Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning NEW: Actual barbershop quartet recording in STRICT extended JI.

Hi everyone. I was around a lot a couple years ago. I had a long
thread asserting that barbershop harmony could exist in a pure
extended JI with no tempering. I have since learned a lot, played a
lot of tempered music in a band setting, and am back to barbershop
again.

While I do renounce my JI extremist fundamentalism, I stand by my
statements about the flexibility and musical practicality of strict
extended JI. The difference is I now appreciate and respect all
tunings for what they are and do not care to insist that strict JI
is "the way." But is certainly is A way.

Announcing a recording I wish to share with the list. Visit this
address:

www.harmonize.com/motorcity/bachelors/members.html

There I have posted a number of recordings designed to help my
barbershop chorus learn a song "Bye Bye Blues." After getting a
recording of an unrehearsed quartet attempting the song, I used
modern pitch adjusting software and a lot of work analyzing the score
considering every tuning issue, this is the result. Every single
note is STRICT extended JI accurate to 1 cent, except for minor,
intentionally left-in slides and extremely subtle vibrato (meaning I
nearly squashed any recorded vibrato).

This is very listeneable. But do keep in mind this is designed as an
educational recording. I think that a quartet that learned from this
as strictly as humanly possible, that then added more dynamics and
rehearsed better vocal technique and expressiveness would then be
wonderful and truly appropriate for mass consumption. This recording
is not that.

These recordings show that in this style with a good arrangement,
there is NO concern for the sliminess of comma shift and drift. The
melody line (Lead) even has a couple spots of exact note to note
comma shift, but it is musically functional and expressive and
subtle - almost beautiful and better than straight.

The basic idea was to stick with prime7-limit extended JI. I had
these priorities: when one part had a held or repeated note, but the
overall harmony changed, I kept the one note the same and had the
other parts tune to that. Whenever shifting away from tonic into a
circle-of-fifths progression, I had the root shift to sharper
pythagorean notes and everything tune accordingly.

There were some tough decisions. I feel very good about all the end
results. I used a septimal minor seventh chord with 7:4 and 7:6
harmonies instead of a 5-limit m7 chord, because that fit better with
the surrounding notes and harmonies, for example.

Sometime, I could post more details, or if there are any questions,
let me know. The notes that I posted list some of the spots. The
score is also available to download and look at, unfortunately not my
copy that has my analysis on it.

I feel that this is proof that all that is needed to avoid
the "sliminess" and weirdness of comma shift is appropriate and clear
harmonic intent, just enough glide between pitches, and a good
arrangement like this that puts the most distant harmonics in the
harmony voices, keeping the bass and melody relatively consistent,
and in this case focusing on pythagorean root motion, with almost
entirely 9-limit harmonies.

When I have more time, I'd love to share specifics about the chords
used. For now, let me know what you think. Thanks everyone for the
help in the past that got me where I'm at such that I could make this
possible.

In Harmony,
Aaron Wolf, director, Bachelors Of Harmony barbershop chorus

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

Wow, Aaron! Phenomenal work. Was this done in Melodyne?
Did you mic each singer, or use the new polyphonic
capabilities?

>These recordings show that in this style with a good arrangement,
>there is NO concern for the sliminess of comma shift and drift.
>The melody line (Lead) even has a couple spots of exact note to
>note comma shift, but it is musically functional and expressive
>and subtle - almost beautiful and better than straight.

This is a point well worth dwelling on. Dogma on this list has
maintained otherwise for years. Listening to BBB_Lead.mp3 with
my player panned to the right, I can hear a very natural
barbershop melody, and it sounds great!

>When I have more time, I'd love to share specifics about the
>chords used. For now, let me know what you think. Thanks
>everyone for the help in the past that got me where I'm at
>such that I could make this possible.

I'd love any specifics you have. A score with ratios perhaps?
Even just a list of ratios for the lead parts would be a
tremendous contribution to tuning theory. This is very
exciting stuff. I am sure Kraig Grady (and others) will be
interested.

It sounds like Sentimental Gentlemen has fewer warping
artifacts -- was the recording closer to JI to start with?

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Bye Bye Blues was done in Melodyne, yes. And the new Polyphonic capabilities are NOT
that capable. All the new things are is the ability to stretch and shift audio that is
polyphonic, not the ability to change the internal structure of polyphonic audio.
All singers were mic'ed separately.

Sentimental Gentleman, as noted at the sight, was done by a phenomenal barbershop
singer, and not edited by me. He is not exactly perfectly JI or anything as far as I know
and hear. I don't know if any pitch editing was done on his recording at all. Probably not.
So, yeah, there's NO artifacts, because NO editing (as far as I know). But it's not perfectly
in tune either, just good. So, yeah WAY closer to JI to start with (but not all the way there
to end with). Obviously, Tim is pretty fantastic. I have nothing to do with that song, it is
up there because it's the other tune the chorus is learning.

