Controlled intonation instruments

Thinking about the utter nightmare that microtonal notation
unfortunately is, it occured to me that it would really be desirable
to automatically control intonation, and leave the performer to focus
on everything else. So I'm wondering--could musically expressive
instruments be designed which could be loaded with a sequence of
tones, so that the musician would call up the next note in the
sequence whenever wanted, play it in any manner and for any length of
time wanted, and then go on to the next?

I think such instruments could be designed readily enough, given 21st
century technology. Could musicians be found who would be willing to
play them? About that I'm less sure; many people might find it
distasteful, I suspect. It also seems to me that notations for such
instruments would be easy enough, and the results, if anyone could be
induced to try such a thing, might be very nice. And it would be a
*hell* of a lot easier to write scores for.

This pretty much what i have tried to do. Tuned metallophones and marimbas, pump organ and bowed psalteries for sustain. (the later i have designs to take as low as a cello c) having a large ensemble that i can have up to 10 people play, makes it easy to add a single western instrument in which to surround with the tuning in question.
It really isn't that far from those pieces of Lou Harrison where he writes for his 'gamelan' and then a series of 'concertos with various wester instruments.
One concern i have are instruments that work together as a group.
A few years ago i heard a piece for piano marimba and cello and while the piece was well written, i was quite overwhelmed how each instrument dispersed it's sound into the room that prevented from any of them really to sound or blend together.
possibly useful it itself, but it seems there might be better ways to do this.
.

Message: 15 Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:08:35 -0000
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
Subject: Controlled intonation instruments

Thinking about the utter nightmare that microtonal notation
unfortunately is, it occurred to me that it would really be desirable
to automatically control intonation, and leave the performer to focus
on everything else. So I'm wondering--could musically expressive
instruments be designed which could be loaded with a sequence of
tones, so that the musician would call up the next note in the
sequence whenever wanted, play it in any manner and for any length of
time wanted, and then go on to the next? I think such instruments could be designed readily enough, given 21st
century technology. Could musicians be found who would be willing to
play them? About that I'm less sure; many people might find it
distasteful, I suspect. It also seems to me that notations for such
instruments would be easy enough, and the results, if anyone could be
induced to try such a thing, might be very nice. And it would be a
*hell* of a lot easier to write scores for.

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Thinking about the utter nightmare that microtonal notation
> unfortunately is, it occured to me that it would really be desirable
> to automatically control intonation, and leave the performer to focus
> on everything else. So I'm wondering--could musically expressive
> instruments be designed which could be loaded with a sequence of
> tones, so that the musician would call up the next note in the
> sequence whenever wanted, play it in any manner and for any length of
> time wanted, and then go on to the next? > > I think such instruments could be designed readily enough, given 21st
> century technology. Could musicians be found who would be willing to
> play them? About that I'm less sure; many people might find it
> distasteful, I suspect. It also seems to me that notations for such
> instruments would be easy enough, and the results, if anyone could be
> induced to try such a thing, might be very nice. And it would be a
> *hell* of a lot easier to write scores for.

Tom Cora did this with contraptions built for him at STEIM in Holland. In his case, he recorded samples of his cello playing. Then he stepped through the sequence with a pedal (continuing playing his live cello, of course).

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:

> Tom Cora did this with contraptions built for him at STEIM
> in Holland. In his case, he recorded samples of his cello
> playing. Then he stepped through the sequence with a pedal
> (continuing playing his live cello, of course).

This could be a great deal for amateur musicians. Get a string set and
four people could be playing Haydn string quartets in short order,
where the idea is, at least the notes are right.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
> This could be a great deal for amateur musicians. Get a string set and
> four people could be playing Haydn string quartets in short order,
> where the idea is, at least the notes are right.

"At least the pitches are correct" would be more proper terminology.
And then all you'd need to worry about was making music of it.

Cheers,
Jon

klaus schmirler wrote:

>Tom Cora did this with contraptions built for him at STEIM >in Holland. In his case, he recorded samples of his cello >playing. Then he stepped through the sequence with a pedal >(continuing playing his live cello, of course).
>

This is how Charles Curtis performs La Monte Young's Just Charles.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

Jon Szanto wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
> >>This could be a great deal for amateur musicians. Get a string set and
>>four people could be playing Haydn string quartets in short order,
>>where the idea is, at least the notes are right.
> > > "At least the pitches are correct" would be more proper terminology.
> And then all you'd need to worry about was making music of it.

