Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Microtonal Chord Progression Player

HI Paul,

> > Maybe the best e-mail address for me is
> > support@robertinventor.com
> > as that domain is hosted at my web host.

> That's the one we used. It was over a year ago. Thanks for replying,
> and I'm sure the fault does not lie with you!

Thanks, then that explains it!

I've just searched my in folders, and my most recent e-mail from you
is 10/11/01 so if you sent me anything after November 2001 then
I never got it.

Searched again and I've got no messages at all in my inbox
to support @ robertinventor.com before november this year when
I moved it to a new ISP!

As far as I can see, it is configured properly, just in the same way as
the tunesmithy and musicandvirtualflower ones which have
been getting through. I wonder what else I have been missing??

I'll see what they say and whether they know what might have happened.

Meanwhile if anyone else on this list has sent me e-mails
to support @ robertinventor.com then I haven't received them
so sorry about that and try again - it is working fine now.

Hope this hasn't put you off, and that you will e-mail me again with any
support questions about FTS!

> > > One suggestion that immediately comes to mind, though you probably
> > already have it, is to support different types of half-diminished
> > seventh chord: in JI, you have 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4, 5:6:7:9, and
> > 10:12:15:17, and all are distinct and consistently represented in
72-
> > equal.
> >
> > Oh right. I had been calling those mixed over / under chords.

> I'm confused, especially after reading the rest of your message.
> Which of the above would you call mixed over / under chords, and why?
> Why do you think such chords are important?

Sorry, I misread it.

I didn't see the comma in 1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4, 5:6:7:9
and thought you meant the whole thing as a single chord.

I was thinking of ones like
4/7 2/3 4/5 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4

and I just like the sound of them when improvising on the Lambdoma.
In the Lambdoma view I call them "Polytonality" chords becuase
it is a sort of polytonality of the over and undertone series in
the context of the Lambdoma.

Rightio, thanks for the suggestion to explore half-diminished
sevenths. I didn't know about those and have just looked
them up. Here is where I found it btw, seems a good site
for chord theory:

http://www.tonalityguide.com/xxnondom4.php

Will look into it. I'm learning chord theory myself
at the same time as I program the chord progression
player :-).

You can play half diminished sevenths as e.g. Cm7b5

However, I "corrected" the vii7
for the player, not realising that it should
play a diminished fifth in that notation. Will
fix that.

Csm7dim5 will play 1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4
so that is the 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 flavour,
so that one is supported.

One could play also
1/1 6/5 7/5 9/5

by using the notation k for 5-limit j.i. with 10/9 and 9/5,
and s for septimal as, which makes it:

Ckm7sdim5

so that is the 5 6 7 9 chord.

Though - I just found a bug there so need
to fix it first before you can try it out
- it is playing the 9/5 as a 9/10
- transposed down an octave.
Anyway it will work after that.

Then that leaves the 10:12:15:17

That's more of a challenge. I'll
mull it over and see what I come up
with.

In its root position it is
20/17 24/17 30/17 2/1
so that wouldn't be supported
except with much use of the @ notation.

In its first inversion as you presented it
though it is
Cjm@17/10
for
6/5 3/2 17/10 2/1
which isn't quite so cumbersome.

But I wonder, maybe I can do better than that, and
think of some way to integreate
it into a harmonic series notation in its
first inversion,

Something like this:
Cho10m6

where the ho10 means to tune all notes to
harmonic series ratios in a harmonic
series starting at 10/10 11/0 etc.
- where it just goes up the harmonic series
until it encounters a note that is within a
quarter tone of the 12eq pitch.

You could use hu for the undertone series
there and hou for a mixed over and undertone
series so it finds the closest going up and
down both ways at once, and again finds the first
encountered

Then also this suggests the need to be able
to tune a particular inversion
of the chord.

Here we want to tune it in its

So that could be maybe
Ci.ho10m7dim5

where the i. means to do the tuning
for the chord in its first inversion
and you add extra dots there for each
inversion so i.. would be the second
inversion etc. So it tunes it in the
first inversion and thn rotates it
back into the original position to get
the desired chord.

Anyway thanks, I'll think just a bit more
about this and then code it. Not hard
to do the actual coding at all.
Any comments on these ideas at this point?

Thanks,

Robert

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

HI Paul,

Actually come to think of it I think I may have had one e-mail from you at Ara's address
though I can't find it now. Maybe I'm not searching for the right thing.
I seem to remember getting an e-mail from "Paul and Ara".

I remember replying to it too, unless my memory is mixed up about this.
I wonder if perhaps my reply didn't get to you... But I certainly didn't
get many e-mails seeming not to have heard my response as
I'd remember that for sure.

