matter to adjust or swap out lengths of valve
> tubing, so the player would need only a single instrument to play in
> many different tunings.
>
> 6) As an alternative to a 3-position thumb valve, it would probably
> be less expensive to think analog rather than digital by giving the
> thumb the ability to control the position of a second tuning slide
> for continuously variable adjustment of pitch. This could also
> eliminate the necessity (and expense) of a 3rd-valve compensating
> mechanism by also allowing fine adjustments in pitch at the player's
> discretion. (Shhh! Don't tell anybody that I happen to know that
> such an instrument is presently under construction.)
>
> I hope this has given you more food for thought.
>
> --George
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to
> US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand:
> HP, Epson, Lexmark & more.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/RrLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the
> tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message
> delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> wow, George, thanks for your in-depth comments.
> can i add this post to the bottom of my webpage?
>
> -monz

Most certainly! -- and don't forget to include the spreadsheet.

Since you're putting this information in a place where it will be
more accessible and useful to others, it would be good to add some
more thoughts, so why don't you use the text up to the words "... at
the player's discretion." and continue with the following paragraph.

Kraig Grady made the following observations:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Monz-
> I have had fairly good luck adjusting this valves to my needs as
they can be tuned up and down almost a quartertone. The french horn
really can give
> one lots of options. In fact i noticed that it is unfortunate that
Partch's diamond was not more closely related to Bb where valve
instruments could
> be dropped in easier.

These touch on some additional points that I would like to make:

7) To rephrase the problem of achieving just intonation on brass
instruments, it's unfortunate that brass instruments are pitched most
often in B-flat. Building a multi-tuning microtonal trumpet in the
key of C would not only make it simpler for JI, but would also
eliminate the considerable inconvenience (or should I say nightmare)
of having to contend with a microtonal transposing instrument, as
well as making it easier to play notes in the upper range. The
slight difference in tone could be compensated for by a redesign of
the bore of the instrument. The trumpet would lose a whole step from
the bottom of its range, but this would be alleviated by the
following point.

8) The function of the 3rd valve in my plan (not only for the
trumpet, but for all valved brass) differs from conventional practice
in that it would lower the pitch by a *major third* rather than a
minor third, thus restoring half of the lower range that is lost by
building a trumpet in C instead of B-flat. And more range is
restored when it is realized that there is yet a thumb valve that
will lower the pitch still further (making the effective loss of
range only a quartertone).

There is an additional reason for changing the function of the 3rd
valve. In a 5-valve instrument (see point 2d, above) the 4th-finger
valve would lower by a minor sixth, so having the 3rd-finger valve
lower by a major third provides a continuous sequence of tones in
more divisions of the octave. For the sake of uniformity among the
entire microtonal brass family, I believe that it would be desirable
that the 3rd valve have the same function regardless of the total
number of valves in any particular instrument.

9) Mention of the French horn in the above quote reminds me that this
instrument requires special treatment. The conventional double horn
is a 4-valve instrument, the 4th valve being operated by the thumb to
*raise* the pitch a *fourth*, with a compensating mechanism (see
point 3 above) in the form of a double set of valve slides for the
other 3 valves). A microtonal instrument built according to the plan
in my spreadsheet would necessitate rebuilding the instrument in such
a way that the thumb valve (along with its compensating mechanism) be
moved to a position where it will be operated by the 3rd finger, with
its function changed so that it *lowers* the pitch by a *major
third*. With this new 3rd valve depressed, the horn would produce a
harmonic series in F. Thus, with no valves depressed, the harmonic
series would be in A (a minor second lower than the conventional B-
flat horn). The thumb would then be available to operate a 3-
position valve that would alter up or down by a single system
degree. An additional hand-stopping valve would be provided for the
little finger that would add the specific amount of tubing necessary
to correct the change in pitch that occurs when the horn is
played "stopped."

Having been a horn player myself, I am well aware that some
significant adjustments in fingering habits would be necessary in
order to play a microtonal instrument such as this, but I have tried
to achieve a balance between the changes required for both the player
and the instrument. As with the other brass, the 1st and 2nd valves
would keep their present function, so that the player would
immediately be able to use those two valves for the present "F-horn"
fingerings (except that they would be used in conjunction with the
3rd valve depressed) to arrive at the present "F-horn" tube length,
thus (hopefully) approaching an ideal "F-horn sound."

--George Secor

>7) To rephrase the problem of achieving just intonation on brass
>instruments, it's unfortunate that brass instruments are pitched
>most often in B-flat. Building a multi-tuning microtonal trumpet
>in the key of C would not only make it simpler for JI,

???

>the considerable inconvenience (or should I say nightmare)
>of having to contend with a microtonal transposing instrument,

Score-entry software already deals with transposing instruments.
If they could also deal with microtonal accidentals I don't see
a problem.

>The slight difference in tone could be compensated for by a
>redesign of the bore of the instrument.

? C trumpets are standard fare in orchestras.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >7) To rephrase the problem of achieving just intonation on brass
> >instruments, it's unfortunate that brass instruments are pitched
> >most often in B-flat. Building a multi-tuning microtonal trumpet
> >in the key of C would not only make it simpler for JI,
>
> ???