And you wouldn't know how to do that if you haven't been into all aspects of tone production before. This is what my guts tell me, although it obviously can't be 100% right, since people use sticks on skins, frets on strings, even organs or even electronic keyboards and somehow manage to make music. Anyhow, I don't think sequenced pitches (sequenced pitched patches) will alter the state of music making in any positive way.

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@>
> wrote:
> > This could be a great deal for amateur musicians. Get a string set and
> > four people could be playing Haydn string quartets in short order,
> > where the idea is, at least the notes are right.
>
> "At least the pitches are correct" would be more proper terminology.
> And then all you'd need to worry about was making music of it.

But with the right four people, they could really enjoy learning to do
that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:

> Anyhow, I don't think sequenced pitches
> (sequenced pitched patches) will alter the state of music
> making in any positive way.

Musicians are so conservative. It would be a hard sell to
professionals, for certain. It might work as something for kids or
amateurs, but that would just make the pros look down their nose harder.
Yet, I think it really could be made to work.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
> Musicians are so conservative.

You mean like Kronos? or Ethel? or the Del Sol? or the Smith? (these
are all string quartets working actively with living composers to
create new music, and a new repertoire)

But anyway, there are many ways to make music, and many levels of
player that can enjoy the experience - professional, amateur, and
everything in-between.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@>
> wrote:
> > Musicians are so conservative.
>
> You mean like Kronos? or Ethel? or the Del Sol? or the Smith? (these
> are all string quartets working actively with living composers to
> create new music, and a new repertoire)

Probably, yes. I don't think they'd go for it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
> Probably, yes. I don't think they'd go for it.

Well, there might be reasons they wouldn't go for it, but I'll just
get to the point: it is absurd to make a statement like "musicians are
so conservative". And I won't even offer the usual counter-analogy.
Gene, there are an awful lot of musicians out there looking for the
next step, but you'll never notice them if you let your prejudices get
in the way.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@>
> wrote:
> > Probably, yes. I don't think they'd go for it.
>
> Well, there might be reasons they wouldn't go for it, but I'll just
> get to the point: it is absurd to make a statement like "musicians are
> so conservative". And I won't even offer the usual counter-analogy.
> Gene, there are an awful lot of musicians out there looking for the
> next step, but you'll never notice them if you let your prejudices get
> in the way.
>

***I just sold two microtonal pieces (for a very reasonable fee) to a
theremin player who specifically wanted microtonal work. This person
takes the theremin very seriously and even studied with famed Lydia
Kavina of the instrument. She is, however, also a software
programmer.... And, how did she find out about the pieces? Through
the Internet, of course... Probably these kinds of people are the
performers/audience for this kind of stuff...

J. Pehrson

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Thinking about the utter nightmare that microtonal notation
> unfortunately is, it occured to me that it would really be desirable
> to automatically control intonation, and leave the performer to focus
> on everything else.

This could also be done by any MIDI instrument without sacrificing expressive pitch parameters you'd want to control on the spot. As I wrote in the wind controlers group, an instrument that gives you 19 fingerings per octave would be a start, and the clarinet is already halfway there. There are sometimes different holes, sometimes different keys that work the same hole, sometimes keys with a branch that can be reached with a different finger, plus some forked fingerings (there is probably a real name for that) and divided keys, or places where a finger presses one of two (or, with saxophones, both) keys. Extend this systematically to 6 flats and 6 sharps with fingerings that are ergonomical for diatonic purposes, and you are set for 19 out of n-ything. Notation is traightforward, and I suspect it could come cheaper than a microtonal keyboard.

klaus

klaus schmirler wrote:

> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> >>Thinking about the utter nightmare that microtonal notation
>>unfortunately is, it occured to me that it would really be desirable
>>to automatically control intonation, and leave the performer to focus
>>on everything else.
> > > This could also be done by any MIDI instrument without > sacrificing expressive pitch parameters you'd want to > control on the spot. As I wrote in the wind controlers > group, an instrument that gives you 19 fingerings per octave > would be a start, and the clarinet is already halfway there. > There are sometimes different holes, sometimes different > keys that work the same hole, sometimes keys with a branch > that can be reached with a different finger, plus some > forked fingerings (there is probably a real name for that) > and divided keys, or places where a finger presses one of > two (or, with saxophones, both) keys.