I tried searching for "Ara" in the "From" field just now, but couldn't find anything
that looked like it could be it. I suppose come to think of it though,
maybe it was an e-mail on MMM or this forum rather than one that I
got via my in-box.

Yes surely they are going to be welcome additions, those chords.
I'll code for them.

Maybe coding the inversion into the
symbol won't be necessary (unless I get asked for it)
as user could just specify it as an inversion
of Cm6. Pretty much planned out how to code the over and under
notations and will do it with next upload, and will give these diminished
half seventh chords as an example of the notation. The coding itself
will prob. take not long at all once I set down to it, maybe tomorrow
or so.

Just downloaded your paper too, with all the key signatures
for decatonic scales, and the other one with the lattice diagrams.
One thing it shows already at a first glance over -
clearly the roman numeral notation has to be able to go above
vii - may as well do a little roman numeral parser for those
when it comes to it.

Anyway thanks again for the suggestion.

Hope you will try out the new FTS at some point and let me know
your comments and I really appreciate all bug reports or
reports of anything unclear or hard to find in the interface
or the help, suggestions for the future etc etc.

Thanks,

Robert

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Paul

I've added that harmonic overtone and undertone notation and those three
Cm6 chords to the microtonal chord progression player.

See http://tunesmithy.netfirms.com/fts_help/chord_progr_player.htm#ex_Cm6

Also, looking at your paper, I have had a few preliminary ideas about how
to add in the decatonic chords notation for 22 equal.

Idea is to allow the user to set a major mode, e.g.
Standard Pentachordal Major:
0 2 4 7 9 11 13 16 18 20 (22)
and a minor mode, e.g.
Standard Pentachordal Minor:
0 2 4 6 9 11 13 15 17 19 (22)

But not really sure how to use those in the notation.
- sketched out a few ideas but they aren't entirely
satisfactory.

ie. how to interpret, e.g. I9 and i9 (9 here = "seventh" of 12 eq)
when one wants to make a distinction between major and minor depending on the
numeral as upper or lower.

If one keeps to notes within the mode and not permit
chromatically altered notes it is very simple of course
to do, so that can certainly be done.

Do you have any thoughts about what I9 and i9 should
be as scale degrees, and ditto for the other upper and lower case
symbols in the Roman numeral notation? (and
their flats and sharps and augmented and diminished
chords)?

Thing is that in 12 eq of course the I7 is always 7b
to make it a dominant seventh of the subdominant.
But what should one do here? I suppose rotate the
scale around so the 9 is 18. But what about e.g. I9sus2
- should the 2 there be chromatically altered too?
- I mean as 0 3 isntead of 0 2. Perhaps?

First thought anyway is:
I9 = 1 4 7 9 (11) tuned to the subdominant key = 0 7 13 18
Im9 = 1 4 7 9 (11) in the minor mode = 0 6 13 17 (22)
where I suppose the m and M symbols should be thought of as
affecting the entire chord - immediately after the note name
the effect goes forwards and backwards and if used later in
the chord then it goes forwards only to affect notes that follow.
So the seventh in Im9 is 17 and in I9 is 18.

So ImM9 = 0 6 13 18 (22)
and IMm9 = 0 7 13 17 (22)

And Isus2 possibly as tuned to the subdominant too
= 1 2 4 7 9 (11) = 0 3 7 13 18 (22)

Can do I and i for major and minor and the sequence
of triads in the Pentachordal Major is then
I II III iv V VI VII viii ix x (XI)
and then for the dominant "seventh" (i.e. ninth) chords it is
I9 II9aug7 III9aug7 iv9 Vm9 VI9 VII9 viii9 ix9 xM9

where that uses the upper / lower case convention so
xM9 is the minor major chord and Vm9 is the major minor chord.

But that is a bit hard to remember. So would do
a "keep to mode" option and perhaps use an '%' for that,
so in 12-eq %I is I and %II is ii etc
so here with this example, %II9 will mean II9aug7 and %V9 will mean Vm9 etc
which will save the newbie user from the need to remember
which chords are which, and indeed be easier to type for everyone.
(I have just added this % notation in for 12-eq in most recentupload)

Anyway, if the tricky issues can get sorted out, this general idea
is immediately generalisable to scales with any number
of notes - you just need to set a "major" and "minor" mode and you can then
immediately use the notation, leaving the user free to do something
totally unconventional there too if they so wish, no restriction on
what has to count as major or minor modes.

So, that is the first thought that springs to mind for this.
What do you think? Any suggestions or ideas of other approaches to
follow up?

What do you think about these ideas? Not that there is probably a
single "right" answer but maybe we can come up with something that
is a fairly natural extension of the 12 eq notation.

One would also need a way of showing that the entire chord progression is
to be interpreted in 22 equal because that affects how all the
numbers are interpreted in the chords, e.g. 9 instead of 7 for the "seventh"
of twelve equal, and there maybe just prefix
the start of the progression with "eq22" to do that.
Indeed, that would then let user change notation in the middle of the progression
if they wish.