Which brings me to mention that the original parts that *I* recorded included wrong notes,
crazy wavering, and the whole recording was almost a half-step flat. So the artifacts in my
recording are due primarily to having MAJOR changes made, including everything raised
and many notes entirely changed. If I'd started with a rehearsed quartet that knew the
song, or a top-notch recording by someone like Tim, who did Sentimental Gentleman,
then I could probably do my analysis and pitch editing with almost no artifacts.

To make things easiest, I PROMISE that I'll find time to scan my score with my handwritten
JI ratios written on it, and change some parts so that the way I chose to note things is
consistent. I wanted to share this right away. Since I already have the score analyzed with
ratios, it won't be too hard to scan and upload. But I should add marks indicating when it's
the same music again, or fill in ratios for the repeating parts, just so it is more clear. Just
give me some time, I've been REALLY busy.

Thanks for the feedback!

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, Aaron! Phenomenal work. Was this done in Melodyne?
> Did you mic each singer, or use the new polyphonic
> capabilities?
>
> >These recordings show that in this style with a good arrangement,
> >there is NO concern for the sliminess of comma shift and drift.
> >The melody line (Lead) even has a couple spots of exact note to
> >note comma shift, but it is musically functional and expressive
> >and subtle - almost beautiful and better than straight.
>
> This is a point well worth dwelling on. Dogma on this list has
> maintained otherwise for years. Listening to BBB_Lead.mp3 with
> my player panned to the right, I can hear a very natural
> barbershop melody, and it sounds great!
>
> >When I have more time, I'd love to share specifics about the
> >chords used. For now, let me know what you think. Thanks
> >everyone for the help in the past that got me where I'm at
> >such that I could make this possible.
>
> I'd love any specifics you have. A score with ratios perhaps?
> Even just a list of ratios for the lead parts would be a
> tremendous contribution to tuning theory. This is very
> exciting stuff. I am sure Kraig Grady (and others) will be
> interested.
>
> It sounds like Sentimental Gentlemen has fewer warping
> artifacts -- was the recording closer to JI to start with?
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Splendid work Aaron!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 01 Mart 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 0:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: NEW: Actual barbershop quartet recording in STRICT
extended JI.

> Bye Bye Blues was done in Melodyne, yes. And the new Polyphonic
capabilities are NOT
> that capable. All the new things are is the ability to stretch and shift
audio that is
> polyphonic, not the ability to change the internal structure of polyphonic
audio.
> All singers were mic'ed separately.
>
> Sentimental Gentleman, as noted at the sight, was done by a phenomenal
barbershop
> singer, and not edited by me. He is not exactly perfectly JI or anything
as far as I know
> and hear. I don't know if any pitch editing was done on his recording at
all. Probably not.
> So, yeah, there's NO artifacts, because NO editing (as far as I know).
But it's not perfectly
> in tune either, just good. So, yeah WAY closer to JI to start with (but
not all the way there
> to end with). Obviously, Tim is pretty fantastic. I have nothing to do
with that song, it is
> up there because it's the other tune the chorus is learning.
>
> Which brings me to mention that the original parts that *I* recorded
included wrong notes,
> crazy wavering, and the whole recording was almost a half-step flat. So
the artifacts in my
> recording are due primarily to having MAJOR changes made, including
everything raised
> and many notes entirely changed. If I'd started with a rehearsed quartet
that knew the
> song, or a top-notch recording by someone like Tim, who did Sentimental
Gentleman,
> then I could probably do my analysis and pitch editing with almost no
artifacts.
>
> To make things easiest, I PROMISE that I'll find time to scan my score
with my handwritten
> JI ratios written on it, and change some parts so that the way I chose to
note things is
> consistent. I wanted to share this right away. Since I already have the
score analyzed with
> ratios, it won't be too hard to scan and upload. But I should add marks
indicating when it's
> the same music again, or fill in ratios for the repeating parts, just so
it is more clear. Just
> give me some time, I've been REALLY busy.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> -Aaron
>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> Bye Bye Blues was done in Melodyne, yes. And the new
> Polyphonic capabilities are NOT that capable. All the
> new things are is the ability to stretch and shift audio
> that is polyphonic, not the ability to change the
> internal structure of polyphonic audio.

I just found that out from the demos on their site. The
earlier marketing language was a little misleading on
this point (not that I wasn't skeptical about it working).

> Sentimental Gentleman, as noted at the sight, was done by a
> phenomenal barbershop singer, and not edited by me.

Oh, the language on the site was a little confusing to me.

> He is not exactly perfectly JI or anything as far as I know
> and hear. I don't know if any pitch editing was done on his
> recording at all. Probably not.

Maybe a pro recording of BBB would be a better counterbalance
to your edited piece.

> If I'd started with a rehearsed quartet that knew the
> song, or a top-notch recording by someone like Tim, who did
> Sentimental Gentleman, then I could probably do my analysis
> and pitch editing with almost no artifacts.

