TOP tuned overtones

On http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/meantop.htm you can find two
versions of the same Bach prelude and fugue, both in TOP meantone.
One has its partials shifted to those of TOP meantone, and the other
has integer-valued overtones. The files were created with Csound,
which seems to have put key-clicks in, despite the fact that there
are no keys. If I ever get a response to my request to join the
Csound mailing list perhaps I can find out what that's all about and
what can be done about it, but the comparison is interesting as it
stands.

I hear a lot of horrible dissonances here. Plus, isn't the pitch too
high (maybe by an octave)?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> On http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/meantop.htm you can find two
> versions of the same Bach prelude and fugue, both in TOP meantone.
> One has its partials shifted to those of TOP meantone, and the
other
> has integer-valued overtones. The files were created with Csound,
> which seems to have put key-clicks in, despite the fact that there
> are no keys. If I ever get a response to my request to join the
> Csound mailing list perhaps I can find out what that's all about
and
> what can be done about it, but the comparison is interesting as it
> stands.

For this Ab major example, wouldn't Hafner have used the 12 meantone
pitches Gb-B? It seems you might have used the 12 meantone pitches Ab-
C# instead.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I hear a lot of horrible dissonances here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> I hear a lot of horrible dissonances here. Plus, isn't the pitch
too
> high (maybe by an octave)?

I brought it down an octave from what midi2cs gave me; maybe I should
have brought it down two! As for the dissonances, are you sure they
aren't in the score, and Csound is simply bringing them out?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> For this Ab major example, wouldn't Hafner have used the 12 meantone
> pitches Gb-B? It seems you might have used the 12 meantone pitches
Ab-
> C# instead.

Ah. I'd better check; I was more worried about other aspects of this
business.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

I've got much improved versions up now. I fixed the tuning, and since
the mushy attack and formant filtering I was using didn't seem to
help, I changed them. Apparently the formants I was using, despite
the fact I got them out of the book, weren't right; my replacements
got rid of the click and sound better.

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/meantop.htm

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

I don't know the exact point where this detuned partials business
really starts to go to hell, but am reporting that pelog seems to be
past it.

By the way, where is everyone? This place is DEAD.

>I don't know the exact point where this detuned partials business
>really starts to go to hell, but am reporting that pelog seems to
>be past it.

I'd like to hear that.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> I don't know the exact point where this detuned partials business
> really starts to go to hell, but am reporting that pelog seems to
be
> past it.
>
> By the way, where is everyone? This place is DEAD.

I liked the second one better. It sounds fuller and more natural. I
once experimented with 7-equal with detuned partials and it sounded
pretty horrible with sustained sounds.

Kalle

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> I don't know the exact point where this detuned partials business
> really starts to go to hell, but am reporting that pelog seems to
be
> past it.

Bill Sethares goes much further than that on his CD/book/website,
using 11-equal and the like. Can we listen to whatever you did (was
is TOP pelogic)? I already posted an example with TOP pelogic
partials on tuning-math, and even George Secor couldn't detect the
inharmonicity there (though it was easy for a long, sustained tone).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know the exact point where this detuned partials business
> > really starts to go to hell, but am reporting that pelog seems to
> be
> > past it.

> Bill Sethares goes much further than that on his CD/book/website,
> using 11-equal and the like. Can we listen to whatever you did (was
> is TOP pelogic)? I already posted an example with TOP pelogic
> partials on tuning-math, and even George Secor couldn't detect the
> inharmonicity there (though it was easy for a long, sustained tone).

It's just my opinion. For that matter I agree with the assessment
that the detuned partials for meantone don't sound quite as nice as
the just partials do, though clearly the harmony is a little
smoother. I have a theory that there might be a point where the
detuned partials actually sound better, but we would need more
accurate temperaments to test, and since the difference would be very
slight, we probably would not get anything very conclusive.

Mysterious Mush is now up on my mad science page:

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

I might add that my reaction is not primarily one of hearing. I
listen to Mysterious Mush, and it sounds fine--some parts of it
rather lovely. Yet something in my brain is having problems--I find
myself becoming tense and anxious, and start to develop a headache.
I've noticed that reaction before, both with Bill's stuff and my
experiments. It might be an interesting thing for a psychologist to
study.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know the exact point where this detuned partials
business
> > > really starts to go to hell, but am reporting that pelog seems
to
> > be
> > > past it.
>
> > Bill Sethares goes much further than that on his CD/book/website,
> > using 11-equal and the like. Can we listen to whatever you did
(was
> > is TOP pelogic)? I already posted an example with TOP pelogic
> > partials on tuning-math, and even George Secor couldn't detect
the
> > inharmonicity there (though it was easy for a long, sustained
tone).
>
> It's just my opinion. For that matter I agree with the assessment
> that the detuned partials for meantone don't sound quite as nice as
> the just partials do,

I agree with that too, but only for this particular Bach example, and
not necessarily in general. The version with harmonic timbres has
a "healthy glow" and paradoxically seems more consonant than the
version where the timbre matches the tuning.

> I have a theory that there might be a point where the
> detuned partials actually sound better, but we would need more
> accurate temperaments to test, and since the difference would be
very
> slight, we probably would not get anything very conclusive.

Sethares's book/CD seems to makes it clear (with some 4-way listening
comparisons) that in many instances where the differences are quite
large, matching timbre to tuning does result in improvement.

> Mysterious Mush is now up on my mad science page:
>
> http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html

Thanks!! Hmm . . . you say pelog but you really mean pelogic, don't
you? Do you mean TOP pelogic? (BTW, could you put the 'original' or
meantone version of this piece somewhere for comparison,
please) . . . Anyway, I can't figure out what you hear as being past
the point of "going to hell". Maybe if you burned a CD and listened
on good equipment (if you haven't already) . . . or maybe your ears
would be more accepting if you used a timbre which started decaying
immediately rather than sustaining like an organ . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> I might add that my reaction is not primarily one of hearing. I
> listen to Mysterious Mush, and it sounds fine--some parts of it
> rather lovely. Yet something in my brain is having problems--I find
> myself becoming tense and anxious, and start to develop a headache.
> I've noticed that reaction before, both with Bill's stuff and my
> experiments. It might be an interesting thing for a psychologist to
> study.

Yes, indeed -- and a double-blind test would be needed, of course!
Anyway, the biggest promoter of Bill's stuff has been Brian, and he's
certainly been known to make people tense and anxious and headachy
before! :)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > I have a theory that there might be a point where the
> > detuned partials actually sound better, but we would need more
> > accurate temperaments to test, and since the difference would be
> very
> > slight, we probably would not get anything very conclusive.
>
> Sethares's book/CD seems to makes it clear (with some 4-way
listening
> comparisons) that in many instances where the differences are quite
> large, matching timbre to tuning does result in improvement.

I wasn't suggesting better at matching the tuning--I wonder if a
slight detuning might just sound very slightly better--say, when we
get down to miracle, or even past it, by making the partials shift
phase. It seems clear to me that if it ever happens, you would need
more tuning accuracy than meantone to make it happen.

> > Mysterious Mush is now up on my mad science page:
> >
> > http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html
>
> Thanks!! Hmm . . . you say pelog but you really mean pelogic, don't
> you? Do you mean TOP pelogic?

Right; I'd better change that.

(BTW, could you put the 'original' or
> meantone version of this piece somewhere for comparison,
> please) . . . Anyway, I can't figure out what you hear as being
past
> the point of "going to hell". Maybe if you burned a CD and listened
> on good equipment (if you haven't already) . . . or maybe your ears
> would be more accepting if you used a timbre which started decaying
> immediately rather than sustaining like an organ . . .