This gives the flexibility to use this notation even with scales that
aren't themselves 22 equal, e.g. j.i. 22 tone scales or ones
with more or less notes because the chord symbols would actually pick
out exact pitches in 22eq, then use closest to those in the currently
selected scale.

I'll think it over a bit before doing it as it is the sort of thing
where you can probably find a neat way of doing it that makes the
coding much easier. Amount of code needed is probably rather modest,
only a few dozen or maybe at most a couple of hundred lines of so.
But it is a matter of deciding what one wants to achieve with it.

Thanks,

Robert

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> I've added that harmonic overtone and undertone notation and those
three
> Cm6 chords to the microtonal chord progression player.
>
> See
http://tunesmithy.netfirms.com/fts_help/chord_progr_player.htm#ex_Cm6

I think you got one of the chords wrong -- 1/1 6/5 3/2 5/3 should be
1/1 6/5 3/2 12/7 (which I called 1/(4:5:6:7) and 1/6:1/5:1/4:2/7)) --
it's the minor tetrad of my paper.

> Also, looking at your paper, I have had a few preliminary ideas
about how
> to add in the decatonic chords notation for 22 equal.

Thanks for taking the time to look at it! And if you get a chance,
try making up some chord progressions; you can pretty drag four
sticks fractally through the decatonic sand and come up with nice
harmonies.

> Idea is to allow the user to set a major mode, e.g.
> Standard Pentachordal Major:
> 0 2 4 7 9 11 13 16 18 20 (22)
> and a minor mode, e.g.
> Standard Pentachordal Minor:
> 0 2 4 6 9 11 13 15 17 19 (22)
>
> But not really sure how to use those in the notation.
> - sketched out a few ideas but they aren't entirely
> satisfactory.
>
> ie. how to interpret, e.g. I9 and i9 (9 here = "seventh" of 12 eq)
> when one wants to make a distinction between major and minor
depending on the
> numeral as upper or lower.

What's the letter "I" here? Is it a Roman numeral? If so, you
wouldn't even have the 9 on the symbol, if the chord you mean is 0-7-
13-18 in 22-equal.

> If one keeps to notes within the mode and not permit
> chromatically altered notes it is very simple of course
> to do, so that can certainly be done.

Sounds good for the basic chord symbols -- as long as there's also a
way to permit chromatically altered notes, as in the diatonic case.

> Do you have any thoughts about what I9 and i9 should
> be as scale degrees,

Hmm . . . I'm not sure why you would want to use the symbol 9. I
guess the 'default' is 1-4-7-9.

> and ditto for the other upper and lower case
> symbols in the Roman numeral notation?

I'm visiting this point in your message from the future. Capital
means major tetrad, lower case means minor tetrad, just like they
mean major triad and minor triad in diatonic music, where the
diminished triad is viio or iio and augmented is III+, so you could
use + for augmented decatonic tetrads too.

> (and
> their flats and sharps and augmented and diminished
> chords)?

Should work out alright . . .

> Thing is that in 12 eq of course the I7 is always 7b
> to make it a dominant seventh of the subdominant.
> But what should one do here? I suppose rotate the
> scale around so the 9 is 18. But what about e.g. I9sus2
> - should the 2 there be chromatically altered too?
> - I mean as 0 3 isntead of 0 2. Perhaps?

How would a sus2 arise in the decatonic system? It wouldn't seem to,
but . . . I'm afraid we may have to take this more slowly.

> First thought anyway is:
> I9 = 1 4 7 9 (11) tuned to the subdominant key = 0 7 13 18

I'd just call it I, not I9.

> Im9 = 1 4 7 9 (11) in the minor mode = 0 6 13 17 (22)

Yes!

> where I suppose the m and M symbols should be thought of as
> affecting the entire chord - immediately after the note name
> the effect goes forwards and backwards and if used later in
> the chord then it goes forwards only to affect notes that follow.
> So the seventh in Im9 is 17 and in I9 is 18.
>
> So ImM9 = 0 6 13 18 (22)
> and IMm9 = 0 7 13 17 (22)

Those chords are defined in my paper, so again, you can drop the 9
from the designation.

> And Isus2 possibly as tuned to the subdominant too
> = 1 2 4 7 9 (11) = 0 3 7 13 18 (22)

Now I'm really confused. Diatonically speaking, Isus2 and Isus4
chords have the same number of notes as I chords. And why would
you "tune to the subdominant"?

