53-note midi sequencing

I am new to the list. I am also in a quandry with trying to find a
managable way to notate in my sequencer/notation program the 53-note equal
temperament. This temperament is great in that it produces a JI scale on
any of the 53 scale steps, thus allowing instantaneous transposition
(although certainly not modulation!). The effect in Midi playback is
awesome, but it's mind-bogglingly difficult to translate my shorthand
notation of the microtonal scale steps into the real, re-mapped scale steps
(0-127) that the synth must receive from the computer (i.e. a C2+three
53-note scale steps might actually be a G#6 in the re-tuned synth-ugh!).
Does anyone know of a program which would "translate" the notes on a
notation staff, with perhaps numbers on top of the 12 notes to indicate a
specific 53-note scale step, into the actual re-mapped scale steps (0-127)
of the synth?

HELP ME, BEN SOMMER

p.s. An excellent theoretical book comparing and evaluating JI, Meantone,
and equal tempered scales is Easley Blackwood's "THE STRUCTURE OF
RECOGNIZABLE DIATONIC TUNINGS"

Ben, a few random thoughts :

1) Lime (notation software, @$60.00, Win/Mac)
http://datura.cerl.uiuc.edu/Lime/WhatsNew.html

But you'll need a way to convert(map) the MIDI output to allow
your synth to actually play microtonally, perhaps Max on a Mac.

2) Common Music (Win/Mac/etc.)
http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Software/cm/cm.html

You'll have to change the way u work to use CM, since it involves
specifying your music in a text file program of sorts, somewhat like
Csound. But CM is NOT a synthesis program. It is a built for composition,
is OMS savvy & well suited to MIDI use.

This may be the easiest (& a more rewarding) way to work with
microtonality, especially when dealing with tunings with
more than 12 notes. Personally I'm trying to break away from the
conventional linear approach to composing music, mainly inspired by
playing with the SuperCollider demo ( & glorious lack of formal training
!:-)

3) Use a sequencer that allows u to create "note name" lists, such as the
kind that shows up for percussion tracks, with the name of ea. instrument
beside the appropriate MIDI note no. So u can make a note name lis
featuring anything u need.

Try : MidiGraphy (Mac)
http://ux01.so-net.ne.jp/~mmaeda/indexe.html

------------------------------------------------------
Interesting reading can be found here :
http://home.t-online.de/home/j.ingram/index.htm

The home page of James Ingram, the chap who does work for Stockhausen.
See his info about his work for the big S. & The Notation of Time
(Essay, 1985)

------------------------------------------------------

I came across a couple of neat Brian McLaren posts from a while back. Not
sure where I found them, but the subject of ea. is :

- Approaches to microtonal notation

- Xenharmonic scores (this one is neat with this enlightening intro :
" After hearing my music, most people ask: "Do you have scores?"
The answer is always: "Yes--the scores are MIDI files."
To which the inevitable reply is,
"No, I mean do you have actual *scores*?"
"Yes. Here are the MIDI files."
"do you have actual *scores*?"
"Yes. Here are the MIDI files."
"No, I mean SCORES. Real SCORES."
"The MIDI files are the scores."
"No, I mean *SCORES*..."
And so on. "
------------------------------------------------------

- Drew

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Drew Skyfyre wrote:

> I came across a couple of neat Brian McLaren posts from a while back. Not
> sure where I found them, but the subject of ea. is :
>
> - Approaches to microtonal notation
>
> - Xenharmonic scores (this one is neat with this enlightening intro :
> " After hearing my music, most people ask: "Do you have scores?"
> The answer is always: "Yes--the scores are MIDI files."
> To which the inevitable reply is,
> "No, I mean do you have actual *scores*?"
> "Yes. Here are the MIDI files."
> "do you have actual *scores*?"
> "Yes. Here are the MIDI files."
> "No, I mean SCORES. Real SCORES."
> "The MIDI files are the scores."
> "No, I mean *SCORES*..."
> And so on. "