That'd be cool.

> To make things easiest, I PROMISE that I'll find time to scan
> my score with my handwritten JI ratios written on it, and
> change some parts so that the way I chose to note things is
> consistent.

That'd be awesome!

-Carl

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> And just to be clear: not only the vertical chords are just, but also
> the horizontal intervals?

Simple answer: YES!

Long answer: Every single note can be expressed in simple whole number ratios to a stable
1/1, with the exception of 2 chords: the chord at the end of the intro, which slides into the
key change, so I randomly chose to root on a standard ET note, and the last chord of
Chorus 1, which is 2 cents flat, simply because I chose to have the key for Chorus 2 on an
ET 1/1 for ease of working and so it would be in tune with pitch pipes for anyone starting
rehearsal at that spot. These two could have been pure ratios to the original 1/1 if I cared,
and then everything would be exactly JI.

> Amazing work! I can't wait to hear the real thing. What contest is this for?

This is for our district chorus contest, which we are slotted in the top 3 out of 16-20
competing choruses. For reference, our district's top chorus generally comes in about
second to last out of 30+ representatives from around the country and some international.
We have a good group of young guys, but we are honestly pathetic compared to the top
groups out there. This part recording will help, but we won't have any chance of sounding
like this. We've got 20+ guys with 8 rehearsals (once a week) total. And we're talking
serious hobbyists here. A dedicated quartet can really pull this off, as can the best
choruses. We have ambitions to get that good.

Check out www.barbershop.org, or especially www.youcansingtoo.com and see the live
performance videos from some of the best groups...

-Aaron

🔗Joe <tamahome02000@yahoo.com>

Very cool. Reminds me of Toby Twining's 'Chyrsalid Requiem', which I
picked up on http://emusic.com, except it's english not latin, lol.
(sound samples: http://justintonation.net/soundfiles.html ) I read
that Toby had every vocalist listen to a sythesizer version of their
part while they sang.

Joe

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone. I was around a lot a couple years ago. I had a long
> thread asserting that barbershop harmony could exist in a pure
> extended JI with no tempering. I have since learned a lot, played a
> lot of tempered music in a band setting, and am back to barbershop
> again.
>
> While I do renounce my JI extremist fundamentalism, I stand by my
> statements about the flexibility and musical practicality of strict
> extended JI. The difference is I now appreciate and respect all
> tunings for what they are and do not care to insist that strict JI
> is "the way." But is certainly is A way.
>
> Announcing a recording I wish to share with the list. Visit this
> address:
>
> www.harmonize.com/motorcity/bachelors/members.html
>
> There I have posted a number of recordings designed to help my
> barbershop chorus learn a song "Bye Bye Blues." After getting a
> recording of an unrehearsed quartet attempting the song, I used
> modern pitch adjusting software and a lot of work analyzing the score
> considering every tuning issue, this is the result. Every single
> note is STRICT extended JI accurate to 1 cent, except for minor,
> intentionally left-in slides and extremely subtle vibrato (meaning I
> nearly squashed any recorded vibrato).
>
> This is very listeneable. But do keep in mind this is designed as an
> educational recording. I think that a quartet that learned from this
> as strictly as humanly possible, that then added more dynamics and
> rehearsed better vocal technique and expressiveness would then be
> wonderful and truly appropriate for mass consumption. This recording
> is not that.
>
> These recordings show that in this style with a good arrangement,
> there is NO concern for the sliminess of comma shift and drift. The
> melody line (Lead) even has a couple spots of exact note to note
> comma shift, but it is musically functional and expressive and
> subtle - almost beautiful and better than straight.
>
> The basic idea was to stick with prime7-limit extended JI. I had
> these priorities: when one part had a held or repeated note, but the
> overall harmony changed, I kept the one note the same and had the
> other parts tune to that. Whenever shifting away from tonic into a
> circle-of-fifths progression, I had the root shift to sharper
> pythagorean notes and everything tune accordingly.
>
> There were some tough decisions. I feel very good about all the end
> results. I used a septimal minor seventh chord with 7:4 and 7:6
> harmonies instead of a 5-limit m7 chord, because that fit better with
> the surrounding notes and harmonies, for example.
>
> Sometime, I could post more details, or if there are any questions,
> let me know. The notes that I posted list some of the spots. The
> score is also available to download and look at, unfortunately not my
> copy that has my analysis on it.
>
> I feel that this is proof that all that is needed to avoid
> the "sliminess" and weirdness of comma shift is appropriate and clear
> harmonic intent, just enough glide between pitches, and a good
> arrangement like this that puts the most distant harmonics in the
> harmony voices, keeping the bass and melody relatively consistent,
> and in this case focusing on pythagorean root motion, with almost
> entirely 9-limit harmonies.
>
> When I have more time, I'd love to share specifics about the chords
> used. For now, let me know what you think. Thanks everyone for the
> help in the past that got me where I'm at such that I could make this
> possible.
>
> In Harmony,
> Aaron Wolf, director, Bachelors Of Harmony barbershop chorus
>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

I have the Chrysalid Requiem CD. It's very good, and really quite different although also
strict JI. Barbershop is traditional tonality and the Toby Twining is all over the place.
There's a few dozen barbershop recordings about the quality of the Chrysalid Requiem,
just not as unique and extensive. My understanding is the singers listened to some tonal
notes to follow but not to exact recordings of their parts.