My ears seem happy; it's as if my brain is objecting. I'd be
interested to learn if this is just me, and if it is a real
phenomenon. Whatever it is it's what really made me give up on Csound
before; of course that's a little silly since Csound hardly requires
one to detune partials. I already know that what seems to drive most
people nuts I like and vice-versa, so who knows what the real deal is
and if we can find it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> I wasn't suggesting better at matching the tuning--I wonder if a
> slight detuning might just sound very slightly better--say, when we
> get down to miracle, or even past it, by making the partials shift
> phase. It seems clear to me that if it ever happens, you would need
> more tuning accuracy than meantone to make it happen.

I'm guessing you're talking about the tone quality of a single note,
but mentioning meantone and miracle is making me less sure. Would you
care to clarify?

> > or maybe your ears
> > would be more accepting if you used a timbre which started
decaying
> > immediately rather than sustaining like an organ . . .
>
> My ears seem happy; it's as if my brain is objecting.

OK, maybe your *brain* would be more accepting if you used a timbre
which started decaying immediately rather than sustaining like an
organ. In nature, instruments (including the human voice) which are
capable of non-decaying sustain are never inharmonic; maybe your
brain somehow objects to the 'crime against nature' you're committing
with CSound. Wildly speculating . . . but who knows?

> I might add that my reaction is not primarily one of
> hearing. I listen to Mysterious Mush, and it sounds
> fine--some parts of it rather lovely. Yet something in
> my brain is having problems--I find myself becoming
> tense and anxious, and start to develop a headache.

I'm definitely becoming tense and anxious because of
hearing. The mush music is obnoxious, and the base
organ timbre that you've been using sounds just like
the one from Ben Denckla's thesis (also done in CSound),
that drives me up a wall. But I think the setharized
mush is mush preferrable. In the Bach example I didn't
hear a difference worth arguing over.

> I've noticed that reaction before, both with Bill's
> stuff and my experiments.

Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.

> It might be an interesting thing for a psychologist
> to study.

What would be interesting is piece of decent music
rendered in a decent timbre, in a temperament with
errors in the neighborhood of 12-equal (which works
very well on drawbar organs to my ears), such as
augmented, porcupine, or pajara.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > Mysterious Mush is now up on my mad science page:
> >
> > http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html
>
> Thanks!! Hmm . . . you say pelog but you really mean pelogic, don't
> you? Do you mean TOP pelogic? (BTW, could you put the 'original' or
> meantone version of this piece somewhere for comparison,
> please) . . .

There's a link to the original on the page now also; plus, I've got
new versions up with faster tempos.

Anyway, I can't figure out what you hear as being past
> the point of "going to hell". Maybe if you burned a CD and listened
> on good equipment (if you haven't already) . . . or maybe your ears
> would be more accepting if you used a timbre which started decaying
> immediately rather than sustaining like an organ . . .

Plus I changed to an exponential decay, but it still sounds like an
organ.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

> What would be interesting is piece of decent music
> rendered in a decent timbre, in a temperament with
> errors in the neighborhood of 12-equal (which works
> very well on drawbar organs to my ears), such as
> augmented, porcupine, or pajara.

I think I already did that with the Bach meantone example.

>Plus I changed to an exponential decay, but it still sounds
>like an organ.

You missed pelog in "warped to pelog" and "TOP pelog".

-Carl

>> What would be interesting is piece of decent music
>> rendered in a decent timbre, in a temperament with
>> errors in the neighborhood of 12-equal (which works
>> very well on drawbar organs to my ears), such as
>> augmented, porcupine, or pajara.
>
>I think I already did that with the Bach meantone example.

Meantone is too accurate. Also the timbre was annoying.

I am glad you're getting into CSound, though!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

> What would be interesting is piece of decent music
> rendered in a decent timbre...

Speaking of decent timbres, while I find the additive synthesis
timbres pleasant, there is a lot you can't do with Csound if you just
stick to the idea of detuning partials. I've got a piece cooking in
2401/2400-planar, a temperament which no one has gotten around to
naming. Since it hardly needs any help from detuned partials, I may
try some delay lines on for size.

> faster tempo, exponential decay

This is a vast improvement over the previous versions.

It's really hard to say which tunilation I "prefer". While
the sonorities in mushc sound smoother, it misses some of the
characteristic sound of the pelogic scale and the timbre is
noticeable more sour.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Meantone is too accurate. Also the timbre was annoying.

Those timbres were the very essence of innocuousness. Don't you like
innocuous?

>> Meantone is too accurate. Also the timbre was annoying.
>
>Those timbres were the very essence of innocuousness. Don't you like
>innocuous?

I guess not. -C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > faster tempo, exponential decay
>
> This is a vast improvement over the previous versions.
>
> It's really hard to say which tunilation I "prefer". While
> the sonorities in mushc sound smoother, it misses some of the
> characteristic sound of the pelogic scale and the timbre is
> noticeable more sour.

I can listen to it with no trouble and a smile on my face, sour notes
and all. Mysterious Mush, for some reason, bothers me.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
> digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
> it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.

Do you mean "loose" or "lose"?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > > Mysterious Mush is now up on my mad science page:
> > >
> > > http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html
> >
> > Thanks!! Hmm . . . you say pelog but you really mean pelogic,
don't
> > you? Do you mean TOP pelogic? (BTW, could you put the 'original'
or
> > meantone version of this piece somewhere for comparison,
> > please) . . .
>
> There's a link to the original on the page now also;

If the original starts with a major triad, how can the
pelogic "warpage" also start with a major triad? I would have thought
all major triads would become minor, and vice versa. What exactly are
you doing?

> Plus I changed to an exponential decay, but it still sounds like an
> organ.

You're using a time constant of . . . a minute? Of course it still
sounds like an organ -- try a much faster decay, so that it's
actually audible.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > Meantone is too accurate. Also the timbre was annoying.
>
> Those timbres were the very essence of innocuousness.

I disagree -- it sounded like the formant for the lower voice was too
high.

>> Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
>> digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
>> it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.
>
>Do you mean "loose" or "lose"?

Either.

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
> >> digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
> >> it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.
> >
> >Do you mean "loose" or "lose"?
>
> Either.

Huh! What would the former mean?

>> >> Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
>> >> digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
>> >> it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.
>> >
>> >Do you mean "loose" or "lose"?
>>
>> Either.
>
>Huh! What would the former mean?

Have you no sense of the poetic? It would mean some glue
that was there was loosened.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> If the original starts with a major triad, how can the
> pelogic "warpage" also start with a major triad? I would have
thought
> all major triads would become minor, and vice versa. What exactly
are
> you doing?

We have (3/2)^4/5 = 81/80, which warps to (4/3)^4/(10/3)=128/135. So,
a 1--3/2--5/2 chord warps to a 1--4/3--5/3 chord--both major. In
short, what I'm doing is sending 3/2-->4/3, and retuning to pelogic.

> > Plus I changed to an exponential decay, but it still sounds like
an
> > organ.
>
> You're using a time constant of . . . a minute?

I'm just using the suggested value in the "linenr" envelope function,
where I'm told that if the number is too much higher or lower than
0.01, the result may be goofy. The documentation for Csound is
terrible, and this is a typical example:

iatdec - attenuation factor by which the closing "steady state" value
is reduced exponentially over the decay period. This value must be
positive and is normally of the order of .01. A large or excessively
small value is apt to produce a cutoff which is audible. A zero or
neg value is illegal.

You tell me what iatdec does, precisely, and what value it should
have.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > If the original starts with a major triad, how can the
> > pelogic "warpage" also start with a major triad? I would have
> thought
> > all major triads would become minor, and vice versa. What exactly
> are
> > you doing?