Well, I can't imagine why B-flat might be a favorite key of very many
JI composers (unless they were writing only for brass instruments and
single-reed woodwinds), so I think Kraig's observation neatly
summarizes the problem.

> >the considerable inconvenience (or should I say nightmare)
> >of having to contend with a microtonal transposing instrument,
>
> Score-entry software already deals with transposing instruments.
> If they could also deal with microtonal accidentals I don't see
> a problem.

You'll see the problem the first time you come into a rehearsal with
an instrument pitched in one key and the part is written for an
instrument in another key. I did a double-take the first time I had
a horn in F and had to play a part written for E-flat horn. As it
turned out, I was able to sight-read the part easily, but only
because I have absolute pitch and, after quickly analyzing the
situation, realized that I could read the part as if it were written
for a "C" instrument in bass clef, playing the pitches an octave
higher and adding 3 flats to the key signature.

This was possible for me only because I play the horn as if it were a
non-transposing instrument. When I first took up the horn, I
realized that there was no way that my mind was going to accept a
pitch as "C" when I am hearing "F". That's sheer insanity, like
asking someone to transpose colors, accepting green as red, and red
as blue, and blue as green. For this problem there was a simple
solution: as I learned to play the horn, I also learned to read F
horn parts in the mezzo-soprano clef (with middle C on the 2nd
line). I later met another horn player with absolute pitch, and I
was pleasantly surprised to discover that he read horn parts in
exactly the same way (including the E-flat parts).

Likewise, when I played the bass clarinet in high school, I read the
parts as if they were in the tenor clef and added 2 flats to the key
signature.

I can read 5 clefs in all, and since I treat each instrument as a "C"
instrument, I am able to sight-read a part written for any instrument
on whatever instrument I happen to be playing (assuming that the part
is within a reasonable range and not beyond my technical
capability). I consider this far more valuable than the convenience
of learning a single set of fingerings to play, for example, both E-
flat and B-flat saxophones, or B-flat and A clarinets.

For microtonal instruments I would therefore prefer to see all scores
and parts as if they were written for instruments pitched in "C" and
have players learn the fingerings for their instruments so as to be
able to read those parts. That way, any player could sight-read a
part written for another microtonal instrument, making instrumental
substitutions a snap. It's already standard practice for bass-clef
parts (e.g., tubas are commonly made in B-flat, C, and E-flat, but
all tuba parts are in "C"), so why shouldn't everyone else follow
suit, at least in the microtonal realm?

> >The slight difference in tone could be compensated for by a
> >redesign of the bore of the instrument.
>
> ? C trumpets are standard fare in orchestras.

Hmmm, it's interesting that you should bring that up. Are they as
common as B-flat trumpets? Do they read from C-trumpet parts, or,
lacking those, are they sometimes required to transpose from B-flat
parts? Wow! That really strikes me as idiotic -- it makes much more
sense to have all trumpet parts in "C" and ask the B-flat trumpet
player to do the transposing.

--George

> I can read 5 clefs in all, and since I treat each instrument as a "C"
> instrument, I am able to sight-read a part written for any instrument
> on whatever instrument I happen to be playing (assuming that the part
> is within a reasonable range and not beyond my technical
> capability). I consider this far more valuable than the convenience
> of learning a single set of fingerings to play, for example, both E-
> flat and B-flat saxophones, or B-flat and A clarinets.

Perfect pitch sure sounds crippling! :) I don't think these instruments were designed
with perfect pitch in mind. Actually, it might have been better in the long run if you
had taken the leap of faith and accepted a written C for any transposed pitch. This
might be difficult at first but the brain can learn to do the substitutions in a short
while--then you'd have perfect pitch in any transposition! What would you do if you
had to play a harpsichord tuned to A415?

>
> For microtonal instruments I would therefore prefer to see all scores
> and parts as if they were written for instruments pitched in "C" and
> have players learn the fingerings for their instruments so as to be
> able to read those parts. That way, any player could sight-read a
> part written for another microtonal instrument, making instrumental
> substitutions a snap. It's already standard practice for bass-clef
> parts (e.g., tubas are commonly made in B-flat, C, and E-flat, but
> all tuba parts are in "C"), so why shouldn't everyone else follow
> suit, at least in the microtonal realm?

The C-standard is becoming more normal, but a lot of players aren't actually learning
new fingerings, but just transposing in their head.

>
> > >The slight difference in tone could be compensated for by a
> > >redesign of the bore of the instrument.
> >
> > ? C trumpets are standard fare in orchestras.
>
> Hmmm, it's interesting that you should bring that up. Are they as
> common as B-flat trumpets? Do they read from C-trumpet parts, or,
> lacking those, are they sometimes required to transpose from B-flat
> parts? Wow! That really strikes me as idiotic -- it makes much more
> sense to have all trumpet parts in "C" and ask the B-flat trumpet
> player to do the transposing.
>

It's standard practice to transpose the instrument part, but it's increasingly accepted
to write all trumpet parts in C--most professionals can play any trumpet from a C-
part. Professional trumpeters almost always have both a C and B-flat instrument, and
probably a piccolo trumpet too, which might be in any number of keys. -Justin