Culturally biased as I am, this describes the Oehler system. the time I've spent with Boehm clarinets adds up to minutes, and I can't remember if what I wrote is true for them also.

kalus

Extend this
> systematically to 6 flats and 6 sharps with fingerings that > are ergonomical for diatonic purposes, and you are set for > 19 out of n-ything. Notation is traightforward, and I > suspect it could come cheaper than a microtonal keyboard.
> > klaus
> > > > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:

> This could also be done by any MIDI instrument without
> sacrificing expressive pitch parameters you'd want to
> control on the spot. As I wrote in the wind controlers
> group, an instrument that gives you 19 fingerings per octave
> would be a start, and the clarinet is already halfway there.

This sounds great, but what, exactly, are the 19 fingerings controlling?

> Thinking about the utter nightmare that microtonal notation
> unfortunately is, it occured to me that it would really be desirable
> to automatically control intonation, and leave the performer to
> focus on everything else. So I'm wondering--could musically
> expressive instruments be designed which could be loaded with a
> sequence of tones, so that the musician would call up the next
> note in the sequence whenever wanted, play it in any manner and
> for any length of time wanted, and then go on to the next?

There is

http://www.musanim.com/tapper/

However, much of the expressivity of non-keyboard, non-fretted
instruments comes from the flexibility of their intonation.

> And it would be a
> *hell* of a lot easier to write scores for.

Sidestepping the problem does a great disservice to microtonal
music. Until we have sensible microtonal keyboards and
notation, we're shooting in the dark. Guitars are the one
thing we do have (the design is obvious at least for ETs, and
the cost is non-prohibitive), and I wish some of the self-
proclaimed guitarists on theses lists wolud get busy making
some music.

-Carl

> > This could be a great deal for amateur musicians. Get a string
> > set and four people could be playing Haydn string quartets in
> > short order, where the idea is, at least the notes are right.
>
> "At least the pitches are correct" would be more proper terminology.
> And then all you'd need to worry about was making music of it.

Actually, since we don't have an understanding of "correct" quartet
intonation, the pitches would very likely be wrong, and the result
would very likely sound like a MIDI file.

-Carl

> > Anyhow, I don't think sequenced pitches
> > (sequenced pitched patches) will alter the state of music
> > making in any positive way.
>
> Musicians are so conservative. It would be a hard sell to
> professionals, for certain. It might work as something for kids or
> amateurs, but that would just make the pros look down their nose
> harder. Yet, I think it really could be made to work.

The question is: What do you want the people to control?
Only note ons? That would be fun, but it isn't anywhere
near as expressive as a real quartet. Tapper gives you
that plus velocity. That's more fun. A bow controller
could give a better handle on velocity than a keyboard.
Still more fun. But ultimately, without the pitch
"connective tissue", as Synful creator Eric Lindemann puts
it, between notes, you don't have a string quartet, you
have a keyboard playing string sounds.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> Actually, since we don't have an understanding of "correct" quartet
> intonation, the pitches would very likely be wrong...

I meant "correct" according to the pitches Gene (or anyone else
interested in a game like this) wanted to be played.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> However, much of the expressivity of non-keyboard, non-fretted
> instruments comes from the flexibility of their intonation.

When you have a score where you are supposed to stay within a cent of
just, you don't *want* a lot of flexibility.

> Sidestepping the problem does a great disservice to microtonal
> music. Until we have sensible microtonal keyboards and
> notation, we're shooting in the dark.

Keyboards are doable. Notation is another question. I'm not sure there
is a good answer, and if there isn't, sidestepping it surely makes a
lot of sense. How would you propose a "sensible" notation scheme would
work, in general terms?

Guitars are the one
> thing we do have (the design is obvious at least for ETs, and
> the cost is non-prohibitive), and I wish some of the self-
> proclaimed guitarists on theses lists wolud get busy making
> some music.

One possibility is to only write music for things guitars could play,
I suppose, and then only score them for guitars. Seems kind of limiting.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > This could be a great deal for amateur musicians. Get a string
> > > set and four people could be playing Haydn string quartets in
> > > short order, where the idea is, at least the notes are right.
> >
> > "At least the pitches are correct" would be more proper terminology.
> > And then all you'd need to worry about was making music of it.
>
> Actually, since we don't have an understanding of "correct" quartet
> intonation, the pitches would very likely be wrong, and the result
> would very likely sound like a MIDI file.