Fact is, as much as I love that CD, barbershop (especially as I'm presenting) shows far
more how JI and microtonality relates to what most people understand as tonal music,
with traditional framework and normal melodies. In fact, I heard an instrumental jazz trio
play a version of this particular tune just last weekend.

Anyway, I mostly want to point out that there are thousands of arrangements like the Bye
Bye Blues one I'm sharing. While the Chrysalid Requiem is a unique one-time composition,
barbershop is a style that we can discuss as a whole style, along with discussing ragas and
blues and things like that. In other words, just be sure not to think of this in any way as
one special piece. There's whole libraries of music like this, just not quite so carefully
analyzed and recorded. I did this one in a week (and an otherwise busy one at that). I
could easily do more. In fact, I'm considering offering my services to quartets and
choruses that would like better learning tapes.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <tamahome02000@...> wrote:
>
> Very cool. Reminds me of Toby Twining's 'Chyrsalid Requiem', which I
> picked up on http://emusic.com, except it's english not latin, lol.
> (sound samples: http://justintonation.net/soundfiles.html ) I read
> that Toby had every vocalist listen to a sythesizer version of their
> part while they sang.
>
> Joe

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

As promised:

harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/Bye_Bye_Blues/BBBratios.pdf

I think it should all be pretty self explanatory. Get the recordings at:

harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members.html

Note that this is the only link to the file with the ratios, I haven't linked to it anywhere else.

I appreciate everyone's support and help in my learning and I believe strongly that it's better
to share and support the community than to keep things to myself, as though I should be
defensive that someone else will "steal" my ideas. Everything is out there to be learned and it
is easiest if we help each other. I am still amazed at the personal attention and work that
was done in the past that helped me learn, so let's all keep it up. I'll do my part. Do not
hesitate to ask me any questions. I appreciate any and all feedback.

Thanks!

-Aaron

🔗Cody Hallenbeck <codyhallenbeck@gmail.com>

Wow, Aaron! This sounds amazingly excellent. When I have some time
I'll definately be checking out your score.

Also, to be honest, I think the aliasing sounds kind of cool. I can
see this being a useful musical effect.

On 2/28/06, Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone. I was around a lot a couple years ago. I had a long
> thread asserting that barbershop harmony could exist in a pure
> extended JI with no tempering. I have since learned a lot, played a
> lot of tempered music in a band setting, and am back to barbershop
> again.
>
> While I do renounce my JI extremist fundamentalism, I stand by my
> statements about the flexibility and musical practicality of strict
> extended JI. The difference is I now appreciate and respect all
> tunings for what they are and do not care to insist that strict JI
> is "the way." But is certainly is A way.
>
> Announcing a recording I wish to share with the list. Visit this
> address:
>
> www.harmonize.com/motorcity/bachelors/members.html
>
> There I have posted a number of recordings designed to help my
> barbershop chorus learn a song "Bye Bye Blues." After getting a
> recording of an unrehearsed quartet attempting the song, I used
> modern pitch adjusting software and a lot of work analyzing the score
> considering every tuning issue, this is the result. Every single
> note is STRICT extended JI accurate to 1 cent, except for minor,
> intentionally left-in slides and extremely subtle vibrato (meaning I
> nearly squashed any recorded vibrato).
>
> This is very listeneable. But do keep in mind this is designed as an
> educational recording. I think that a quartet that learned from this
> as strictly as humanly possible, that then added more dynamics and
> rehearsed better vocal technique and expressiveness would then be
> wonderful and truly appropriate for mass consumption. This recording
> is not that.
>
> These recordings show that in this style with a good arrangement,
> there is NO concern for the sliminess of comma shift and drift. The
> melody line (Lead) even has a couple spots of exact note to note
> comma shift, but it is musically functional and expressive and
> subtle - almost beautiful and better than straight.
>
> The basic idea was to stick with prime7-limit extended JI. I had
> these priorities: when one part had a held or repeated note, but the
> overall harmony changed, I kept the one note the same and had the
> other parts tune to that. Whenever shifting away from tonic into a
> circle-of-fifths progression, I had the root shift to sharper
> pythagorean notes and everything tune accordingly.
>
> There were some tough decisions. I feel very good about all the end
> results. I used a septimal minor seventh chord with 7:4 and 7:6
> harmonies instead of a 5-limit m7 chord, because that fit better with
> the surrounding notes and harmonies, for example.
>
> Sometime, I could post more details, or if there are any questions,
> let me know. The notes that I posted list some of the spots. The
> score is also available to download and look at, unfortunately not my
> copy that has my analysis on it.
>
> I feel that this is proof that all that is needed to avoid
> the "sliminess" and weirdness of comma shift is appropriate and clear
> harmonic intent, just enough glide between pitches, and a good
> arrangement like this that puts the most distant harmonics in the
> harmony voices, keeping the bass and melody relatively consistent,
> and in this case focusing on pythagorean root motion, with almost
> entirely 9-limit harmonies.
>
> When I have more time, I'd love to share specifics about the chords
> used. For now, let me know what you think. Thanks everyone for the
> help in the past that got me where I'm at such that I could make this
> possible.
>
> In Harmony,
> Aaron Wolf, director, Bachelors Of Harmony barbershop chorus
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Sorry, guess I don't know how to use the new rich-text post option...