PS- Do you have bucket perfect pitch (all notes classified as nearest 12edo note) or
continuous perfect pitch (very fine microtonal processing of tone)? My pitch is in the
grayzone between relative and perfect. I can't usually hear a pitch and immediately
tell you what it is, but in harmonic context, I have uncanny "intuition" as to what the
key might be. I also have the "phantom pitch" phenomenon where you try to guess
what a pitch might be, can't do it, but then walk over to a piano to find out and in the
split second before your finger touches a key you are mysteriously 'guided' to select
the correct pitch. I can sometimes hear a pitch coming from the piano before I play it,
even if it's been hours since I last touched an instrument. -Justin

>> Score-entry software already deals with transposing instruments.
>> If they could also deal with microtonal accidentals I don't see
>> a problem.
>
>You'll see the problem the first time you come into a rehearsal with
>an instrument pitched in one key and the part is written for an
>instrument in another key.

I've done that. It's called transposing on sight. It's quite
difficult, though often expected of brass players.

>> >The slight difference in tone could be compensated for by a
>> >redesign of the bore of the instrument.
>>
>> ? C trumpets are standard fare in orchestras.
>
>Hmmm, it's interesting that you should bring that up. Are they as
>common as B-flat trumpets?

These days I'd say they are more common in orchestras.

>Do they read from C-trumpet parts, or, lacking those, are they
>sometimes required to transpose from B-flat parts? Wow!

Usually orch. trumpet parts are in C.

>it makes much more sense to have all trumpet parts in "C" and
>ask the B-flat trumpet player to do the transposing.

That's what usually happens. Though these days, with computers,
one can print out parts in any key one likes.

Anyway, it's not just having an instrument whose key matches the
part. The more important issue is sound. Just as a viola sounds
different from a slowed-down violin, a C trumpet sounds different
than a Bb horn when playing the same notes. It sounds better, to
most ears.

I didn't know you had absolute pitch! Jay Williams is the only
other APer on this list that I know of. I'd welcome any and all
of you to step forward and relay your experiences, esp. regarding
alternate tuning!

-Carl

> From: gdsecor [mailto:gdsecor@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: valve trumpet intonation - table
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I did a double-take the first time I had
> a horn in F and had to play a part written for E-flat horn. As it
> turned out, I was able to sight-read the part easily, but only
> because I have absolute pitch and, after quickly analyzing the
> situation, realized that I could read the part as if it were written
> for a "C" instrument in bass clef, playing the pitches an octave
> higher and adding 3 flats to the key signature.

i don't have absolute pitch, just very good relative pitch.
i used to do the same thing back in high school. i played
baritone sax (in Eb) in the school jazz band, and often read
from trombone or bass parts, simply imagining the clef to be
treble instead of bass and changing the key-signature.
it worked fine. however ...

> This was possible for me only because I play the horn as if it were a
> non-transposing instrument. When I first took up the horn, I
> realized that there was no way that my mind was going to accept a
> pitch as "C" when I am hearing "F". That's sheer insanity, like
> asking someone to transpose colors, accepting green as red, and red
> as blue, and blue as green.

i agree with you completely. i first started as a musician
by learning the clarinet and tenor sax (both in Bb), then
later learned oboe, bassoon, and recorder (all "in C"),
then the baritone sax (in Eb).

making things easier for performers by using transposition
was a really stupid idea, because it makes things so much
harder and more complicated for everyone else. in today's
circumstances of instrumental virtuosity, i think transposing
should have been chucked a long time ago. it's relatively
easy for performers to learn different sets of fingerings
for their instruments, as you have done.

maybe we should start a movement, to eliminate transposition?

> > [Carl:]
> > ? C trumpets are standard fare in orchestras.
>
> Hmmm, it's interesting that you should bring that up. Are they as
> common as B-flat trumpets? Do they read from C-trumpet parts, or,
> lacking those, are they sometimes required to transpose from B-flat
> parts? Wow! That really strikes me as idiotic -- it makes much more
> sense to have all trumpet parts in "C" and ask the B-flat trumpet
> player to do the transposing.

are C trumpets really all that common?

Bb trumpets are ubiquitous, but i thought the
only other ones *commonly* found in orchestras
are the high ones in F (as in Mahler's symphonies
... he used both Bb and F). ...?

-monz

> maybe we should start a movement, to eliminate transposition?
>
>

I like transposing instruments...and since diapason wanders around anyway through
history, why care too much about absolute pitch to begin with? -Justin

I have absolute perfect pitch, but I only hear a 12-tet note and whether
it's sharp or flat of A-440 -- meaning I can hear up to probably 24-tet.

I was fortunate to be able to start playing piano at age 4, to put this all
in perspective.