The results would sound like whatever you told them to sound like,
which I presume could even be taken from an actual quartet (musicians
wearing headphones in separate rooms perhaps) with enough work. It
could be meantone, or adative tempering starting out from a meantone
or 12-et base.

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

> The question is: What do you want the people to control?

As much as possible without involving pitch.

> Only note ons? That would be fun, but it isn't anywhere
> near as expressive as a real quartet. Tapper gives you
> that plus velocity.

Tapper sounds great. What is it?

> But ultimately, without the pitch
> "connective tissue", as Synful creator Eric Lindemann puts
> it, between notes, you don't have a string quartet, you
> have a keyboard playing string sounds.

Four keyboards playing string sounds reasonably expressively sounds
interesting, but would people accept it as a legitimate performance?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
> > >>This could also be done by any MIDI instrument without >>sacrificing expressive pitch parameters you'd want to >>control on the spot. As I wrote in the wind controlers >>group, an instrument that gives you 19 fingerings per octave >>would be a start, and the clarinet is already halfway there. > > > This sounds great, but what, exactly, are the 19 fingerings controlling?

Note numbers. You can program an intonation for the instrument, and there is still the possibility of slow or fast trills for the player, which is lost with presequenced pitches. Also, air or bite pressure can be used to control vibrato, slurred attacks, falloffs and other pitch variations.

If there is a "meantone" mode that remaps a circle of 19 fifths to the linear pitches, you can easily assign the meantones and then some by entering a single number (size of the fifth). Stay between 5 and 7 equal, and the player will feel comfortable, because all the fingerings are close to the diatonic framework they are accustomed to (os so I imagine). with 19 notes per octave as a default, the midi compass reduces from over 10 to less than 7 octaves, but that should be a small price to pay for having the instrument behave normally within a wide range of tunings.

You could provide mappings for half and third octaves and freely assignable pitches, but then new fingerings will have to be learned.

Just the instrument for taking over the world.

klaus

klaus schmirler wrote:

> > Just the instrument for taking over the world.
> > klaus

And it seems Yamaha only patented a 19 tone keyboard (the link at http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/links/index.html goes to IBM, though!?!?), so the idea is there for the taking. Who's going to do it?

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:

> Note numbers. You can program an intonation for the
> instrument, and there is still the possibility of slow or
> fast trills for the player, which is lost with presequenced
> pitches.

Well, no it isn't lost. The only thing lost is the ability to control
what the pitches are.

Also, air or bite pressure can be used to control
> vibrato, slurred attacks, falloffs and other pitch variations.

Sounds good.

> If there is a "meantone" mode that remaps a circle of 19
> fifths to the linear pitches, you can easily assign the
> meantones and then some by entering a single number (size of
> the fifth). Stay between 5 and 7 equal, and the player will
> feel comfortable, because all the fingerings are close to
> the diatonic framework they are accustomed to (os so I
> imagine).

That's very limited, however.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
> > >>Note numbers. You can program an intonation for the >>instrument, and there is still the possibility of slow or >>fast trills for the player, which is lost with presequenced >>pitches. > > > Well, no it isn't lost. The only thing lost is the ability to control
> what the pitches are.

You would have to allow a definite number of tos and fros ahead of execution, wouldn't you? There may be styles (classical) where trills of a certain kind and rhythm are expected at exactly the assigned places, but there are other styles like baroque music where you are expected to embellish beyond the written notes. Presequencing would make this impossible. Even in classical music, there are cadenzas ...

> > Also, air or bite pressure can be used to control > >>vibrato, slurred attacks, falloffs and other pitch variations.
> > > Sounds good.
> > >>If there is a "meantone" mode that remaps a circle of 19 >>fifths to the linear pitches, you can easily assign the >>meantones and then some by entering a single number (size of >>the fifth). Stay between 5 and 7 equal, and the player will >>feel comfortable, because all the fingerings are close to >>the diatonic framework they are accustomed to (os so I >>imagine).
> > > That's very limited, however.

It would keep the outcome of a newby's experiments within practical bounds, and it takes care of the notation problem (of course, you can notate other music by writing down the fingering in a pseudo-diatonic way and separate it from the heard result). Also, this needn't and shouldn't be the only way to program such a stick. But set the fifth mode with a fifth of 700 cent as factory default, and you can sell it to anybody who likes ergonomic fingerings in 13 keys.

klaus

> > However, much of the expressivity of non-keyboard, non-fretted
> > instruments comes from the flexibility of their intonation.
>
> When you have a score where you are supposed to stay within a
> cent of just, you don't *want* a lot of flexibility.