Back in the days when my music was much more complex,
I used to write out a score before I entered it as MIDI.
This made it easier for me to see the relationships between the
notes. Most of these relationships were obscured in MIDI.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n N e t R a d i o
*
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

i think that it is an intersting topic for musicians and composers in the technological age. To what extent if any does someone need to apply dots to paper to prove that a score for the work exists. Furthermore has digital culture made the entire concept of writing the score completely obsolete. I for one have never enjoyed writing music on to paper and usually get frustrated with the performance of things i have "written" always having to explain that B = 60 hz whatever.The things I used a keyboard and a program to input always came across flawlessly(though by that time my ensemble had been together for three years). For people interested in unusal tunings it causes immediate problems for folks who do not know that a B+ means adding a comma ++ a liemma or whatev. So i have always chosen to give people points of potentiality and let them choose what sound to bring in to activity. I have always been drawn to Cage and Brown et al and their form of "notation" Also i think program!
s like Cakewalk,Finale etc when composing for midi etc.....have really removed the NEED to learn to write music in the old fashioned way. i think that continuing to write music with arcane dots on paper plays into the hands of the pedagogy and system that has repressed music for so long, so i am glad to read that McClaren(when not bashing folks) was making a point about modernism in composition. Frankly and on a deeper level this brings up the topic of ownership and the way a truly modern (post64Beatles) ensemble works. Can someone claim ownership of a piece of music really? Jokingly we discussed owning certain intervals (which i still own the 1/1 so pay UP!)and in true modern collaborative ensembles ownership of a JAM or a collective exploration can be considered by some (Conrad,Cale) as a form of theft and elitism. I think that NO-one does anything alone, but may elaborate and groom a concept to make it something that makes them happy. I particulary like the Zen story about !
painting that Alan Watts used to tell about the monk who would get very drunk on rice wine,dip his pony tail in ink and slosh it all over th paper~later he would soberly view the sloshing and THEN add the touches that made it a great work of art... If you answer yes this is MY composition you usually have "the score" (and lose your Buddah nature)to prove it. as an aside I can't help but thinking of a chapter from the REAL frank Zappa book entitled "We hate Your Dots"

Resonate and Extenuate

In a message dated 10/13/99 10:16:58 AM, ppagano@bellsouth.net wrote:

<<i think that continuing to write music with arcane dots on paper plays into
the hands of the pedagogy and system that has repressed music for so long>>

In this same vein, the so-call Classical Canon (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.
et al) is Eurocentric & male-dominated.
Time to really open up the Canon... somehow.

zHANg

A quick thought: Writing music-actually printing ideas as sumbols on paper-
forces the mind into a detailed reckoning of the material, in the same way
that a student of English Composition must use the essay form to learn to
order and present ideas. The idea that Finale and notation programs are
meant to be used by the dilettante to bypass correct and clear notational
usage is just that: a dilettantish idea. If anything, microtonalism should
force an even greater care with how one deals with notation and the mental
organization of the music. One can "write" whatever nutty, unacademic music
one wants to, but unless one has extensive experience- and yes training-
in composing on paper (not in Finale) then one doesn't have much ground for
calling the practice arcane or outmoded.

At 09:20 AM 10/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>From: "patrick pagano" <ppagano@bellsouth.net>
>
>i think that it is an intersting topic for musicians and composers in the
technological age. To what extent if any does someone need to apply dots to
paper to prove that a score for the work exists. Furthermore has digital
culture made the entire concept of writing the score completely obsolete. I
for one have never enjoyed writing music on to paper and usually get
frustrated with the performance of things i have "written" always having to
explain that B = 60 hz whatever.The things I used a keyboard and a program
to input always came across flawlessly(though by that time my ensemble had
been together for three years). For people interested in unusal tunings it
causes immediate problems for folks who do not know that a B+ means adding
a comma ++ a liemma or whatev. So i have always chosen to give people
points of potentiality and let them choose what sound to bring in to
activity. I have always been drawn to Cage and Brown et al and their form
of "notation" Also i think program!
>s like Cakewalk,Finale etc when composing for midi etc.....have really
removed the NEED to learn to write music in the old fashioned way. i think
that continuing to write music with arcane dots on paper plays into the
hands of the pedagogy and system that has repressed music for so long, so i
am glad to read that McClaren(when not bashing folks) was making a point
about modernism in composition. Frankly and on a deeper level this brings
up the topic of ownership and the way a truly modern (post64Beatles)
ensemble works. Can someone claim ownership of a piece of music really?
Jokingly we discussed owning certain intervals (which i still own the 1/1
so pay UP!)and in true modern collaborative ensembles ownership of a JAM or
a collective exploration can be considered by some (Conrad,Cale) as a form
of theft and elitism. I think that NO-one does anything alone, but may
elaborate and groom a concept to make it something that makes them happy. I
particulary like the Zen story about !
>painting that Alan Watts used to tell about the monk who would get very
drunk on rice wine,dip his pony tail in ink and slosh it all over th
paper~later he would soberly view the sloshing and THEN add the touches
that made it a great work of art... If you answer yes this is MY
composition you usually have "the score" (and lose your Buddah nature)to
prove it. as an aside I can't help but thinking of a chapter from the REAL
frank Zappa book entitled "We hate Your Dots"
>
>Resonate and Extenuate
>
>
>>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>
>