----- Original Message -----
From: Justin Weaver
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:01 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: valve trumpet intonation - table

PS- Do you have bucket perfect pitch (all notes classified as nearest 12edo
note) or
continuous perfect pitch (very fine microtonal processing of tone)? My pitch
is in the
grayzone between relative and perfect. I can't usually hear a pitch and
immediately
tell you what it is, but in harmonic context, I have uncanny "intuition" as
to what the
key might be. I also have the "phantom pitch" phenomenon where you try to
guess
what a pitch might be, can't do it, but then walk over to a piano to find
out and in the
split second before your finger touches a key you are mysteriously 'guided'
to select
the correct pitch. I can sometimes hear a pitch coming from the piano before
I play it,
even if it's been hours since I last touched an instrument. -Justin

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> Score-entry software already deals with transposing instruments.
> >> If they could also deal with microtonal accidentals I don't see
> >> a problem.
> >
> >You'll see the problem the first time you come into a rehearsal
with
> >an instrument pitched in one key and the part is written for an
> >instrument in another key.
>
> I've done that. It's called transposing on sight. It's quite
> difficult, though often expected of brass players.

Yes, I've done it too on occasion. It's much simpler in the long run
to take the time to learn to read a part as if it were in a different
clef, because you don't have to think in two keys at once.

> ...
> I didn't know you had absolute pitch! Jay Williams is the only
> other APer on this list that I know of. I'd welcome any and all
> of you to step forward and relay your experiences, esp. regarding
> alternate tuning!

See the reply to Justin which I am about to post.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
> > I can read 5 clefs in all, and since I treat each instrument as
a "C"
> > instrument, I am able to sight-read a part written for any
instrument
> > on whatever instrument I happen to be playing (assuming that the
part
> > is within a reasonable range and not beyond my technical
> > capability). I consider this far more valuable than the
convenience
> > of learning a single set of fingerings to play, for example, both
E-
> > flat and B-flat saxophones, or B-flat and A clarinets.
>
> Perfect pitch sure sounds crippling! :)

I think that the term "absolute pitch" or, better yet, "tonal memory"
more accurately describes the ability commonly referred to
as "perfect pitch" (after all, nobody's perfect). Yes, it can be a
handicap under certain circumstances, but I never regret having
developed it. (Yes I had to work at it to acquire it, which makes me
suspect that it's not entirely (or even necessarily) dependent on
genetics -- more about that below.) It makes such things as playing
by ear, sight-singing, or following the modulations in a classical
recording almost effortless. When, as a piano student, I had to
learn all of the major and minor scales, I found that it was
unnecessary to memorize anything other than which fingers to start
with, because I could already "hear" all of the notes in my head.

> I don't think these instruments were designed
> with perfect pitch in mind. Actually, it might have been better in
the long run if you
> had taken the leap of faith and accepted a written C for any
transposed pitch. This
> might be difficult at first but the brain can learn to do the
substitutions in a short
> while--then you'd have perfect pitch in any transposition!

Even assuming that I could do 11 different substitutions without
getting overly confused, this all breaks down once I go microtonal.
With multitudes of tunings and a whole continuum of possible
intervals (not to mention pitch standards), how many more
substitutions would there be, and where would they end?

> What would you do if you
> had to play a harpsichord tuned to A415?

Here's the answer I typed immediately after reading your question:

<< I guess I would have to try to think in two different keys at
once, and with a little practice I could probably pull it off. The
real problem here is with the keyboard: If the harpsichord had a
Bosanquet generalized keyboard, there would be no problem at all,
because the fingering patterns are the same in all keys. >>

I had a chance Sunday evening to experiment with an electronic piano
that has a key-transpose feature. Using the harpsichord timbre, I
set the pitch down 1/2 step and found, much to my surprise, that I
had no trouble at all playing a couple of fairly difficult (but
familiar) pieces of music if I had the printed page in front of me.
Trying to play from memory was a little more difficult, but I found
that my mind was able to interpret the pitches as being (to use an
astronomer's term for observing far-off objects as they were in the
distant past) red-shifted in frequency so I could think of a lowered
C, for example, as a flat C rather than a C-flat (or B). (Also
relevant to this is my observation below about pitch perception
tolerance.)

I then reset the pitch another 1/2 step down and found that, while my
mind would not accept a B-flat as a C, I could still play music that
I was reading without any trouble. Just for fun, I tried the worst-
case scenario and put the instrument into the key of F-sharp, and
again, to my utter amazement, I had no problem playing the piece, as
long as I had the music in front of me. I had to rely mostly on what
athletes call "muscle memory" to pull it off, but hearing the sound
in a completely different key didn't interfere at all with my
concentration.

I found that playing from memory was more difficult, because I
memorize music by memorizing the sounds, so without the music in
front of me, only the half-step-down transposition was trouble-free.
Even more difficult than playing a piece from memory was trying to
improvise on a transposed keyboard; again, only the half-step-down
transposition gave me no trouble.

> > For microtonal instruments I would therefore prefer to see all
scores
> > and parts as if they were written for instruments pitched in "C"
and
> > have players learn the fingerings for their instruments so as to
be
> > able to read those parts. That way, any player could sight-read
a
> > part written for another microtonal instrument, making
instrumental
> > substitutions a snap. It's already standard practice for bass-
clef
> > parts (e.g., tubas are commonly made in B-flat, C, and E-flat,
but
> > all tuba parts are in "C"), so why shouldn't everyone else follow
> > suit, at least in the microtonal realm?
>
> The C-standard is becoming more normal, but a lot of players aren't
actually learning
> new fingerings, but just transposing in their head.