I had written something like this:

Keenan,

Do you mean like this:

189/128 = 3^3*7/2 ?

That would make sense. I initially didn't use 189/128 actually, I just wrote 675c. But I
changed it to be clearer for posting.

I think in the future I'll write like this: 27*7/2 because it's easier to look at than total
prime factors and it shows that 27 is the root and this is the 7 of the chord. Does that
sound like a good way to go?

Thanks for the feedback, and that's real neat about the enharmonic tetrachord.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
> >
> > Really nice work. If I were going to make a score like this I would
> > probably use prime-exponent notation, to avoid having to remember the
> > prime factorization of numbers like 189 and some even higher numbers
> > in transitional chords, but ratios work too. I just love the tag at
> > the end; the 36/35 "quarter tone" shift is very appropriate. (And it's
> > cool how it happens to have a complete tetrachord of Archytas'
> > Enharmonic: 1/1 8/5 14/9 3/2)
> >
> > Keenan
> >
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Gene,

Sorry but I must strongly disagree. JI is not the reason this sounds unnatural. The reason
is due entirely to how much I had to adjust from a very unrehearsed performance by non-
professionals. Actual barbershop quartets do have chords that are nearly this close to JI,
except that slightly more wavering of the voice is going to happen live, and that, of
course, nearly no quartet is this flawless. In other words, I doubt I'll find any top-level
barbershopper who thinks that there is anything at all unusual sounding about my
recording. To a top level barbershopper, this JI recording simply sounds computer
perfect, but it doesn't sound to a barbershopper's ears that any of the notes are different
from normal.

So while I can't make claims about this recording sounding totally natural, I'll be so bold as
to say that the idea that JI is to blame for any bit of unnaturalness is completely
unfounded. I have practically NO doubt that these JI notes are the ones any good
rehearsed barbershop aims for and hears, even though their voices can't create computer
perfect performances. The only reason this is hard to show is that there are only a small
number of quartets of world-class caliber, and most quartets are hobbyists who literally
regularly sing wrong notes and do not sound anything like what they aspire to.

I know it may be hard to accept, but only people outside the barbershop world think that
my recording is new sounding or weird or different. Barbershoppers just think it sounds
"right." And to my ears, this exercise showed me that the JI theories in my head DO in fact
align exactly with the intuitive sense of barbershop harmony that I've learned by rote. Not
a single note in my recording made me sit up and say "oh, that's neat and different." It
sounds exactly like I'm used to this song sounding, just more precisely clean and perfect.
And with the same response from other barbershoppers, I know I'm not just fooling
myself.

Sorry if I come off as defensive, but I really feel this recording proves that you can't come
up with a more accurate tuning system for this style. JI is the right one, and the farther
you drift from this, the less accurate to the style it will become.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@> wrote:
> >
> > Really nice work. If I were going to make a score like this I would
> > probably use prime-exponent notation, to avoid having to remember the
> > prime factorization of numbers like 189 and some even higher numbers
> > in transitional chords, but ratios work too.
> >
> This is extremely cool, but by using JI one produces a result which
> does not sound like actual humans. It would be very interesting to
> have a comparison of this version with the corresponding 99-et one.
> That, of course, would also result in a different and easier
> notational problem.
>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/06, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> > This is extremely cool, but by using JI one produces a result which
> > does not sound like actual humans. It would be very interesting to
> > have a comparison of this version with the corresponding 99-et one.
> > That, of course, would also result in a different and easier
> > notational problem.
>
> What difference would using 99-edo versus JI make? The syntonic comma
> "problem" is still there (though I think Aaron has demonstrated it
> isn't a big problem) and I don't see how any of the commas tempered
> out by 99-edo would have an effect.
>
> Keenan
>

Exactly, Keenan. The comma is not only a non-problem, it is actually a FEATURE. It
provides the lift as we leave the tonal center, which is resolved and settled as we return
through the chord changes. As I mentioned a couple years ago, lab studies by
barbershopper and physicist Dr. Jim Richards found that a solo Lead singer actually made
this comma shift on his own when instructed to simply imagine the chord structure of the
other parts around his melody!

