Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Dona Nobis Pacem

Apropos various threads on scales which are epimorphic in a permuted
ordering, I've uploaded a dark and stormy version of the Dona Nobis
Pacem from Bach's Mass in b minor to my mad science page; you'll find
it down on the bottom, added to the discussion of pelogic.

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

The scale is one of the ones discussed in this message:

/tuning-math/message/11330

The problems come more from wolf thirds than from fifths.

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

hi Gene,

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

> Apropos various threads on scales which are epimorphic
> in a permuted ordering, I've uploaded a dark and stormy
> version of the Dona Nobis Pacem from Bach's Mass in b minor
> to my mad science page; you'll find it down on the bottom,
> added to the discussion of pelogic.
>
> http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html
>
> The scale is one of the ones discussed in this message:
>
> /tuning-math/message/11330
>
> The problems come more from wolf thirds than from fifths.

i *love* this !!!

and i definitely hear the gamelan-ish aspect.
so is this Bach rendering like slendro, or pelog?

i'd be happy to supply some lattice graphics for
the description you give on your page, if you
give me the data for the 3 Fokker blocks: which
promos (or comma if you prefer) vanish, etc.

-monz

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

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

> i *love* this !!!

Glad to hear that! It's shorter than the Prokoviev retuning, so I hope
it will get listened to a bit more. I am listening to Mozart's 20th
piano concerto retuned in this way while writing this; I think the
second movement is especially interesting this way. Playing with this
tuning is definately a way to entertain yourself. I think I will try
it on some solo piano.

> and i definitely hear the gamelan-ish aspect.
> so is this Bach rendering like slendro, or pelog?

It's 5-limit just intonation, but the ordering of the 5ths is as a
detempering of a circle of fifths in the 135/128 temperament we used
to call pelogic until Paul started renaming things, so now I'm not
sure what to call it.

> i'd be happy to supply some lattice graphics for
> the description you give on your page, if you
> give me the data for the 3 Fokker blocks: which
> promos (or comma if you prefer) vanish, etc.

I'd love to see a lattice diagram; all the relevant data should be on
the tuning-math artice

/tuning-math/message/11330

The promos are 125/108 and 135/128.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>Apropos various threads on scales which are epimorphic in a
>permuted ordering, I've uploaded a dark and stormy version
>of the Dona Nobis Pacem from Bach's Mass in b minor to my mad
>science page; you'll find it down on the bottom, added to the
>discussion of pelogic.
>
>http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html
>
>The scale is one of the ones discussed in this message:
>
>/tuning-math/message/11330
>
>The problems come more from wolf thirds than from fifths.

Damn Gene! That's hot! As is Mahler's 7th and Prokoviev's
first piano concerto. I don't know how I missed those -- I'd
heard everything else on your page. Man, this is some
cutting-edge electronic music. Diabolical!

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_55446.html#55446

> Apropos various threads on scales which are epimorphic in a permuted
> ordering, I've uploaded a dark and stormy version of the Dona Nobis
> Pacem from Bach's Mass in b minor to my mad science page; you'll
find
> it down on the bottom, added to the discussion of pelogic.
>
> http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/mad.html
>
> The scale is one of the ones discussed in this message:
>
> /tuning-math/message/11330
>
> The problems come more from wolf thirds than from fifths.

***This is weird and interesting. Also your sound quality
consistently gets better and better... I think it's because you're
using sound samples rather than just MIDI...

J. Pehrson

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

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

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

> > i'd be happy to supply some lattice graphics for
> > the description you give on your page, if you
> > give me the data for the 3 Fokker blocks: which
> > promos (or comma if you prefer) vanish, etc.
>
> I'd love to see a lattice diagram; all the relevant data
> should be on the tuning-math artice
>
> /tuning-math/message/11330
>
> The promos are 125/108 and 135/128.

i don't have time to get further into this right now ...
but i made one quickie lattice with Musica:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.
com/group/tuning_files/files/monz/bach_dona-nobis.gif

http://tinyurl.com/6gluv

that's a triangular lattice ... don't even have time
right now to compare it to the scales you posted ...

-monz, in a hurry

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

hi Gene,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> > that's a triangular lattice ... don't even have time
> > right now to compare it to the scales you posted ...
>
> Close...this is the scale I called pel1, the dona nobis
> scale was pel2.

i still haven't had the chance to dig deeper into
theory of your tunings here, but i did want to say that
the lattice i made was produced by the algorithms
we've built into Musica, which ask the user to
specify identity and prime-space vectors, then
select unison-vectors from a list, to make a
periodicity-block.

most likely, your other scales are simply the result
of shifting the unison-vector borders slightly on
the lattice, so that one or two ratios which were
formerly inside the periodicity-block, now lie
outside it, and are replaced by one or two other
ratios, a unison-vector away, and formerly
outside the block but now in it.

i'm going to keep prodding myself to look more deeply
into this ... the sound of the Bach piece really
made an impression on me.

to me, the value of what you did was that
you presented a very familiar piece in such an
alien and strongly distorted way (via the pelog-ish
tuning) that i heard it "with a whole new set of ears"
... and discovered an odd new beauty in it.

if i were to keep the experiment going where you
left off, i'd try to find a slightly different tuning
which tempered a bit some of the pelog-ish intervals
that were really far off the meantone/well-tempered ones,
to make them a little closer to meantone/well.
and i'd raise the cardinality a bit ... maybe to
19.

... perhaps you'll get some ideas and try a
few more retunings yourself. ;-) ;-)

i think a masterpiece of this caliber warrants it.

and BTW, i agree that one of the reasons i enjoyed
your Bach rendition so much was the impressive
audio quality! good work!!!!!! :D

-monz

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

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

> most likely, your other scales are simply the result
> of shifting the unison-vector borders slightly on
> the lattice, so that one or two ratios which were
> formerly inside the periodicity-block, now lie
> outside it, and are replaced by one or two other
> ratios, a unison-vector away, and formerly
> outside the block but now in it.

Correct. I find it more interesting, when given a set of commas or
whatever we are calling them this week in connection with Fokker
blocks, to find all of the possible blocks and not just one of them.
In this case, three blocks are possible.

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> > most likely, your other scales are simply the result
> > of shifting the unison-vector borders slightly on
> > the lattice, so that one or two ratios which were
> > formerly inside the periodicity-block, now lie
> > outside it, and are replaced by one or two other
> > ratios, a unison-vector away, and formerly
> > outside the block but now in it.
>
> Correct. I find it more interesting, when given a set of commas or
> whatever we are calling them this week in connection with Fokker
> blocks, to find all of the possible blocks and not just one of them.
> In this case, three blocks are possible.

i find that very interesting too ... but i find even
more interesting the fact that you have some limiting
criteria!

please do elaborate -- why only 3 blocks in this case?
what's your general formula for finding how many blocks
are "possible"?

-monz