My experience of singing in choirs that suddenly drift off pitch
(always downward, and I can't remember a single instance where it was
due to comma drift) has occasionally made it necessary for me to
transpose a part downward by a half-step, which took a certain amount
of effort. But I imagine that mastering the technique takes about
the same amount of practice as learning a new clef.

> ...
> PS- Do you have bucket perfect pitch (all notes classified as
nearest 12edo note) or
> continuous perfect pitch (very fine microtonal processing of tone)?

I would have to call it a combination of the two.

I developed the ability (which I prefer to call "tonal memory") as a
6-year-old accordion student. I observed that I was able to remember
the pitch "A" before even knowing what its name was. Thinking that
it might be useful, I then proceeded to memorize the pitches of all
the white keys.

I remember one day my father picked up the instrument and was trying
to pick out a melody on it. At one point he failed to locate the
desired note, so I pointed out the key he was looking for. When he
asked how I knew that was the correct one, I explained that I had
memorized what they all sounded like, and he promptly had me turn my
back to him to demonstrate that I could easily identify one after
another. When he played a black key, however, I drew a blank and
could only say that it must be a black key, because I couldn't
identify it.

As time went by my tonal memory underwent further development by my
memorization of samples of pitches in various timbres (by my
listening repeatedly to a number of classical recordings), which had
the effect of generalizing my concept of each pitch. Within a couple
of years I began piano lessons. My practice piano was not tuned very
often, and the experience of repeatedly hearing (over many years)
piano tones that were slightly below the proper pitch (I would guess
about 20 to 25 cents, perhaps 30 cents at most) gave me a much larger
downward than upward range or tolerance within which I would readily
identify a pitch with a certain note-name.

Once I began experimenting with microtones, from time to time I made
tape recordings of some of my improvisations, initially on a retuned
electronic organ and eventually on my Motorola Scalatron, and I found
that I was memorizing pitches after repeated listenings. I never
made any special effort to do this; it just happens as a matter of
course if I listen repeatedly to recordings. So I don't have a fine
microtonal processing of tone, but I'm reasonably confident that I
could memorize the pitches of any particular tonal system to any
particular pitch standard if I took the time and effort to do it.

I should dispel one common misconception about tonal memory, which is
due to the term "perfect pitch." Pitch recognition is very similar
to color recognition, and a "C" that is a little higher or lower than
the C of 12-ET does not sound out of tune in an alternate tuning that
represents consonant intervals more accurately than does 12-ET;
indeed, it sounds better in tune. If we consider the pitch "C" to
correspond to green color (which it actually does, if you raise the
frequency of the pitch by 40-some octaves to correspond to a
frequency of light), then a slightly higher C is going to sound like
a hue that is slightly more bluish (or less yellowish), but it would
still be interpreted as a "C" (or within the color-class "green").
So for me, memorizing pitches in an alternative tuning is very much
like memorizing hues of color in a much finer palette than what 12-ET
offers.

There are certain problems, such as sharps differing in pitch from
flats by varying amounts and even opposing direction, between
different tunings. Since I used a multiplicity of tonal systems
early on, rather than committing myself to one particular tuning, I
have never worked at developing my pitch acuity since my childhood.

> My pitch is in the
> grayzone between relative and perfect. I can't usually hear a pitch
and immediately
> tell you what it is, but in harmonic context, I have
uncanny "intuition" as to what the
> key might be. I also have the "phantom pitch" phenomenon where you
try to guess
> what a pitch might be, can't do it, but then walk over to a piano
to find out and in the
> split second before your finger touches a key you are
mysteriously 'guided' to select
> the correct pitch. I can sometimes hear a pitch coming from the
piano before I play it,
> even if it's been hours since I last touched an instrument. -Justin

It sounds as if you're experiencing some bits and pieces of tonal
memory and might be able to develop it if you made the effort. One
hint: from experience I have found that it is much easier through
repeated hearings to "etch" the memory of the pitches of a short
musical passage into my mind than it is to try to memorize single
(isolated) tones. This is analogous to learning to pronounce vowel
sounds of a foreign language by hearing them in words rather than in
isolation.

Some years ago (in the late 1970s) I received an advertisement
through the mail by someone conducting "perfect pitch" seminars, in
which he claimed that he could teach others how to acquire tonal
memory. Around that time I also briefly discussed the subject with
microtonalist Easley Blackwood (who also has absolute pitch), and we
came to the conclusion that, while there might be a genetic factor
involved, success in acquiring the ability seems to be highly
dependent on one's age -- the younger the better. I suspect that
this uses the same part of the brain that is involved with the
ability to learn foreign languages with a proper accent.

--George

>
> My experience of singing in choirs that suddenly drift off pitch
> (always downward, and I can't remember a single instance where it was
> due to comma drift) has occasionally made it necessary for me to
> transpose a part downward by a half-step, which took a certain amount
> of effort. But I imagine that mastering the technique takes about
> the same amount of practice as learning a new clef.

I don't think all drift in contemporary choral singing has to do with comma shifts
either...probably very little of it, actually, but it does have to do with the propagation
of guesses and the theory of emergence. Choirs can learn to sing in common-tone JI,
in which case they will develop comma drift behavior, but this is *learned*.