By the way, does anyone want the major/minor warpage instead? That
would be a lot more recognizable, which I was trying to avoid. If you
first transform to a minor version, and then major--> minor pelog
warp that version, you should just end up with a pelog version in
major, come to that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > If the original starts with a major triad, how can the
> > pelogic "warpage" also start with a major triad? I would have
> thought
> > all major triads would become minor, and vice versa. What exactly
> are
> > you doing?
>
> We have (3/2)^4/5 = 81/80, which warps to (4/3)^4/(10/3)=128/135.
So,
> a 1--3/2--5/2 chord warps to a 1--4/3--5/3 chord--both major. In
> short, what I'm doing is sending 3/2-->4/3, and retuning to pelogic.

Hmm . . . so the meantone diatonic scale becomes . . . ?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If the original starts with a major triad, how can the
> > > pelogic "warpage" also start with a major triad? I would have
> > thought
> > > all major triads would become minor, and vice versa. What
exactly
> > are
> > > you doing?
>
> By the way, does anyone want the major/minor warpage instead? That
> would be a lot more recognizable, which I was trying to avoid.

It would still be awfully exotic, and I doubt many people are that
familiar with Couperin anyhow.

> If you
> first transform to a minor version,

How?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52628

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> I might add that my reaction is not primarily one of hearing. I
> listen to Mysterious Mush, and it sounds fine--some parts of it
> rather lovely. Yet something in my brain is having problems--I find
> myself becoming tense and anxious, and start to develop a headache.
> I've noticed that reaction before, both with Bill's stuff and my
> experiments. It might be an interesting thing for a psychologist to
> study.

***I don't have this problem at all. Maybe my brain doesn't work in
this quantifiable way. (Or maybe it just doesn't work... :) but I'm
just as happy about it. It's kind of like people with "absolute
pitch" who can't enjoy anything but the specific frequencies they've
learned...

I think _Mysterious Mush_ is the most interesting thing Gene has ever
done. And I like the TOP-tempered version *far* above the Just
version. To me it just shows that Just Intonation is not always
superior compositionally.

I used to dream of music out of time and out of traditional tuning
systems... kind of like an aural equivalent of Paul Erlich's harmonic
entropy visuals, where one wanders in space and listens to near
harmonies coming in and out of focus, without limitations of
particular systems or preconceptions.

Although I realize that _Mush_ *is* in a system, that's the
psychological effect this has for me. It's just wonderful. And, the
Just version, with everything so definite, has nowhere near this
effect for me.

Just don't tell anybody that the music is really detuned Couperin :)
It sure doesn't sound like it. It's very beautiful...

Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52644

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > faster tempo, exponential decay
> >
> > This is a vast improvement over the previous versions.
> >
> > It's really hard to say which tunilation I "prefer". While
> > the sonorities in mushc sound smoother, it misses some of the
> > characteristic sound of the pelogic scale and the timbre is
> > noticeable more sour.
>
> I can listen to it with no trouble and a smile on my face, sour
notes
> and all. Mysterious Mush, for some reason, bothers me.

***You think too much... and that's definitely dangerous... :)

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52652

> >> >> Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
> >> >> digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
> >> >> it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.
> >> >
> >> >Do you mean "loose" or "lose"?
> >>
> >> Either.
> >
> >Huh! What would the former mean?
>
> Have you no sense of the poetic? It would mean some glue
> that was there was loosened.
>
> -Carl

***Loose glue sinks ships, as well...

JP

Hi Joseph! It doesn't look like Gene responded to this, so I will
have a go . . .

> I think _Mysterious Mush_ is the most interesting thing Gene has
ever
> done. And I like the TOP-tempered version *far* above the Just
> version. To me it just shows that Just Intonation is not always
> superior compositionally.

Just Intonation? I don't think there's a Just Intonation version of
this piece. In both of them the *tuning* is TOP pelogic temperament.
What you're comparing is the same piece with two different sets of
*timbres*: the "Mush" version has inharmonic timbres, while the other
version has harmonic timbres (like the familiar vocal, wind, and
bowed string timbres). In fact, the "Mush" version has timbre matched
to tuning, so there's a lot less beating -- precisely the kind of
effect that many value Just Intonation for!

Gene, please correct me if I'm wrong -- and please, pretty please,
answer my last few questions!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52696

> Hi Joseph! It doesn't look like Gene responded to this, so I will
> have a go . . .
>
> > I think _Mysterious Mush_ is the most interesting thing Gene has
> ever
> > done. And I like the TOP-tempered version *far* above the Just
> > version. To me it just shows that Just Intonation is not always
> > superior compositionally.
>
> Just Intonation? I don't think there's a Just Intonation version of
> this piece. In both of them the *tuning* is TOP pelogic
temperament.
> What you're comparing is the same piece with two different sets of
> *timbres*: the "Mush" version has inharmonic timbres, while the
other
> version has harmonic timbres (like the familiar vocal, wind, and
> bowed string timbres). In fact, the "Mush" version has timbre
matched
> to tuning, so there's a lot less beating -- precisely the kind of
> effect that many value Just Intonation for!
>
> Gene, please correct me if I'm wrong -- and please, pretty please,
> answer my last few questions!

***Thanks, Paul. This was really confusing, since it's true what I
thought was the "just" version seemed to have more beating... I
thought maybe it was because it was nearing just intonation and there
were limitations in the equipment so one heard the beats more
distinctly.

Now I understand, though, that both examples were TOP temperament
with different timbres and what I thought was the "just" version just
has harmonic timbres which don't work quite as nicely with TOP.

Thanks for helping to eliminate at least a *bit* of the confusion!!

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Gene, please correct me if I'm wrong -- and please, pretty please,
> answer my last few questions!

Which were?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > Gene, please correct me if I'm wrong -- and please, pretty
please,
> > answer my last few questions!
>
> Which were?

/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52655
/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52656

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > We have (3/2)^4/5 = 81/80, which warps to (4/3)^4/(10/3)=128/135.
> So,
> > a 1--3/2--5/2 chord warps to a 1--4/3--5/3 chord--both major. In
> > short, what I'm doing is sending 3/2-->4/3, and retuning to pelogic.
>
> Hmm . . . so the meantone diatonic scale becomes . . . ?

It doesn't matter if you use forths or fifths; either way you get
Pelogic[7].

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> It would still be awfully exotic, and I doubt many people are that
> familiar with Couperin anyhow.

Well, shame on them. :)

> > If you
> > first transform to a minor version,

The same way people have been doing it for the last 400 years. In
terms of meantone generators, instead of F to B, with C one up from
the bottom of the chain, we have Ab to D, with C four up from the
bottom of the chain.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > > We have (3/2)^4/5 = 81/80, which warps to (4/3)^4/(10/3)
=128/135.
> > So,
> > > a 1--3/2--5/2 chord warps to a 1--4/3--5/3 chord--both major.
In
> > > short, what I'm doing is sending 3/2-->4/3, and retuning to
pelogic.
> >
> > Hmm . . . so the meantone diatonic scale becomes . . . ?
>
> It doesn't matter if you use forths or fifths; either way you get
> Pelogic[7].

But the order is different! That's what I meant by the question: the
meantone diatonic scale in order of ascending pitch becomes . . . ?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > It would still be awfully exotic, and I doubt many people are
that
> > familiar with Couperin anyhow.
>
> Well, shame on them. :)
>
> > > If you
> > > first transform to a minor version,
>
> The same way people have been doing it for the last 400 years.

Like who?

> In
> terms of meantone generators, instead of F to B, with C one up from
> the bottom of the chain, we have Ab to D, with C four up from the
> bottom of the chain.