> Can do I and i for major and minor and the sequence
> of triads in the Pentachordal Major is then
> I II III iv V VI VII viii ix x (XI)

Should be tetrads,

I II+ III+ iv VMm VI VII viii ix xmM

> and then for the dominant "seventh" (i.e. ninth) chords it is
> I9 II9aug7 III9aug7 iv9 Vm9 VI9 VII9 viii9 ix9 xM9

See above. If you want no 9 you can use the no9 symbol.

> But that is a bit hard to remember. So would do
> a "keep to mode" option and perhaps use an '%' for that,
> so in 12-eq %I is I and %II is ii etc

nice

> so here with this example, %II9 will mean II9aug7 and %V9 will mean
Vm9 etc
> which will save the newbie user from the need to remember
> which chords are which, and indeed be easier to type for everyone.

Well, as you can in the table on page 11 on my paper, this is the way
I did it, though I used I II III IV V VI VIII IX and X to mean the
tetrads occuring as 1-4-7-9, in each of the eight given modes.

> Anyway, if the tricky issues can get sorted out, this general idea
> is immediately generalisable to scales with any number
> of notes - you just need to set a "major" and "minor" mode and you
can then
> immediately use the notation,

or maybe eight modes! :)

> leaving the user free to do something
> totally unconventional there too if they so wish, no restriction on
> what has to count as major or minor modes.
>
> So, that is the first thought that springs to mind for this.
> What do you think?

Cool stuff! You can try to, ultimately, support all the notations
SCALA supports . . .

> One would also need a way of showing that the entire chord
progression is
> to be interpreted in 22 equal

Or any such 'decatonic' tuning . . .

> because that affects how all the
> numbers are interpreted in the chords, e.g. 9 instead of 7 for
the "seventh"
> of twelve equal,

Or any diatonic tuning, presumably . . .

> and there maybe just prefix
> the start of the progression with "eq22" to do that.

Well, you would eventually be able to notate other scales that 22-
equal supports (including, for example, 'Pythagorean/septimal'
diatonic scales I mention in my paper that go 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 for the
minor mode, etc), so it's really not 22-equal that needs to be
specified . . .

> This gives the flexibility to use this notation even with scales
that
> aren't themselves 22 equal, e.g. j.i. 22 tone scales or ones
> with more or less notes because the chord symbols would actually
pick
> out exact pitches in 22eq, then use closest to those in the
currently
> selected scale.

Just as conventional notation really only works out in meantone
scales (without getting unexpected "wolves" and the like), decatonic
notation would work out only in certain tuning systems.

> I'll think it over a bit before doing it as it is the sort of thing
> where you can probably find a neat way of doing it that makes the
> coding much easier. Amount of code needed is probably rather modest,
> only a few dozen or maybe at most a couple of hundred lines of so.
> But it is a matter of deciding what one wants to achieve with it.

Hopefully the above is a start. I'd love to go further!

🔗Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com>

Hi Paul,

> > In minor keys, presumably it is III in classical notation,

> Yes.

> > for the IIIb which I think you would use in the popular mixed
> >notation.

> I doubt that, Robert.

I'm sure I've seen it like that.

Here:

http://www.torvund.net/guitar/progressions/LaFolia.asp

> > Okay - I understand that this doesn't apply to the classical
notation.
> > But would apply to the popular notation. The C7 has a Bb because
> > it is a diatonic chord of F major, though it can also be used
> > as a chromatically altered chord in other keys.

> OK, but that doesn't apply for decatonic music, where there
are "seventh chords" all over the scale!

Fine. Right I suppose that is the point, while diatonic music has
only the one, decatonic has lots, so a single seventh chord could
be a non chromatically altered decatonic chord for several tonics.

> Diatonic harmony falls apart in 53-equal, or any other non-meantone.

I suppose the point is that if it is a non meantone n-et then some diatonic progressions
will lead to diesis shifts.

> > not the best one for a particular context. So maybe user
> > has to be able to decide on a just interpretation of
> > the chord symbols or something. Maybe this can be
> > left to later; I think it could get rather complex...

> Yeah, I think this should be handled mathematically, according to
> mappings of the basic lattice intervals.

Maybe it will link in somehow with the work on the real time adaptive
tunings later on then... But I may just leave it user
specified as the easy way out :-).

I've just programmed the classical roman numerals for 12t, and with
the no to omit notes btw & working, but not yet uploaded, a bit more to do
before it is quite ready, mainly to write some help for it and test
it a bit. It also lets you set a key signature
now when you use the roman numerals, and change the key signature
at any point in the progression, using e.g. Ebminor, Fmajor
etc (all one word). Prob. ready quite soon.

Looks though as if things to do with changing the interpretation
of the major and degree numbers will prob. have to wait a bit though,
can't see a nice neat way of doing it with the existing code
right now (If I'd thought about that in advance, when starting on this then
it might have been another matter). Will see again later...

Anyway will finish this and the classical roman numerals now.

Thanks,

Robert