-Aaron

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> Sorry but I must strongly disagree. JI is not the reason this
sounds unnatural.

You could be right, but how will we know unless you try a slightly
detuned version? 99 or 72 or something of that sort.

> In other words, I doubt I'll find any top-level
> barbershopper who thinks that there is anything at all unusual
sounding about my
> recording.

I've listened to quite a bit of barbershop recordings, and never have
I heard anything like yours. I really doubt what you say here, and
wonder if you've tried the experiment.

To a top level barbershopper, this JI recording simply sounds computer
> perfect, but it doesn't sound to a barbershopper's ears that any of
the notes are different
> from normal.

The notes don't sound different, it is the chords which don't sound
like anything actual humans ever sing.

> It
> sounds exactly like I'm used to this song sounding, just more
precisely clean and perfect.

Which is to say, it does *not* sound like what you are used to
hearing. I propose you try to find an mp3 of a barbershop group which
sounds like your recording; I've never heard one.

> Sorry if I come off as defensive, but I really feel this recording
proves that you can't come
> up with a more accurate tuning system for this style.

Given that you've not tried any alternatives, your confidence doesn't
mean much.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Joe <tamahome02000@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> I have the Chrysalid Requiem CD. It's very good, and really quite
different although also
> strict JI. Barbershop is traditional tonality and the Toby Twining
is all over the place.
> There's a few dozen barbershop recordings about the quality of the
Chrysalid Requiem,
> just not as unique and extensive. My understanding is the singers
listened to some tonal
> notes to follow but not to exact recordings of their parts.

Actually they did use exact recordings. This is from Bill Alves'
article on 'Chrysalid Requiem' in the 1/1 journal:

"Computer technology makes possible Twining's voyages around the Just
Intonation lattice. Twining recorded a synthesizer track containing
all the pitches that he required, and to perform the piece, either
live or in this studio recording, the twelve singers of his ensemble
must don headphones and tune to the synth track reference, though the
audience never hears the synthesizer itself."

Joe

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Gene,

Fair enough. But I still assert that you have no basis to claim JI as the unnatural factor.
From what I hear, it is the precision of the notes, not the JI-ness that is unnatural.

At any rate, I agree that only by comparing other options would we be able to tell for sure.

I do not have a lot of experience with 99TET or 72. I'd be more than willing to open up my
file and try some other tunings, and share the results. I could use some guidelines as to
how to go about this and what other options to try. If you wanted to do something such
as take a section of the score and simply tell me what cents offset to use for each note
(meaning you do the analysis) then I'll go and create that version for you. I'm willing to do
something even if you can't do that much work, but I will at least need some guidelines as
to how to apply the tunings that you're suggesting. Thanks.

I will state further though, that to my ears, many barbershop recordings DO sound like the
chords in mine. I have no problem admitting that it's *possible* 99TET will be better, but I
have no reason to think so.

I can easily accept that the difference between my JI recording and live recordings is
comparable to a computer quantized rhythm recording, and a love performance. In other
words, it is the imprecision and imperfection itself that draws the line between my
recording and other barbershop, and that (while I'm willing to try and see for sure) I think
anything like 99TET could only sound more like standard barbershop because it would be
slightly more dissonant.

To further the rhythm comparison, some "grooves" are as they are because a beat is
clearly early or late or accented, such as can be created by modern groove quantization in
today's sequencers. This is different from imprecision, which is simulated by "humanizers"
that randomize the timing and emphasis within a rhythm. I think live barbershop exhibits
this randomization, but is otherwise centered on JI.

I can add that I know for certain that even gold medal quartets have out of tune chords
that go by in an instant, such that if we analyze those chords, they would be not JI, but
that these same quartets, if they chose to hold them out, would adjust their tuning to
make it near JI. In other words, the tendancy is to skip through chords that don't sound
just very quickly and focus on the functional chords. Besides, the issue is a chicken and
egg discussion. Singing by ear with no arrangement came first in this style, but now we
have written arrangements... from what I'm aware of, most woodshedding by ear
harmonizers actual do not sing arrangements that have any of the major tuning problem
areas that piano playing arrangers of written scores create. They don't sound right, so
they find ways to make it work. It is temperament and pianos that leads to arrangements
with these problems, and then quartets sing them and rush through the trouble spots.

Anyway, to wrap up, the point is: even gold medal quartets will not claim that they are
absolutely certain on their tuning. It is tough stuff. Again, I doubt I could find a
barbershopper who thinks my JI chords sound different from the barbershop they are used
to. The only comments are and will be that it sounds robotic because it is so exact and
because of the artifacts from the tuning adjustment.