> I have found that it is much easier through
> repeated hearings to "etch" the memory of the pitches of a short
> musical passage into my mind than it is to try to memorize single
> (isolated) tones.

I think this is 'the trick'--context is (literally) key. I can usually figure out G# and C#
from remembering the xylophone riff at the end of the Shotakovich Symphon No. 15,
from which I can then derive any other sounded note through relative pitch. I can't do
this operation fast enough in real time however to call it true tonal memory. But
you're right--if I worked at it I could probably develop tonal memory... but I'm not
sure I want to-- most of what I do compositionally and in improvisation relies on
relative, not absolute pitch recognition and I frequently play/sing transposing music.

> Some years ago (in the late 1970s) I received an advertisement
> through the mail by someone conducting "perfect pitch" seminars, in
> which he claimed that he could teach others how to acquire tonal
> memory. Around that time I also briefly discussed the subject with
> microtonalist Easley Blackwood (who also has absolute pitch), and we
> came to the conclusion that, while there might be a genetic factor
> involved, success in acquiring the ability seems to be highly
> dependent on one's age -- the younger the better. I suspect that
> this uses the same part of the brain that is involved with the
> ability to learn foreign languages with a proper accent.

From what I know from neurolinguistics, this is probably correct (and flies in the face
of the Chomskyan theories of pre-wired language and processing)-- tone
recognition, like language, is entirely learned (and not innate) through a combination
of social contextualization, imitation and other generalized learning. No one would
say that culture is innate, and yet a 5 year old child masters his/her cultural norms
often better than his/her linguistic norms...certainly (usually) better than his/her
musical norms. -Justin

>> Some years ago (in the late 1970s) I received an advertisement
>> through the mail by someone conducting "perfect pitch" seminars,

Probably David L. Burge, who's still doing his thing.

>> while there might be a genetic factor involved, success in
>> acquiring the ability seems to be highly dependent on one's
>> age -- the younger the better. I suspect that this uses the
>> same part of the brain that is involved with the
>> ability to learn foreign languages with a proper accent.

Recent research does not suggest any genetic factor. We're all
born with the ability to do AP, but most of us never develop
conscious access to it. A study was done where folks were asked
to hum pop tunes. More often than chance, they use the right key.

Chomsky's notion that language is 'wired in' is vague at best,
and his notion that it 'couldn't be learned so fast' is wrong.
There is a sensitive period for language and AP, which seem to
be related, and I think the best model of this is that humans
experience extreme plasticity (general learning) in certain
areas which are specialized for language processing (mainly the
motor control stuff for speaking, and some auditory stuff) at
certain times.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:
George Secor wrote:
...
> > came to the conclusion that, while there might be a genetic factor
> > involved, success in acquiring the ability seems to be highly
> > dependent on one's age -- the younger the better. I suspect that
> > this uses the same part of the brain that is involved with the
> > ability to learn foreign languages with a proper accent.
>
> From what I know from neurolinguistics, this is probably correct

I agree.

> (and flies in the face
> of the Chomskyan theories of pre-wired language and processing)-- tone
> recognition, like language, is entirely learned (and not innate)
through a combination
> of social contextualization, imitation and other generalized learning.

I think you have not understood Chomsky. This has no bearing on his
theories whatsoever. As I understand it, Chomksy suggests that some
semantic categories are pre-wired to make language aquisition easier
(or even possible) but he does not suggest that the specific _sounds_
that will come to be associated with those semantic categories are in
any way pre-wired. You seem to think that he is claiming that one may
be born with a genetic disposition toward learning Chinese rather than
English, for example. He is not.

> > (and flies in the face
> > of the Chomskyan theories of pre-wired language and processing)-- tone
> > recognition, like language, is entirely learned (and not innate)
> through a combination
> > of social contextualization, imitation and other generalized learning.
>
> I think you have not understood Chomsky. This has no bearing on his
> theories whatsoever. As I understand it, Chomksy suggests that some
> semantic categories are pre-wired to make language aquisition easier
> (or even possible) but he does not suggest that the specific _sounds_
> that will come to be associated with those semantic categories are in
> any way pre-wired. You seem to think that he is claiming that one may
> be born with a genetic disposition toward learning Chinese rather than
> English, for example. He is not.

I don't think that's what was being suggested, but at any rate, the Chomskyan
'generative grammar' viewpoint has been completelt debunked from the neurological
perspective (cf the book: Rethinking Innateness). The phonetic apparatus and ability
to classify and distinguish sounds is more than likely innate. But beyond that,
language is entirely learned through context and human input--and it is learned in
much the same way as all other social aspects of being human is learned...which
would include music. Grammar is more than likely a human misnomer for something
that is purely emergent and doesn't actually exist outside of the human classification
of it. -Justin

hi George,

thanks for one of the most interesting posts i've
ever read on this list! specifics below ...

