Note to Herman on Pelogic

Hi Herman . . .

Been thinking, and it seems (though I may have missed a lot this
weekend) that you were employing a different strategy for pelogic
than for (all of?) the other temperaments on your page . . .

Am I correct that for all the other temperaments, you simply began
with the piece in JI and mapped it to the corresponding pitches in
the temperament?

But that in pelogic, you mapped the generators of the meantone
version of the piece to the generators of pelogic, thus flipping
major and minor?

I agree that the latter is a fantastic way to use pelogic, and is one
of the things that's so much fun about it. But mapping from JI to
pelogic would of course keep major major and minor minor, though
perhaps leading to a less appealing result when remapping the
diatonic scale than the other strategy.

So I think we need (just mean would enjoy, really) *two* pelogic
versions . . . Now, does any other temperament generate its 5-limit
triads in the same pattern as meantone: [..xx..x..] and [..x..xx..]
but with a different generator?

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:20:41 -0000, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:

>Hi Herman . . .
>
>Been thinking, and it seems (though I may have missed a lot this
>weekend) that you were employing a different strategy for pelogic
>than for (all of?) the other temperaments on your page . . .
>
>Am I correct that for all the other temperaments, you simply began
>with the piece in JI and mapped it to the corresponding pitches in
>the temperament?

That's true for most of them. Blackjack and a few of the others are
obviously mapped differently, and some like pelog and the Chopi scale were
just mapped note for note.

>But that in pelogic, you mapped the generators of the meantone
>version of the piece to the generators of pelogic, thus flipping
>major and minor?

Yes, I thought that would be the most appropriate way to test the sound of
the "top" pelogic tuning. But I agree that it might be nice to have two
different versions in the case of pelogic.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

on 1/11/04 4:19 PM, Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:20:41 -0000, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Herman . . .
>>
>> Been thinking, and it seems (though I may have missed a lot this
>> weekend) that you were employing a different strategy for pelogic
>> than for (all of?) the other temperaments on your page . . .
>>
>> Am I correct that for all the other temperaments, you simply began
>> with the piece in JI and mapped it to the corresponding pitches in
>> the temperament?
>
> That's true for most of them. Blackjack and a few of the others are
> obviously mapped differently, and some like pelog and the Chopi scale were
> just mapped note for note.
>
>> But that in pelogic, you mapped the generators of the meantone
>> version of the piece to the generators of pelogic, thus flipping
>> major and minor?
>
> Yes, I thought that would be the most appropriate way to test the sound of
> the "top" pelogic tuning. But I agree that it might be nice to have two
> different versions in the case of pelogic.

[I'm assuming we are talking about the warped canon page here. Else
apologies.]

Yes, and it would maybe be helpful also to label which approach was used for
each item on the page.

I also had a hunch when I looked at your page that more than one different
approach was being used, but my hunch was less educated than Paul's. The
reason I bring it up is because my hunch was so loose and intuitive that I
couldn't really learn much from it. If things were notated a little more it
might have actually helped me learn something. Since this page is a
potential gold mine for newbies, it might be valuable to annotate it a
little more.

So then it would be helpful if each approach used were also described
briefly on the page, sort of like Paul started to describe, but perhaps with
a little more hand-holding on exactly how the mapping is done. The means by
which different inversi��ұare applied is also not clear to me.

Thanks.

-Kurt