I think that's a pretty naive view of string intonation.

> > Sidestepping the problem does a great disservice to microtonal
> > music. Until we have sensible microtonal keyboards and
> > notation, we're shooting in the dark.
>
> Keyboards are doable.

Well, they haven't been done. That may change soon, though.
Hopefully.

> Notation is another question. I'm not sure there
> is a good answer,

There are many good answers.

> How would you propose a "sensible" notation scheme would
> work, in general terms?

I don't claim there's one single good answer, but I've
described my 'generalized diatonic' approach many times
on all three main lists, and it's quite similar to the
approach Paul takes in his papers.

> > Guitars are the one
> > thing we do have (the design is obvious at least for ETs, and
> > the cost is non-prohibitive), and I wish some of the self-
> > proclaimed guitarists on theses lists wolud get busy making
> > some music.
>
> One possibility is to only write music for things guitars could
> play, I suppose, and then only score them for guitars. Seems
> kind of limiting.

Guitars aren't historically used with notation much, and that's
a fine thing.

-Carl

> > Actually, since we don't have an understanding of "correct" quartet
> > intonation, the pitches would very likely be wrong, and the result
> > would very likely sound like a MIDI file.
>
> The results would sound like whatever you told them to sound like,
> which I presume could even be taken from an actual quartet (musicians
> wearing headphones in separate rooms perhaps) with enough work. It
> could be meantone, or adative tempering starting out from a meantone
> or 12-et base.

That sounds good, but what about connective tissue?

-Carl

> > Only note ons? That would be fun, but it isn't anywhere
> > near as expressive as a real quartet. Tapper gives you
> > that plus velocity.
>
> Tapper sounds great. What is it?

Did you follow the link I sent?

http://www.musanim.com/tapper/

> > But ultimately, without the pitch
> > "connective tissue", as Synful creator Eric Lindemann puts
> > it, between notes, you don't have a string quartet, you
> > have a keyboard playing string sounds.
>
> Four keyboards playing string sounds reasonably expressively sounds
> interesting, but would people accept it as a legitimate performance?

I certainly would. But I think if you look at the output
of a pitch-tracking algorithm on typical violin playing,
you'll see that the "notes" take up a very small portion of
the time axis, even without vibrato.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > However, much of the expressivity of non-keyboard, non-fretted
> > > instruments comes from the flexibility of their intonation.
> >
> > When you have a score where you are supposed to stay within a
> > cent of just, you don't *want* a lot of flexibility.
>
> I think that's a pretty naive view of string intonation.

Why?

> > > Sidestepping the problem does a great disservice to microtonal
> > > music. Until we have sensible microtonal keyboards and
> > > notation, we're shooting in the dark.
> >
> > Keyboards are doable.
>
> Well, they haven't been done. That may change soon, though.
> Hopefully.

Bosanquet had a workable idea, didn't he?

> > One possibility is to only write music for things guitars could
> > play, I suppose, and then only score them for guitars. Seems
> > kind of limiting.
>
> Guitars aren't historically used with notation much, and that's
> a fine thing.

Not if you want someone to play your music, I would think.

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

> Did you follow the link I sent?
>
> http://www.musanim.com/tapper/

I haven't seen email from you but haven't checked in the last few
hours. This link gives me much to ponder. I didn't know Harvey
Friedman was into music!

> I certainly would. But I think if you look at the output
> of a pitch-tracking algorithm on typical violin playing,
> you'll see that the "notes" take up a very small portion of
> the time axis, even without vibrato.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

> > How would you propose a "sensible" notation scheme would
> > work, in general terms?
>
> I don't claim there's one single good answer, but I've
> described my 'generalized diatonic' approach many times
> on all three main lists, and it's quite similar to the
> approach Paul takes in his papers.

What's needed, I think, is not a universal notation system,
but a universal notation TOOL. A score editor program in
which staves with arbirary numbers of lines and spaces can
be specified by the user, corresponding to arbitrary offsets
in arbitrary scales specified by the user, with arbitrary
accidental glyphs corresponding to more offsets, and arbitrary
notehead glyphs optionally corresponding to more offsets,
for each piece. And it has to be a decent score editor.
Considering that there really aren't any 12-tET score editors
I'd call decent in existence, this is a pretty tall order.
But it isn't supernaturally tall in that I'm sure I could
build it in 24 months with 1.5M US$.