> From: gdsecor [mailto:gdsecor@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:07 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Absolute pitch (Was: valve trumpet
> intonation - table)
>
>
> I had a chance Sunday evening to experiment with an electronic piano
> that has a key-transpose feature. Using the harpsichord timbre, I
> set the pitch down 1/2 step and found, much to my surprise, that I
> had no trouble at all playing a couple of fairly difficult (but
> familiar) pieces of music if I had the printed page in front of me.
> Trying to play from memory was a little more difficult, but I found
> that my mind was able to interpret the pitches as being (to use an
> astronomer's term for observing far-off objects as they were in the
> distant past) red-shifted in frequency so I could think of a lowered
> C, for example, as a flat C rather than a C-flat (or B). (Also
> relevant to this is my observation below about pitch perception
> tolerance.)

George, thanks for a wonderful description of a great experiment!

> I developed the ability (which I prefer to call "tonal memory") as a
> 6-year-old accordion student. I observed that I was able to remember
> the pitch "A" before even knowing what its name was. Thinking that
> it might be useful, I then proceeded to memorize the pitches of all
> the white keys.
>
> I remember one day my father picked up the instrument and was trying
> to pick out a melody on it. At one point he failed to locate the
> desired note, so I pointed out the key he was looking for. When he
> asked how I knew that was the correct one, I explained that I had
> memorized what they all sounded like, and he promptly had me turn my
> back to him to demonstrate that I could easily identify one after
> another. When he played a black key, however, I drew a blank and
> could only say that it must be a black key, because I couldn't
> identify it.

this is amazingly similar to a story i can tell,
regarding the day i discovered that my brother has
absolute pitch. (and i, the microtonalist, don't).

i had been playing in rock bands for a couple of
years, and my brother always came to our gigs.
he had always had "toy" guitars as a kid and kind
of acted like he wanted to be a rock star, and
eventually, after being exposed to my "stage stardom",
he got interested in playing music himself. so he
got a bass and formed a band with two friends, a
one of whom played drums, and the other, guitar.
they were all just "regular guys" with no goals
in music other than to jam and have fun.

anyway, they were only together for a few months,
but they rehearsed a lot and got pretty good during
that time. one of the songs they learned was
_Tempus Fugit_, which was a current hit by Yes.

i was in the kitchen one day making lunch and heard
that my brother was playing one note wrong in the
driving bass runs. i went down to the basement to
point it out to him, and when we isolated the wrong
note and i sang the correct one for him, he said
"oh, you mean this one?", and put his finger down
on exactly the correct fret and played the note which
matched my singing. i was flabbergasted.

this was not long after the time that i had finally
started understanding Partch's book (after having to
read it about 4 times), got the original ideas for my
microtonal software which is currently under development,
and had begun my own "genesis" in microtonality. i had
already wished i'd had perfect pitch in my earlier
musical training, and now had wished for it even more.
finding out that my brother had really gave me a sense
of cosmic injustice. (... if i may be permitted to make
a pun on one of our favorite terms around here)

> It sounds as if you're experiencing some bits and pieces of tonal
> memory and might be able to develop it if you made the effort. One
> hint: from experience I have found that it is much easier through
> repeated hearings to "etch" the memory of the pitches of a short
> musical passage into my mind than it is to try to memorize single
> (isolated) tones. This is analogous to learning to pronounce vowel
> sounds of a foreign language by hearing them in words rather than in
> isolation.

it's fairly easy for me to find the E which is the lowest
string on standard guitar tuning -- that's because it's
also (on most days) the lowest note that i can sing comfortably.
i can find any other note from that.

your statement about remember "A" prompted me to try to
"hear" in my mind's ear an orchestra tuning to A-440,
and my memory produced a "G" a whole-step below A.
IIRC, most times when i try this, it comes out as "G".
for some reason, i must have an affinity for that note.

the creepiest experience i get as a result of tonal memory
is when i listen to Bruce Springsteen's great album
_Born To Run_. when track 3 "Night" ends, and there's
a second or two of silence after it before the next track
"Backstreets", i can always "hear" the opening chord at
exactly the pitches that actually do begin a moment later.
it happens every single time i listen to this album
(since i first noticed it around 1983), and freaks me
out every time, just because it feels so weird.

-monz

>
> i was in the kitchen one day making lunch and heard
> that my brother was playing one note wrong in the
> driving bass runs. i went down to the basement to
> point it out to him, and when we isolated the wrong
> note and i sang the correct one for him, he said
> "oh, you mean this one?", and put his finger down
> on exactly the correct fret and played the note which
> matched my singing. i was flabbergasted.

He could have gotten the note from others he was playing just before you corrected
him...but I'm sure he has perfect pitch if he continued to pick notes 'out of the air'.

>
> this was not long after the time that i had finally
> started understanding Partch's book (after having to
> read it about 4 times), got the original ideas for my
> microtonal software which is currently under development,
> and had begun my own "genesis" in microtonality. i had
> already wished i'd had perfect pitch in my earlier
> musical training, and now had wished for it even more.
> finding out that my brother had really gave me a sense
> of cosmic injustice. (... if i may be permitted to make
> a pun on one of our favorite terms around here)
>

There are advantages to relative pitch--some might argue BIG advantages.

> your statement about remember "A" prompted me to try to
> "hear" in my mind's ear an orchestra tuning to A-440,
> and my memory produced a "G" a whole-step below A.
> IIRC, most times when i try this, it comes out as "G".
> for some reason, i must have an affinity for that note.
>

I get B-flat this way-- but I've been obsessed with B-flat diatonicity for a couple of
years now.