Well, this interchanges some of the major and minor triads, but not
all of them -- D minor becomes D diminished, B diminished becomes Bb
major.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > The same way people have been doing it for the last 400 years.
>
> Like who?

Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms et al.
It's called a change of key, as you very well know.

> > In
> > terms of meantone generators, instead of F to B, with C one up from
> > the bottom of the chain, we have Ab to D, with C four up from the
> > bottom of the chain.
>
> Well, this interchanges some of the major and minor triads, but not
> all of them -- D minor becomes D diminished, B diminished becomes Bb
> major.

Only if you insist on Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > > The same way people have been doing it for the last 400 years.
> >
> > Like who?
>
> Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms et al.

I'd like to see a single example of this.

> It's called a change of key, as you very well know.

A change of key is not the same thing as a transformation. Even if
one of these composers did simply convert something between major and
minor, it would not have been this simple, because their minor mode
involves 8 or 9 pitches while their major mode involves 7.

> > > In
> > > terms of meantone generators, instead of F to B, with C one up
from
> > > the bottom of the chain, we have Ab to D, with C four up from
the
> > > bottom of the chain.
> >
> > Well, this interchanges some of the major and minor triads, but
not
> > all of them -- D minor becomes D diminished, B diminished becomes
Bb
> > major.
>
> Only if you insist on Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]!

I don't get it. Aren't F to B and Ab to D 7-note, not 12-note,
selections of notes?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > The same way people have been doing it for the last 400 years.
> > >
> > > Like who?
> >
> > Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms et al.
>
> I'd like to see a single example of this.

In the entire history of common-practice music you think no one has
ever transposed from major to melodic minor and back again?

> > It's called a change of key, as you very well know.
>
> A change of key is not the same thing as a transformation. Even if
> one of these composers did simply convert something between major and
> minor, it would not have been this simple, because their minor mode
> involves 8 or 9 pitches while their major mode involves 7.

Eh, come on. It *can* involve extra pitches, it is hardly required to
so so.

> > Only if you insist on Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]!
>
> I don't get it. Aren't F to B and Ab to D 7-note, not 12-note,
> selections of notes?

Yes, and that was your question--about the diatonic scale, not what I
did to get Mysterious Mush.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The same way people have been doing it for the last 400
years.
> > > >
> > > > Like who?
> > >
> > > Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms
et al.
> >
> > I'd like to see a single example of this.
>
> In the entire history of common-practice music you think no one has
> ever transposed from major to melodic minor and back again?

Melodic minor, sure, but melodic minor is not a set of consecutive
notes in a chain of fifths, which is what you were talking about.

> > > It's called a change of key, as you very well know.
> >
> > A change of key is not the same thing as a transformation. Even
if
> > one of these composers did simply convert something between major
and
> > minor, it would not have been this simple, because their minor
mode
> > involves 8 or 9 pitches while their major mode involves 7.
>
> Eh, come on. It *can* involve extra pitches, it is hardly required
to
> so so.

Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.

> > > Only if you insist on Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]!
> >
> > I don't get it. Aren't F to B and Ab to D 7-note, not 12-note,
> > selections of notes?
>
> Yes, and that was your question--about the diatonic scale, not what
I
> did to get Mysterious Mush.

You lost me. Let's step back. I said D minor becomes D diminished,
and B diminished becomes Bb major. You said, "Only if you insist on
Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]". Can you clarify this, in terms a
complete idiot like me could understand?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > In the entire history of common-practice music you think no one
has
> > ever transposed from major to melodic minor and back again?
>
> Melodic minor, sure, but melodic minor is not a set of consecutive
> notes in a chain of fifths, which is what you were talking about.

That's exactly what the basic melodic minor is. To be sure, the so-
called "ascending melodic minor", with tendency tones, and
the "harmonic minor", with the dominant triad adjusted to major, are
not so simple, but the basic minor is simply the Aeolian mode, just
as the basic major is the Ionian mode. If you don't want any more
semantic quibbling and would like to get back to the original
question, you can substitute "Ionian/Aeolian" transposition
for "major/minor".

> Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
> Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.

Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened? Is there
some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?

> You lost me. Let's step back. I said D minor becomes D diminished,
> and B diminished becomes Bb major. You said, "Only if you insist on
> Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]". Can you clarify this, in terms a
> complete idiot like me could understand?

It's what you get by sending diatonic to diatonic. What happens when
you apply x-->1-x (in terms of fifths generators) to more than seven
notes? If you have -1 to 5 ascending (ie F to B) then x-->1-x sends
the scale to 2 to -4 descending, ie Ab to D. Then D-F-A, in this new
scale (not under the mapping, in the scale) is D-F-Ab, a diminished
triad.

If instead I had started from -4 to 7, which is to say, Ab to C#, then
sending x-->1-x gets me 5 to -6 descending, so now I have a range from
Gb to B. Now my D-F-A stays as D-F-A, because A is in the scale.

Nothing profound!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > > In the entire history of common-practice music you think no one
> has
> > > ever transposed from major to melodic minor and back again?
> >
> > Melodic minor, sure, but melodic minor is not a set of
consecutive
> > notes in a chain of fifths, which is what you were talking about.
>
> That's exactly what the basic melodic minor is.

Incorrect -- rather, it's known as "natural minor". Any music
textbook or website should serve to verify this. It's true
that "melodic minor descending" is identical to this, but "melodic
minor" without qualification refers to the ascending form or both
forms put together.

> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened?

Yes.

> Is there
> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?

Call it a law, or call it common practice.

> > You lost me. Let's step back. I said D minor becomes D
diminished,
> > and B diminished becomes Bb major. You said, "Only if you insist
on
> > Meantone[7] and not Meantone[12]". Can you clarify this, in terms
a
> > complete idiot like me could understand?
>
> It's what you get by sending diatonic to diatonic. What happens
when
> you apply x-->1-x (in terms of fifths generators) to more than
seven
> notes? If you have -1 to 5 ascending (ie F to B) then x-->1-x sends
> the scale to 2 to -4 descending, ie Ab to D. Then D-F-A, in this
new
> scale (not under the mapping, in the scale) is D-F-Ab, a diminished
> triad.
>
> If instead I had started from -4 to 7, which is to say, Ab to C#,
then
> sending x-->1-x gets me 5 to -6 descending, so now I have a range
from
> Gb to B. Now my D-F-A stays as D-F-A, because A is in the scale.

But that isn't an interchange between major and minor.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

>
> > Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
> > Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.
>
> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened? Is there
> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?
>

I think Paul is right and you won't find an example of what you are
suggesting. In Central Europe music between 1700 and 1900, you won't
find modulation from major to aeolian, with exceptions like maybe
Grieg or Debussy proving the rule. Even a Hungarian like Erkel sticks
to major-minor. Instead, the mapping is is more complex: c,f,g,d stay
the same in cycle of fifths, e goes to es, h to b or h, a to as or a,
the last two based on melodic direction and/or presence of dominant
harmony.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

>
> > Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
> > Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.
>
> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened? Is there
> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?
>

I think Paul is right and you won't find an example of what you are
suggesting. In Central Europe music between 1700 and 1900, you won't
find modulation from major to aeolian, with exceptions like maybe
Grieg or Debussy proving the rule. Even a Hungarian like Erkel sticks
to major-minor. Instead, the mapping is is more complex: c,f,g,d stay
the same in cycle of fifths, e goes to es, h to b or h, a to as or a,
the last two based on melodic direction and/or presence of dominant
harmony.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > We have (3/2)^4/5 = 81/80, which warps to (4/3)^4/(10/3)
> =128/135.
> > > So,
> > > > a 1--3/2--5/2 chord warps to a 1--4/3--5/3 chord--both major.
> In
> > > > short, what I'm doing is sending 3/2-->4/3, and retuning to
> pelogic.
> > >
> > > Hmm . . . so the meantone diatonic scale becomes . . . ?
> >
> > It doesn't matter if you use forths or fifths; either way you get
> > Pelogic[7].
>
> But the order is different! That's what I meant by the question:
the
> meantone diatonic scale in order of ascending pitch becomes . . . ?