At 05:22 AM 10/13/99 +0530, you wrote:
>From: "Drew Skyfyre" <drew_skyfyre@yahoo.com>
>
>Ben, a few random thoughts :
>
Thank you very much, Drew.

>A quick thought: Writing music-actually printing ideas as sumbols on paper-
>forces the mind into a detailed reckoning of the material, in the same way
>that a student of English Composition must use the essay form to learn to
>order and present ideas.

I agree, but I don't see the analogy. Scores and recordings can be viewed
as types of instruments, which, like piano and guitar, dictate certain
things about the music that is written with them. Both give different and
good results. When multi-tracking came out, for example, a host of good
ideas came up that nobody would have thought of with paper.

>The idea that Finale and notation programs are meant to be used by the
>dilettante to bypass correct and clear notational usage is just that: a
>dilettantish idea. If anything, microtonalism should force an even greater
>care with how one deals with notation and the mental organization of the
>music. One can "write" whatever nutty, unacademic music one wants to, but
>unless one has extensive experience- and yes training- in composing on
>paper (not in Finale) then one doesn't have much ground for calling the
>practice arcane or outmoded.

You assume that the Finale user enters notes with a MIDI keyboard? It is
obvious that score entry programs can do everything that paper can, so
you're way off base here. Paper does have charm, but like the charm of
mechanical typewriters, it's one with little rationale.

-C.

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Carl Lumma wrote:

> From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>
> >A quick thought: Writing music-actually printing ideas as sumbols on paper-
> >forces the mind into a detailed reckoning of the material, in the same way
> >that a student of English Composition must use the essay form to learn to
> >order and present ideas.
>
> I agree, but I don't see the analogy. Scores and recordings can be viewed
> as types of instruments, which, like piano and guitar, dictate certain
> things about the music that is written with them. Both give different and
> good results. When multi-tracking came out, for example, a host of good
> ideas came up that nobody would have thought of with paper.
>
> >The idea that Finale and notation programs are meant to be used by the
> >dilettante to bypass correct and clear notational usage is just that: a
> >dilettantish idea. If anything, microtonalism should force an even greater
> >care with how one deals with notation and the mental organization of the
> >music. One can "write" whatever nutty, unacademic music one wants to, but
> >unless one has extensive experience- and yes training- in composing on
> >paper (not in Finale) then one doesn't have much ground for calling the
> >practice arcane or outmoded.
>
> You assume that the Finale user enters notes with a MIDI keyboard? It is
> obvious that score entry programs can do everything that paper can, so
> you're way off base here. Paper does have charm, but like the charm of
> mechanical typewriters, it's one with little rationale.
>
> -C.
What I meant was that here at the school where I teach, all the young kids
bring me scores written on Finale, with bad beaming, notes out of
alignment and other carelessnesses. People use these programs as a crutch,
so that they don't have to know on which side of a note head they should
draw the stem, etc.

>
> > You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>

>What I meant was that here at the school where I teach, all the young kids
>bring me scores written on Finale, with bad beaming, notes out of
>alignment and other carelessnesses. People use these programs as a crutch,
>so that they don't have to know on which side of a note head they should
>draw the stem, etc.

That is a problem, but you can hardly blame the software. These mistakes
can be made on paper too, and it is possible to create beautiful scores
with a computer (so long as you're not using Encore!).

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great fun to do it by hand (I bought a
huge drafting table for my apartment in Berkeley, and dip fountain pens,
and used the drawing machines to make manuscript paper), and some sort of
penmanship is invaluable when you need to jot down ideas and a computer
isn't handy (I'm still working on the penmanship part...).

-Carl