>
> the creepiest experience i get as a result of tonal memory
> is when i listen to Bruce Springsteen's great album
> _Born To Run_. when track 3 "Night" ends, and there's
> a second or two of silence after it before the next track
> "Backstreets", i can always "hear" the opening chord at
> exactly the pitches that actually do begin a moment later.
> it happens every single time i listen to this album
> (since i first noticed it around 1983), and freaks me
> out every time, just because it feels so weird.
>

I think that's your relative pitch working-- or you've memorized the first chord of the
next piece as if it were part of the end of the first piece -- just as you can find any
chord using relative pitch from a given chord, you can find a chord even after a fair
pause of silence. I have the same premonitory hearing of chords and melodies in my
head before they're played, but I think it's a relative pitch phenomenon. The true test
is to put the record on track 1 and try to guess the opening notes before you've heard
any of the rest of the album. -Justin

hi Justin,

> From: Justin Weaver [mailto:improvist@usa.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Absolute pitch (Was: valve trumpet intonation -
> table)
>
>
> >
> > i was in the kitchen one day making lunch and heard
> > that my brother was playing one note wrong in the
> > driving bass runs. i went down to the basement to
> > point it out to him, and when we isolated the wrong
> > note and i sang the correct one for him, he said
> > "oh, you mean this one?", and put his finger down
> > on exactly the correct fret and played the note which
> > matched my singing. i was flabbergasted.
>
> He could have gotten the note from others he was playing
> just before you corrected him...but I'm sure he has perfect
> pitch if he continued to pick notes 'out of the air'.

oops ... i left out that final part of the story!

yes, indeed, i was so amazed at how directly he found
that first note that i tested him with many others, and
without exception, he put his finger down on the correct
fret every time and matched the notes i sang.

he had never indicated to me before those few months
that he had any real musical aptitude. i figured that
he must have been born with perfect pitch, or else
had figured out some way to learn it somehow when
he was young.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi George,
>
> thanks for one of the most interesting posts i've
> ever read on this list! specifics below ...
> ...
> the creepiest experience i get as a result of tonal memory
> is when i listen to Bruce Springsteen's great album
> _Born To Run_. when track 3 "Night" ends, and there's
> a second or two of silence after it before the next track
> "Backstreets", i can always "hear" the opening chord at
> exactly the pitches that actually do begin a moment later.
> it happens every single time i listen to this album
> (since i first noticed it around 1983), and freaks me
> out every time, just because it feels so weird.

I would agree with Justin that this is an example of relative pitch
memory.

This reminds me of something that I experience sometimes when I run
errands in the car accompanied by my daughter. She almost always
listens to Japanese pop (manga) music on the CD player during these
short trips. Whenever we stop and I turn off the ignition, the music
immediately stops, and I (or we) go about the errand, e.g., putting
gas in the car, or going in to the library or grocery store,
something that can take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes or more. When
I get back in the car, I will frequently hear (in my head) something
from the track that was last playing on the CD (in the right key),
but I don't realize it until I start the car and the music comes back
on, at which point I can't help but be startled by the music.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_45684.html#45909

>
> how interesting that you should comment so much on the
> tempos! i also posted a notice to the Mahler List
> about this file, along with some comments referring
> specifically to my slow tempos.
>
> my guide in this was Mahler himself. from my intensive
> and decades-long research into both Mahler's compositions
> and conducting, i have come to the conclusion that the
> primary charateristic of his performance style was
> _molto rubato_, i.e., an extreme flexibility of tempo.
>

***Kinda off topic, kinda not, but for anybody in New York on October
22 this year, my friend the conductor Charles Zacharie Bornstein is
going to be doing a lecture on Beethoven as conducted by Mahler and
Leonard Bernstein sponsored by the New York Philharmonic, in
conjunction with their performances of Beethoven's works. Bornstein
has worked with Mahler's own copies of the Beethoven scores and, in
fact, just recently made international press in Israel where he
discovered a version of a Mahler symphony with corrections in
Mahler's hand that nobody knew about. (It was big in NY Times and
all the major papers...)

J. Pehrson

hi Joe,

i forwarded your post to the Mahler list for the
sake of tbose able to attend, and got this response.

if this thread continues, let's put it on metatuning.

-monz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Luong [mailto:brunoluong@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:47 AM
> To: mahler
> Subject: [Y! Mahler] FW: [tuning] Re: retuned Mahler 7th
>
>
> Monz forwards:
>
> >> Bornstein has worked with Mahler's own
> >> copies of the Beethoven scores and, in fact,
> >> just recently made international press in Israel
> >> where he discovered a version of a Mahler symphony
> >> with corrections in Mahler's hand that nobody
> >> knew about. (It was b
> >>
> >> J. Pehrson
> >
>
>
> Monz, thanks for the news.
>
> I just want to add a little precision here. The newly
> "discovered" score
> by Bornstein (of the Mahler's first, with the hand writing that
> prematurely announced as that of Mahler) belongs in fact to a
> conductor
> who is *not* Gustav. Much ado about nothing!
>
> Bruno