Since this still remains unanswered, I'll try figuring it out myself.
I'll use uppercase letters to indicate the meantone diatonic scale,
and lowercase letters to represent the mavila (formerly pelogic)
scale, where e-f and b-c are the *larger* instead of the smaller step
size. Numbers will indicate octaves.

So, based on the above, it looks like the meantone diatonic in order
of pitch:

D0-E0-F0-G0-A0-B0-C1-D1-E1-F1-G1-A1-B1-C2-D2-E2-F2-G2-A2-B2-C3-D3

would become

d0-c0-b0-a0-g0-f0-e1-d1-c1-b1-a1-g1-f1-e2-d2-c2-b2-a2-g2-f2-e3-d3.

Is this correct? If so, it's a highly severe melodic warpage,
converting the diatonic minor second into something like a minor
seventh, while major seconds not only change size slightly but also
reverse direction (ascending becomes descending, and vice versa). So
melodies, I'd guess, would tend to lose their coherence, and
polyphonic music (which is based on smooth voice-leading) would tend
to fall apart. Of course, this may be exactly what you're after, and
certainly Joseph seemed to love the result.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> If so, it's a highly severe melodic warpage,
> converting the diatonic minor second into something like a minor
> seventh, while major seconds not only change size slightly but also
> reverse direction (ascending becomes descending, and vice versa). So
> melodies, I'd guess, would tend to lose their coherence, and
> polyphonic music (which is based on smooth voice-leading) would tend
> to fall apart. Of course, this may be exactly what you're after, and
> certainly Joseph seemed to love the result.

And it would also appear, if operating in the above manner, or even something similar, to simply be another form of algorithmic composition, where basic rules and melodic fragments go in and different music comes out.

Not how I compose, but it might work for some.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > If so, it's a highly severe melodic warpage,
> > converting the diatonic minor second into something like a minor
> > seventh, while major seconds not only change size slightly but
also
> > reverse direction (ascending becomes descending, and vice versa).
So
> > melodies, I'd guess, would tend to lose their coherence, and
> > polyphonic music (which is based on smooth voice-leading) would
tend
> > to fall apart. Of course, this may be exactly what you're after,
and
> > certainly Joseph seemed to love the result.
>
> And it would also appear, if operating in the above manner, or even
>something similar, to simply be another form of algorithmic
>composition, where basic rules and melodic fragments go in and
>different music comes out.

I wouldn't call it algorithmic composition, since an actual human
composition (in this case Couperin's) goes in, and a bizarre
transformed version of it comes out. The transformation is
algorithmic, but the composition isn't. There are no algorithms
governing the actual sequences or combinations of notes, rhythms,
motifs, keys, etc. in the piece.

> Not how I compose, but it might work for some.

As far as true algorithmic composition is concerned, I know we both
enjoy many of Prent Rodgers' results. He's clearly managed to put a
great deal of effort into coding an "artificial musical
intelligence", and applies it to unconventional scales, no less.

http://www.soundclick.com/pro/?BandID=104802

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I wouldn't call it algorithmic composition, since an actual human
> composition (in this case Couperin's) goes in, and a bizarre
> transformed version of it comes out.

David Cope's famous program(s) analyze "actual human composition" and extract information and rules, and what comes out is something else. Using the term "bizarre" is a taste issue, one that should be up to the listener. And I used the term somewhat loosely, so no need to be pedantic.

> As far as true algorithmic composition is concerned, I know we both
> enjoy many of Prent Rodgers' results. He's clearly managed to put a
> great deal of effort into coding an "artificial musical
> intelligence", and applies it to unconventional scales, no less.
>
> http://www.soundclick.com/pro/?BandID=104802

Um, Paul, I'm not sure Prent's work is algorithmic. I believe he actually crafts the bulk of it.

In any event, what we are viewing is using some kind of source material that gets transformed into something quite unlike the original, following *someone's* ideas of 'rules'. I find it mildly insteresting, but as Gene says, "nothing profound".

Over and out for me for a few days, gotta put my brain and talents elsewhere...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> > As far as true algorithmic composition is concerned, I know we
both
> > enjoy many of Prent Rodgers' results. He's clearly managed to put
a
> > great deal of effort into coding an "artificial musical
> > intelligence", and applies it to unconventional scales, no less.
> >
> > http://www.soundclick.com/pro/?BandID=104802
>
> Um, Paul, I'm not sure Prent's work is algorithmic.

We've been through this before. At least a hefty proportion of it is,
indeed, at least partly algorithmic. He personally verified as much
on MakeMicroMusic, which I could dig through the archives and find if
you wish.. Looking at his liner notes, there's plenty of evidence.

http://home.comcast.net/~prodgers13/liner/Resolution_in_blue.htm

"There is more indeterminacy as the piece moves on. At first, almost
everything is scripted, but over time, less and less is specified,
until at the end, almost anything is possible."

If this indeterminacy doesn't refer to a parameter in a computer
program, what does it refer to?

Anyway, enjoy your next few days!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> to fall apart. Of course, this may be exactly what you're after, and
> certainly Joseph seemed to love the result.

What I was after was to create a piece in pelogic that would seem to
be new, not a mistuning of a familiar piece, without taking the
trouble to compose one, since I generally find I prefer working with
much more accurate temperaments. I think it worked pretty well.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> "There is more indeterminacy as the piece moves on. At first, almost
> everything is scripted, but over time, less and less is specified,
> until at the end, almost anything is possible."
>
> If this indeterminacy doesn't refer to a parameter in a computer
> program, what does it refer to?

Prent seems to sometimes run processes until he is satisfied with the
result.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > "There is more indeterminacy as the piece moves on. At first,
almost
> > everything is scripted, but over time, less and less is
specified,
> > until at the end, almost anything is possible."
> >
> > If this indeterminacy doesn't refer to a parameter in a computer
> > program, what does it refer to?
>
> Prent seems to sometimes run processes until he is satisfied with
the
> result.

Yes, and sometimes he makes different sets of results from the same
process avaliable as different pieces with similar titles.

>> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
>> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
>> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened?
>
>Yes.

? I can't make sense of this answer.

>> Is there
>> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?
>
>Call it a law, or call it common practice.

Strictly speaking, "minor mode" means no accidentals.

-Carl

>> > Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
>> > Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.
>>
>> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
>> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
>> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened? Is there
>> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?
>>
>
>I think Paul is right and you won't find an example of what you are
>suggesting. In Central Europe music between 1700 and 1900, you won't
>find modulation from major to aeolian, with exceptions like maybe
>Grieg or Debussy proving the rule. Even a Hungarian like Erkel sticks
>to major-minor. Instead, the mapping is is more complex: c,f,g,d stay
>the same in cycle of fifths, e goes to es, h to b or h, a to as or a,
>the last two based on melodic direction and/or presence of dominant
>harmony.

Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect the
example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.

-Carl

>mavila (formerly pelogic)

Oh man, pelogic is such a better name. Are you sure you want to
do this?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect the
> example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.

I'll take four bars worth of repetition with no accidentals.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >mavila (formerly pelogic)
>
> Oh man, pelogic is such a better name. Are you sure you want to
> do this?