In addition to trying some tempered versions of this, I hope to eventually make a JI
recording along these lines that is based on a much more rehearsed, top level quartet
recording, and I'll predict that you'll agree that one, in JI, will sound natural.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > Sorry but I must strongly disagree. JI is not the reason this
> sounds unnatural.
>
> You could be right, but how will we know unless you try a slightly
> detuned version? 99 or 72 or something of that sort.
>
> > In other words, I doubt I'll find any top-level
> > barbershopper who thinks that there is anything at all unusual
> sounding about my
> > recording.
>
> I've listened to quite a bit of barbershop recordings, and never have
> I heard anything like yours. I really doubt what you say here, and
> wonder if you've tried the experiment.
>
> To a top level barbershopper, this JI recording simply sounds computer
> > perfect, but it doesn't sound to a barbershopper's ears that any of
> the notes are different
> > from normal.
>
> The notes don't sound different, it is the chords which don't sound
> like anything actual humans ever sing.
>
> > It
> > sounds exactly like I'm used to this song sounding, just more
> precisely clean and perfect.
>
> Which is to say, it does *not* sound like what you are used to
> hearing. I propose you try to find an mp3 of a barbershop group which
> sounds like your recording; I've never heard one.
>
> > Sorry if I come off as defensive, but I really feel this recording
> proves that you can't come
> > up with a more accurate tuning system for this style.
>
> Given that you've not tried any alternatives, your confidence doesn't
> mean much.
>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

>
> Actually they did use exact recordings. This is from Bill Alves'
> article on 'Chrysalid Requiem' in the 1/1 journal:
>
>
> "Computer technology makes possible Twining's voyages around the Just
> Intonation lattice. Twining recorded a synthesizer track containing
> all the pitches that he required, and to perform the piece, either
> live or in this studio recording, the twelve singers of his ensemble
> must don headphones and tune to the synth track reference, though the
> audience never hears the synthesizer itself."
>
>
> Joe
>

Joe, I have that issue and I've read all about it. It isn't clear that even though the synth
part includes exact pitches to match to that it was a synth version of the score. The synth
parts were the harmonic structure, but it isn't clear how much of all the melodic content
was in the recording. I got the impression that every important note of every harmony was
in the synth part, but that there were lots of score details left out of the synth backing
tracks.

-Aaron

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > This is extremely cool, but by using JI one produces a result
> > > > > which does not sound like actual humans.
> > > >
> > > > You don't think?
> > >
> > > Can you give a live performance you think sounds like this?
> >
> > Did you ever get that Nitelife CD? Or download the b-shop
> > mp3s I had up?
>
> Yes. I've heard a reasonable amount of barbershop as a consequence,
> and I don't think it sounds like this.
>

Gene, and everyone: listen to this: www.darktownsaints.com/Nora.mp3

To my ears, the only difference between this and mine, is imprecision, subtle vibrato,
different balance, I mean this is REAL voices, in REAL time. They just aren't perfect. But
maybe it's actually better than theory perfect, because imperfection is interesting. But this
sounds totally JI. The singers just aren't always perfectly on. The tag is even similar to my
Bye Bye Blues tag. And besides all that, keep in mind that this quartet, "Four Voices,"
sounds a tad different than any other. No quartet sounds exactly the same. It depends on
so many factors.

Anyway, are you seriously saying that you hear this as a different tuning than JI, aside from
issues of vibrato and subtle imperfection or expression in vocal control??

-Aaron

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> Gene, and everyone: listen to this: www.darktownsaints.com/Nora.mp3

I'm familiar with this one, and it nicely illustrates my point, I
think. It clearly does not sound the same as your rendition, and part
of that I think is tuning. Listen to the final sustained chords, and
you can hear quite a different sound when comparing them.

> But this
> sounds totally JI. The singers just aren't always perfectly on.

To me, this is a contradiction; if they aren't perfectly on it isn't
*totally* JI, and in fact it lacks some of the characteristic
qualities of the JI sound.

> Anyway, are you seriously saying that you hear this as a different
tuning than JI, aside from
> issues of vibrato and subtle imperfection or expression in vocal
control??

I'm not sure what you are saying. It isn't dead-on JI, and doesn't
sound like dead-on JI.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > > > > This is extremely cool, but by using JI one produces a
> > > > > result which does not sound like actual humans.
> > > >
> > > > You don't think?
> > >
> > > Can you give a live performance you think sounds like this?
> >
> > Did you ever get that Nitelife CD? Or download the b-shop
> > mp3s I had up?
>
> Yes. I've heard a reasonable amount of barbershop as a consequence,
> and I don't think it sounds like this.

What about it sounds different? Just the lockedness?

Top quartets get Aaron W.-level lockedness about 80% of the
time, after the erroneous assumption that singers should deliver
discrete tones for their notated durations with nothing in-
between is dropped.

Even quartets from the '70s sing 7-limit JI chords to within
the limit of spectrographic analysis -- including chords of
average musical duration. At least within the limits of the
analysis possible using the Spectrogram program and a
CD-quality digital source.