-Carl

> > Well, they haven't been done. That may change soon, though.
> > Hopefully.
>
> Bosanquet had a workable idea, didn't he?

I'm talking about a physical device that can be purchased
for < US $2500.

> > > One possibility is to only write music for things guitars could
> > > play, I suppose, and then only score them for guitars. Seems
> > > kind of limiting.
> >
> > Guitars aren't historically used with notation much, and that's
> > a fine thing.
>
> Not if you want someone to play your music, I would think.

I just view notation as another instrument. The possibility
is for guitarists to 'write' music and play it. I'm not a
guitarist and neither are you, but "we have" the possibility
that someone could do it. We have a fully-functional polyphonic
microtonal instrument: the guitar. Your setup, and Rick
McGowan's, are hovering on functional polyphonic microtonal
instruments, but unless one has done post-graduate work in
computer setup arcanery, they're still hovering.

-Carl

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

> We have a fully-functional polyphonic
> microtonal instrument: the guitar. Your setup, and Rick
> McGowan's, are hovering on functional polyphonic microtonal
> instruments, but unless one has done post-graduate work in
> computer setup arcanery, they're still hovering.

Which could, maybe, get up to 46. If someone were to write a piece in
46-et for a guitar, and used Pythagorean notation, would anyone want
to play the result? Do live performers want this sort of stuff?

> > Did you follow the link I sent?
> >
> > http://www.musanim.com/tapper/
>
> I haven't seen email from you but haven't checked in the last few
> hours.

I posted it here -- did it not appear again? *$$%@...

> This link gives me much to ponder. I didn't know Harvey
> Friedman was into music!
>
> > I certainly would. But I think if you look at the output
> > of a pitch-tracking algorithm on typical violin playing,
> > you'll see that the "notes" take up a very small portion of
> > the time axis, even without vibrato.
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying.

The structure of violin music is nothing like the structure
of keyboard music, and it's immediately obvious by looking
at a pitch tracker. Do you understand why Synful's approach
is so unique?

For that matter, just because you say a piece is a string
quartet doesn't make it one. Did you write within the ranges
of the quartet instruments? Did you give any player a chord
that can't be played? Did you write a ton of phrases that
require awkward bowing? Do your melodic jumps serve the
glissandi and portamenti that naturally arise in stringed-
instrument phrasing? Did you fail to use any of the special
effects that string instruments are capable of (tremelo,
pizzicato, etc. etc.)?

-Carl

> > We have a fully-functional polyphonic
> > microtonal instrument: the guitar. Your setup, and Rick
> > McGowan's, are hovering on functional polyphonic microtonal
> > instruments, but unless one has done post-graduate work in
> > computer setup arcanery, they're still hovering.
>
> Which could, maybe, get up to 46.

From what I know of guitar (which isn't very much), 31 is about
the cutoff. Neil plays 34, but he doesn't achieve full guitar-
like flexibility on it. And Paul has just told us of the huge
limitations with 53.

A Chapman Stick-like instrument could be longer than could
be comfortably worn, and this might buy us some more frets.
But part of the success of the guitar is its wearability
(allows performer to communicate with audience) and its
portability.

> If someone were to write a piece in
> 46-et for a guitar, and used Pythagorean notation, would anyone
> want to play the result? Do live performers want this sort of
> stuff?

Most guitarists don't read music. Easley Blackwood did have
a 15-tET piece performed and recorded, though.

-Carl

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

> For that matter, just because you say a piece is a string
> quartet doesn't make it one.

True enough. I wasn't thinking about having actual people play it.

> Did you write within the ranges
> of the quartet instruments?

If not, transpose up. :)

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>Only note ons? That would be fun, but it isn't anywhere
>>>near as expressive as a real quartet. Tapper gives you
>>>that plus velocity.
>>
>>Tapper sounds great. What is it?
> > > Did you follow the link I sent?
> > http://www.musanim.com/tapper/

The examples, even the expressionless one, actually sound great. To convince me, however, they should have used a piece with a less uniform rhythm. And it's probably not intended for anything alse than keybooard music, where intonation is not a problem anyway.

klaus

> >>>Only note ons? That would be fun, but it isn't anywhere
> >>>near as expressive as a real quartet. Tapper gives you
> >>>that plus velocity.
> >>
> >>Tapper sounds great. What is it?
> >
> >
> > Did you follow the link I sent?
> >
> > http://www.musanim.com/tapper/
>
> The examples, even the expressionless one, actually sound
> great. To convince me, however, they should have used a
> piece with a less uniform rhythm. And it's probably not
> intended for anything alse than keybooard music,

It's intended for every kind of music (I know the author).