I want an explanation for why the name should be changed before I
change what I've got in my lists. I would think Joe might want one also.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52613.html#52779

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > to fall apart. Of course, this may be exactly what you're after,
and
> > certainly Joseph seemed to love the result.
>
> What I was after was to create a piece in pelogic that would seem to
> be new, not a mistuning of a familiar piece, without taking the
> trouble to compose one, since I generally find I prefer working with
> much more accurate temperaments. I think it worked pretty well.

***Well, I personally thought it was a *new* composition and an
ingenious one. I was a little let down when I found out it
was "bastardised" Couperin... :)

jP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> > Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn,
Mozart,
> >> > Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.
> >>
> >> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor,
the
> >> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
> >> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened? Is
there
> >> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?
> >>
> >
> >I think Paul is right and you won't find an example of what you are
> >suggesting. In Central Europe music between 1700 and 1900, you
won't
> >find modulation from major to aeolian, with exceptions like maybe
> >Grieg or Debussy proving the rule. Even a Hungarian like Erkel
sticks
> >to major-minor. Instead, the mapping is is more complex: c,f,g,d
stay
> >the same in cycle of fifths, e goes to es, h to b or h, a to as or
a,
> >the last two based on melodic direction and/or presence of dominant
> >harmony.
>
> Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect the
> example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.
>
> -Carl

Long enough to establish the key.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >mavila (formerly pelogic)
>
> Oh man, pelogic is such a better name.

Why??

> Are you sure you want to
> do this?

1. Conformance with precedence is good. I previously didn't know
there was a precedent.

2. Herman, Erv, and others seem to thing the actual Pelog scale is
better approximated by a subset of a 9-note scale generated by
subminor thirds.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >mavila (formerly pelogic)
> >
> > Oh man, pelogic is such a better name. Are you sure you want to
> > do this?
>
> I want an explanation for why the name should be changed before I
> change what I've got in my lists.

What is wanting about this explanation:

/tuning/topicId_52666.html#52726

?

I was surprised enough that that post, as well as

/tuning/topicId_52666.html#52727

garnered absolutely zero response. Now, you and Carl have given me
reason to believe that you both missed them entirely :(

> I would think Joe might want one
> also.

Which Joe?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > I would think Joe might want one
> > also.
>
> Which Joe?

DiMaggio.

>> >mavila (formerly pelogic)
>>
>> Oh man, pelogic is such a better name.
>
>Why??

It's easier to pronounce, has two nifty derivations (pelog logic and
PE logic), tells you what it's supposed to sound like (unless you
happen to know what mavila is), and has a long (relatively) history
of use on these lists.

>> Are you sure you want to
>> do this?
>
>1. Conformance with precedence is good. I previously didn't know
>there was a precedent.

True. What's the case that Erv intended temperament?

>2. Herman, Erv, and others seem to thing the actual Pelog scale is
>better approximated by a subset of a 9-note scale generated by
>subminor thirds.

Maybe so, but the 7-tone pelogic scale could still be considered
a pelog.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > >mavila (formerly pelogic)
> > >
> > > Oh man, pelogic is such a better name. Are you sure you want to
> > > do this?
> >
> > I want an explanation for why the name should be changed before I
> > change what I've got in my lists.
>
> What is wanting about this explanation:
>
> /tuning/topicId_52666.html#52726

You didn't say much in your post, and while I downloaded the article
it turned out to be more scribbling which I can barely read. I would
really, really appreciate it if Wilson's stuff could be converted into
a text version, and if the reliance on diagrams could be done away
with. It's worse than trying to read Norwegian.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >mavila (formerly pelogic)
> >>
> >> Oh man, pelogic is such a better name.
> >
> >Why??
>
> It's easier to pronounce, has two nifty derivations (pelog logic

Rather, just pelog + -ic.

> and
> PE logic),

Well I can't very well take credit for this logic any longer, can I?

> tells you what it's supposed to sound like (unless you
> happen to know what mavila is), and has a long (relatively) history
> of use on these lists.
>
> >> Are you sure you want to
> >> do this?
> >
> >1. Conformance with precedence is good. I previously didn't know
> >there was a precedent.
>
> True. What's the case that Erv intended temperament?

In the article I referenced, he presents meta-mavila in an exact
analogy to meta-meantone, both yielding a proportional triad but with
meantone getting to "5" with +4 generators and mavila getting to "5"
with -3 generators. He then gives the respective generators in both
frequency and octave terms to 12 digits of accuracy, followed by a
list of MOSs. I'm unaware of any other Wilson writings about mavila,
but if this isn't indicative of temperament, I don't know what could
be.

> >2. Herman, Erv, and others seem to thing the actual Pelog scale is
> >better approximated by a subset of a 9-note scale generated by
> >subminor thirds.
>
> Maybe so, but the 7-tone pelogic scale could still be considered
> a pelog.

Most people didn't think so when I originally presented it, and I
believe you were one of the most vehement doubters.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > > > >mavila (formerly pelogic)
> > > >
> > > > Oh man, pelogic is such a better name. Are you sure you want
to
> > > > do this?
> > >
> > > I want an explanation for why the name should be changed before
I
> > > change what I've got in my lists.
> >
> > What is wanting about this explanation:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_52666.html#52726
>
> You didn't say much in your post, and while I downloaded the article
> it turned out to be more scribbling which I can barely read. I would
> really, really appreciate it if Wilson's stuff could be converted
into
> a text version, and if the reliance on diagrams could be done away
> with. It's worse than trying to read Norwegian.

Betweem us, I'm sure we could decipher every last detail of this
Wilson article. Surely we know enough about meta-meantone to fully
work through the analogy.

>> Maybe so, but the 7-tone pelogic scale could still be considered
>> a pelog.
>
>Most people didn't think so when I originally presented it, and I
>believe you were one of the most vehement doubters.

That argument was against a 5-limit interpretation of Indonesian
music, not the melodic interpretation.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Betweem us, I'm sure we could decipher every last detail of this
> Wilson article. Surely we know enough about meta-meantone to fully
> work through the analogy.

My new glasses are now on my nose, so I suppose I could at least read
it; even that was a problem before. I really, really prefer text files
to read, however.

Memory titanium frames; nifty.

> I was surprised enough that that post, as well as
>
> /tuning/topicId_52666.html#52727
>
> garnered absolutely zero response. Now, you and Carl have
> given me reason to believe that you both missed them
> entirely :(

I did? I just don't grok the Wilson article, so I couldn't
grok your post.

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:

> Is this correct? If so, it's a highly severe melodic warpage,
> converting the diatonic minor second into something like a minor
> seventh, while major seconds not only change size slightly but
also
> reverse direction (ascending becomes descending, and vice versa).

You can turn meantone into pythagorean, then switch 3 for 8/3, and
then change this to pelogic or mavilla or whatever it should be
called. So, a 9/8 becomes a (8/3)^2/8 = 8/9, and so a major second
reverses direction, changing size because we are retuning to
pelogic. A limma of 256/243 becomes a 243/128 before we retune it,
and thereby turn it into a minor seventh. An apotome of 2187/2048
reverses itself to 1024/2187 before the retuning, ending up as a
major seventh down.

>> Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect the
>> example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.
>
>I'll take four bars worth of repetition with no accidentals.

In the 2nd Brandenburg concerto, measures 66-69 are an aeolian-mode
transcription of measures 21-24 (according to the MIDI version I
have). It's plenty to establish the key in my ear, but C# does
follow in measure 70 and onwards.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect the
> >> example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.
> >
> >I'll take four bars worth of repetition with no accidentals.
>
> In the 2nd Brandenburg concerto, measures 66-69 are an aeolian-mode
> transcription of measures 21-24 (according to the MIDI version I
> have). It's plenty to establish the key in my ear, but C# does
> follow in measure 70 and onwards.