> where intonation is not a problem anyway.

Keyboard intonation not a problem???

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > Keyboard intonation not a problem???

A one-time problem that doesn't reappear with every new note (don't mention the clavichord now).

I can see a certain usefulness for remapped keyboards where you can't span chords any more. Or are you referring to the fixed number of notes when you say "not a problem"?

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>>Only note ons? That would be fun, but it isn't anywhere
> >>>near as expressive as a real quartet. Tapper gives you
> >>>that plus velocity.
> >>
> >>Tapper sounds great. What is it?
> >
> >
> > Did you follow the link I sent?
> >
> > http://www.musanim.com/tapper/
>
> The examples, even the expressionless one, actually sound
> great. To convince me, however, they should have used a
> piece with a less uniform rhythm. And it's probably not
> intended for anything alse than keybooard music, where
> intonation is not a problem anyway.

I have a kind of toy made by Tomy shaped like a violin where you push
a stick back and forth across a rubber wheel to play sequenced
pitches. An expressive version might use something like "vBow" http://
ccrma.stanford.edu/~cnichols/

Clark

> > Keyboard intonation not a problem???
>
> A one-time problem that doesn't reappear with every new note
> (don't mention the clavichord now).

What about scales with > 12 tones/oct? What about Hermode tuning?

> I can see a certain usefulness for remapped keyboards where
> you can't span chords any more. Or are you referring to the
> fixed number of notes when you say "not a problem"?

Intonation is intonation. The expanded intonation systems
discussed on this list present challenges for all current
instruments, except in the case of ETs < 29 or so, the guitar.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>Keyboard intonation not a problem???
>>
>>A one-time problem that doesn't reappear with every new note >>(don't mention the clavichord now).
> > > What about scales with > 12 tones/oct? You are talking about having the wrong instruments for your music.

What about Hermode tuning?

I consider this a solution, not a problem.

>>I can see a certain usefulness for remapped keyboards where >>you can't span chords any more. Or are you referring to the >>fixed number of notes when you say "not a problem"?
> > > Intonation is intonation. The expanded intonation systems
> discussed on this list present challenges for all current
> instruments, except in the case of ETs < 29 or so, the guitar.

So you do talk about the number of notes. I'm actually thinking on the level where intonation is a problem for any tone in context, regardless of the tones per octave. Don't know what Gene meant originally. But on my level, tuning strings, placing frets or, on a lesser level, manipulating tone holes with tape already do a lot to kame these problems smaller.

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > We have a fully-functional polyphonic
> > > microtonal instrument: the guitar. Your setup, and Rick
> > > McGowan's, are hovering on functional polyphonic microtonal
> > > instruments, but unless one has done post-graduate work in
> > > computer setup arcanery, they're still hovering.
> >
> > Which could, maybe, get up to 46.
>
> From what I know of guitar (which isn't very much), 31 is about
> the cutoff. Neil plays 34, but he doesn't achieve full guitar-
> like flexibility on it.

Oh?

> And Paul has just told us of the huge
> limitations with 53.

Which Paul was that? As for me, I keep mentioning Eduardo-Sabat
Garibaldi and his students playing 53-tone guitars.

> > > > We have a fully-functional polyphonic
> > > > microtonal instrument: the guitar. Your setup, and Rick
> > > > McGowan's, are hovering on functional polyphonic microtonal
> > > > instruments, but unless one has done post-graduate work in
> > > > computer setup arcanery, they're still hovering.
> > >
> > > Which could, maybe, get up to 46.
> >
> > From what I know of guitar (which isn't very much), 31 is about
> > the cutoff. Neil plays 34, but he doesn't achieve full guitar-
> > like flexibility on it.
>
> Oh?

His 34 tracks demonstrate as much.

> > And Paul has just told us of the huge
> > limitations with 53.
>
> Which Paul was that? As for me, I keep mentioning Eduardo-Sabat
> Garibaldi and his students playing 53-tone guitars.

Didn't you just say something about how they only play
melodically, and about the necessity of fretting wit one's
fingernails over much of the neck?

-Carl