Thanks Carl. One may surmise this is only one of many such examples,
and so much for the experts on this list who claimed otherwise.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Thanks Carl. One may surmise this is only one of many such examples,
> and so much for the experts on this list who claimed otherwise.

Try looking up the term "sequence" - isn't that all that is being referred to in this instance? I fail to see the cause for party hats and chest beating, especially since sequences are part of the bag of tricks when one doesn't want to take the "trouble to compose".

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> > Thanks Carl. One may surmise this is only one of many such
examples,
> > and so much for the experts on this list who claimed otherwise.
>
> Try looking up the term "sequence" - isn't that all that is being
referred to in this instance?

Nope. That would require successive changes, we are only talking
about a single transposition from major to minor.

>I fail to see the cause for party hats and chest beating, especially
since sequences are part of the bag of tricks when one doesn't want
to take the "trouble to compose".

An incredibly annoying and silly claim has been shot down in flames,
and I hope the people who made it will publically eat crow.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> wrote:
> Nope. That would require successive changes

I don't quite know what you mean by that.

> An incredibly annoying and silly claim has been shot down in flames

Coming from someone who just recently was proud of being annoying, I find that annoying.

> and I hope the people who made it will publically eat crow.

And that is all this is to you: "I'm right". Sheesh.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> And that is all this is to you: "I'm right". Sheesh.

I am annoyed when boastful people say condescending things which are
patently ridiculous.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

Possibly I owe people an apology. An honest mistake is fine, and I
make plenty. I don't like being baited in some kind of obscure game,
and lectures should always be by people who know what they are
lecturing about. There are plenty of things I don't know about music,
but if you are going to take pity on me and lecture me in my
ignorance, I'd prefer it if the lecture was factually accurate, and
even more if it was accurate and not condescending.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect the
> >> example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.
> >
> >I'll take four bars worth of repetition with no accidentals.
>
> In the 2nd Brandenburg concerto, measures 66-69 are an aeolian-mode
> transcription of measures 21-24 (according to the MIDI version I
> have). It's plenty to establish the key in my ear, but C# does
> follow in measure 70 and onwards.
>
> -Carl

Sorry Carl,

but 66-69 is not aeolian, but c minor with both a and as and b and h.

Rule proved.

Gabor

>>>>Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect
>>>>the example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.
>>>
>>>I'll take four bars worth of repetition with no accidentals.
>>
>>In the 2nd Brandenburg concerto,

3rd mvmt, that is.

>Thanks Carl. One may surmise this is only one of many such examples,
>and so much for the experts on this list who claimed otherwise.

It would be more difficult to find an example which contained 7ths
that were unraised. But the statement as given was too strong.

-Carl

>Sorry Carl,
>
>but 66-69 is not aeolian, but c minor with both a and as and b and h.
>
>Rule proved.

Is your score in 2 or in 4?

-Carl

Okay, 3rd movement then. 66-69 sustain the tonic of d min and there
is no appearance of the seventh degree, but b6th degree is used in
passing over subdominant harmony, but from m 70 through the end of the
episode at m. 79 the harmony introduces the dominant and it's all hs
and cises.

Rule remains proved.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>>>Maybe Gene, you or Paul would care to say how long you expect
> >>>>the example to be, and how exact you expect the repetition to be.
> >>>
> >>>I'll take four bars worth of repetition with no accidentals.
> >>
> >>In the 2nd Brandenburg concerto,
>
> 3rd mvmt, that is.
>
> >Thanks Carl. One may surmise this is only one of many such examples,
> >and so much for the experts on this list who claimed otherwise.
>
> It would be more difficult to find an example which contained 7ths
> that were unraised. But the statement as given was too strong.
>
> -Carl

>Okay, 3rd movement then. 66-69 sustain the tonic of d min and there
>is no appearance of the seventh degree,

Yes, I mentioned that.

>but from m 70 through the end of the episode at m. 79 the harmony
>introduces the dominant and it's all hs and cises.

Cises? Is this German for "C#"?

>Rule remains proved.

Chill, dude. What rule are you talking about? I asked for
clarification, and appearance of the 7th was not mentioned (if
I remember correctly).

We all know the rule, and we all should know that it's been
broken just once or twice in the last 400 years.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> We all know the rule, and we all should know that it's been
> broken just once or twice in the last 400 years.

We also should know that you can't prove a rule is true by showing
something proposed as a counterexample isn't one. No effort has been
expended on the other side--citations for instance--to support the
claim.

Gene,

The transformation from major to aeolian was identified by you as
being the same as from major to minor.

Paul wrote to say that no, classical music used instead the tranform
from major to minor and that minor was not just aolian or "natural"
minor, but included both raised and lowered six and seven degrees.

Paul wrote

> Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
> > Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.

I think he was giving you an opportunity to describe your exercise
more accurately, and especially to help readers who come from a
standard musical training, but you responded with a challenge:

> Then go look for a score where you see major changes to minor, the
> music repeats itself, and no accidentals appear. In the last 400
> years, are you really claiming that this hasn't happened? Is there
> some law that minor mode *always* means accidentals?
>

I then wrote:

"I think Paul is right and you won't find an example of what you are
suggesting. In Central Europe music between 1700 and 1900, you won't
find modulation from major to aeolian, with exceptions like maybe
Grieg or Debussy proving the rule. Even a Hungarian like Erkel sticks
to major-minor. Instead, the mapping is is more complex: c,f,g,d stay
the same in cycle of fifths, e goes to es, h to b or h, a to as or a,
the last two based on melodic direction and/or presence of dominant
harmony."

If you allow my exceptions, of composers not from central Europe or at
the beginning or end of this time period, both before and after
major-minor tonality, I still think my claim is true. I have looked
at all the Klavier Variationen of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and also
some Schubert Sonate with repeats of whole sections in minor. Never
aeolian, always accidentals. In any case, it is impossible to consult
all the music for a proof; the better argument is simply that the
major-minor tonal system requires the complex minor for satifactory
harmonies and voice leading. This is standard theory from H. Riemann
to H. Schenker.

For the record, I think the tranformation in your exercise is
beautiful, and the fact that it's not found in classical music is
part of the attraction. This does raise the interesting problem
however, of generalizing the major-minor tranformation onto some of
your more complex tuning transformations -- what would be the
equivalent there of the use of raised six and seven degrees to smooth
melodies and make dominant harmonies major?

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> The transformation from major to aeolian was identified by you as
> being the same as from major to minor.

I was trying to answer a question by Paul which concerned what I meant
by suggesting we could first transpose to "minor" before warping to
pelogic, leading back to major again. I was NOT trying to get into a
long discussion of what exactly the word "minor" means, nor to be
kicked around like a football over what is, in this context,
quibbling. Perhaps Paul was wanting an exact algorithm for changing to
"minor" in such a way that the subsequent warpage could most
sucessfully be done, which is probably an interesting question but not
a reason to put me under bright lights and the rubber hose. A little
common sense would help.

> Paul wrote to say that no, classical music used instead the tranform
> from major to minor and that minor was not just aolian or "natural"
> minor, but included both raised and lowered six and seven degrees.

Which didn't interest me, since it doesn't seem it would help in the
pelogic warping exercise.

> Paul wrote
>
> > Again, I'd like to see a single example in Bach, Haydn, Mozart,
> > > Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, or Brahms.

Thereby putting the burden of proof for a claim which seems obvious
but was hardly relevant to what I was talking about onto me. Am I
supposed to slave away on command delving into silly and irrelevant
side issues? Paul doesn't actually claim there is no such example, he
merely challenges me to produce one, despite the fact that it is
mind-boggling to imagine that in all that mass of music we can't find
a single one. Carl, bless his heart, took this idiocy seriously enough
to go find an example. I am sure plenty more are out there.

> I think he was giving you an opportunity to describe your exercise
> more accurately, and especially to help readers who come from a
> standard musical training, but you responded with a challenge:

This had nothing to do with what I did--it was a remark as to what one
*might* do, not what I did. If someone wants to do it, why should I be
required to resolve in advance the question of what to do in every
case, and what possible relevance does what common practice in
major-minor transpositions actually is have to that issue anyway? It's
a total red herring.

> "I think Paul is right and you won't find an example of what you are
> suggesting."

This claim strikes me as ludicrous, but unlike Carl I did not go find
a counterexample. Good for him. As for your making it, on what basis
do you do so? If people are going to issue challenges to me, I give
one to you--find a single citation supporting it.

> the better argument is simply that the
> major-minor tonal system requires the complex minor for satifactory
> harmonies and voice leading. This is standard theory from H. Riemann
> to H. Schenker.

Can you find a quote from Riemann or Schenker saying that never, ever,
not in a million scores can you find an example of someone simply
putting the music into Aolian?

> For the record, I think the tranformation in your exercise is
> beautiful, and the fact that it's not found in classical music is
> part of the attraction.

Thanks, but this is yet another matter--the transformation I did has
absolutely nothing to do with this major/minor business.

This does raise the interesting problem
> however, of generalizing the major-minor tranformation onto some of
> your more complex tuning transformations -- what would be the
> equivalent there of the use of raised six and seven degrees to smooth
> melodies and make dominant harmonies major?

Voice leading after warpage is another issue, one that could be
interesting if you want to get beyond a simple-minded note-to-note
mapping.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Okay, 3rd movement then. 66-69 sustain the tonic of d min and there
> >is no appearance of the seventh degree,
>
> Yes, I mentioned that.
>
> >but from m 70 through the end of the episode at m. 79 the harmony
> >introduces the dominant and it's all hs and cises.
>
> Cises? Is this German for "C#"?
>
> >Rule remains proved.
>
> Chill, dude. What rule are you talking about? I asked for
> clarification, and appearance of the 7th was not mentioned (if
> I remember correctly).

I don't know exactly what you mean, but the 7th would have to be there
to settle the argument we were having.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Thereby putting the burden of proof for a claim which seems obvious
> but was hardly relevant to what I was talking about onto me. Am I
> supposed to slave away on command delving into silly and irrelevant
> side issues? Paul doesn't actually claim there is no such example, he
> merely challenges me to produce one,

It was your claim, in which you produced a list of composers, so I
didn't think it out of line to ask you to back it up.

> despite the fact that it is
> mind-boggling to imagine that in all that mass of music we can't find
> a single one. Carl, bless his heart, took this idiocy seriously enough
> to go find an example.

Didn't qualify -- see Gabor's comment. However, I feel we should be
able to have this argument in a much more friendly manner -- I've
learned a lot from your challenges, Gene; this should be an enjoyable
and edifying game, not a vendetta.

>> Chill, dude. What rule are you talking about? I asked for
>> clarification, and appearance of the 7th was not mentioned (if
>> I remember correctly).
>
>I don't know exactly what you mean, but the 7th would have to be there
>to settle the argument we were having.

I thought you were dropping the topic...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > Thereby putting the burden of proof for a claim which seems obvious
> > but was hardly relevant to what I was talking about onto me. Am I
> > supposed to slave away on command delving into silly and irrelevant
> > side issues? Paul doesn't actually claim there is no such example, he
> > merely challenges me to produce one,
>
> It was your claim, in which you produced a list of composers, so I
> didn't think it out of line to ask you to back it up.

Excuse me, but I produced on demand a list of composers whom I claimed
sometimes transposed from major to minor. At that point I had not
given in and tried to clarify what that might mean in this context,
namely warping to pelogic, and obviously I shouldn't have.

> Didn't qualify -- see Gabor's comment. However, I feel we should be
> able to have this argument in a much more friendly manner -- I've
> learned a lot from your challenges, Gene; this should be an enjoyable
> and edifying game, not a vendetta.

Your comments struck me as some kind of obscure game, and I wondered
if you were choosing to make it a vendetta. I mention turning things
into a minor key as a way of getting a pelogic warpage in major. You
ask how that is done. I say just the way it's been done for 400 years.
You ask who in the world has ever changed something from major into
minor. I give a list of composers. You then start to complain that
minor is complicated, and can involve raised degrees. I then say, OK,
major to melodic minor. You rip me apart for using "melodic minor" as
if it meant a seven note diatonic scale, and say you want an example
where a composer on my list does such a thing. At this point it really
is looking like a vendetta. I try to get out from under all of this
lunacy by reframing it as ionian to aolian, without success. Now Gabor
chimes in and supports the bizarre (and, please note, irrelevant to
the original topic) claim that never, ever, not even once in the last
400 years has anyone of note ever actually changed ionian into aolian.

Can you not see how aggrivating someone might find all this?

Having said that, I am wondering if there was some point to the
comments which I may have missed on the first go aroound--namely, were
you asking for a major to minor algorithm which would be suitable to
prepare a pelogic warpage?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Your comments struck me as some kind of obscure game, and I wondered
> if you were choosing to make it a vendetta.

I felt equally spat upon, and could spend a long post retracing this,
but would prefer to put this behind us. Besides, I hear baked crow is
quite tasty (but I don't eat any land or sky animals).

> I mention turning things
> into a minor key as a way of getting a pelogic warpage in major.

Here's where we eventually lost each other. I mentioned that Ionian -
> Aeolian wouldn't do what seemed to be desired (major triads ->
minor triads and minor triads -> major triads) for a couple of the
chords. You seemed to reply that I was incorrectly assuming Meantone
[7] instead of Meantone[12]. That confused be, and upon elaboration,
Meantone[12] ended up leaving a minor triad as a minor triad. So at
this point I'm lost as to what you had in mind.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Here's where we eventually lost each other.

We lost each other when you seemed to be claiming not to know how to
transpose a piece into minor, and then asked for a list of composers
who did. This struck me as deliberate rudeness, and I still can make
no sense out of it.

I mentioned that Ionian -
> > Aeolian wouldn't do what seemed to be desired (major triads ->
> minor triads and minor triads -> major triads) for a couple of the
> chords. You seemed to reply that I was incorrectly assuming Meantone
> [7] instead of Meantone[12]. That confused be, and upon
elaboration,
> Meantone[12] ended up leaving a minor triad as a minor triad. So at
> this point I'm lost as to what you had in mind.

It was a confusing response, I suppose. I was merely pointing out
that a triad changing into a diminised triad was dependent on
sticking to seven note scales, and is by no means inherent in the
business of transposing into minor. As to what I had in mind, I
merely meant that a major triad, if changed into a corresponding
minor triad, will warp back into a major triad, so that if you put it
into a suitable version of minor first, that will warp into major. No
specific algorithm was implied by this.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@...> wrote:
> >> >> Bill's stuff just sounds too sterile; typical of
> >> >> digital additive. But also on some of his macro stuff
> >> >> it sounds like the timbres loose some glue.
> >> >
> >> >Do you mean "loose" or "lose"?
> >>
> >> Either.
> >
> >Huh! What would the former mean?
>
> Have you no sense of the poetic? It would mean some glue
> that was there was loosened.

Sorry, I was smoking crack. To loose glue would probably
mean to add glue, but would certainly be an unfortunate
choice of words in either case. I definitely meant "lose".

-Carl