The Gas House Gang gets more lockedness than any other group.
Gene, try "No more sorrow" or "Sit down, you're rockin' the
boat" if you have them.

The final chord isn't a great place to judge JI, since tags
are usually sung at top volume and involve hangers that tax
the human breathing apparatus to its limits.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
>
> > The Gas House Gang gets more lockedness than any other group.
> > Gene, try "No more sorrow" or "Sit down, you're rockin' the
> > boat" if you have them.
>
> Those do sound JI, but something still is different. I think I'll
> order the Beethoven album.
>

Gene and Carl and everyone,

It may seem presumptious, but I think Carl, you're agreeing with me. Barbershoppers are
clearly aiming to get the JI lock. But they are real people with real voices and it is
extremely hard. As in my rhythm example, some band might truly feel like the bass is
behind the bass drum in time, but let's say, for example that a band truly was attempting
to create a singular sound of everyone hitting at one moment. Then say you compare a
live recording of that to a quantized, perfect recording. They will not be the same. Yet it
will be erroneous to say that therefore the quantized version is different from the real
style. It is more the "real" style than the real people.

See I think it is all about INTENT. Musical intent. I think barbershoppers intend to lock
chords, JI style. And I don't think it is fair to say that since they don't always lock, that the
lock is different from barbershop style. The vast majority of my recordings of barbershop
barely lock at all, but the vast majority of my fellow barbershoppers think that those vast
majority of recordings are mediocre, so does that mean that anything not mediocre is not
barbershop??? If a barbershopper says that the JI one sounds more "right" than the non-
locked one, doesn't that say something? I mean, when the Gas House Gang showed up,
they were more in tune than any before them. Did everyone say, "that's not barbershop"
or "that's different?" No, they said, "wow, these guys are better than any quartet I've heard
before!"

And if I start making JI part tapes and barbershoppers learn to sing from them, will that
change the barbershop style into a different version? I really don't think so. I think it
would be a simple case of getting better. Just like someone who never practices with a
metronome, all of a sudden learning to play with a metronome. They can still perform
without a click in their ear, but they'll be much better than before, and they can slow down
and speed up when they INTEND to because their sense of timing is better. Just like a
quartet who might learn from my JI recording, might still sharp a note hear or there for
expressive intent, because barbershop is still fluid, even though centered around JI. Isn't
that fair?

-Aaron

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Gene:

Here's the list of the JI notes used the arrangement just for intro and chorus I, since I see
no reason to spend time redoing the whole darn piece.

Intro in Eb:

63/32
15/8
1134/640
27/16
5/3
25/16 *used just in end slidy chord, so could be otherwise, but use this
3/2
189/128
45/32
1701/1280
21/16
81/64
5/4
9/8
567/512
35/32 *used just in end slidy chord, so could be otherwise, but use this
135/128
1/1

Chorus I in Ab:

63/32
15/8
9/5
27/16
5/3
8/5
3/2
189/128
45/32
7/5
4/3
21/16
81/64
5/4
6/5
153/128
7/6
9/8
135/128
1/1

If you could give me cents info, that'd be ideal. Within reasonable time constraints, I'll try
any varieties you think will be useful and interesting. Thanks!

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > I do not have a lot of experience with 99TET or 72. I'd be more
> than willing to open up my
> > file and try some other tunings, and share the results. I could use
> some guidelines as to
> > how to go about this and what other options to try.
>
> Why don't you give me the scale--that is, reducing everything to a
> single octave, what is a complete listing of all of the notes you use?
> From that, it would be easy to give the corresponding 99 or 72 values.
>
> >I think
> > anything like 99TET could only sound more like standard barbershop
> because it would be
> > slightly more dissonant.
>
> 99 is not enough different from JI to sound dissonant, but it doesn't
> sound exactly the same; it doesn't have the locked-in quality of JI.
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> Gene:
>
> Here's the list of the JI notes used the arrangement just for intro
and chorus I, since I see
> no reason to spend time redoing the whole darn piece.

Here they are in five tunings of increasing accuracy, 72, 99, 140,
171, and 441. I doubt you will want to try them all; I suggest
starting with 99 or 140.

72 Eb

63/32: 1166.666667
15/8: 1083.333333
567/320: 983.333333
27/16: 900.000000
5/3: 883.333333
25/16: 766.666667
3/2: 700.000000
189/128: 666.666667
45/32: 583.333333
1701/1280: 483.333333
21/16: 466.666667
81/64: 400.000000
5/4: 383.333333
9/8: 200.000000
567/512: 166.666667
35/32: 150.000000
135/128: 83.333333
1: 0.000000

72 Ab

63/32: 1166.666667
15/8: 1083.333333
9/5: 1016.666667
27/16: 900.000000
5/3: 883.333333
8/5: 816.666667
3/2: 700.000000
189/128: 666.666667
45/32: 583.333333
7/5: 583.333333
4/3: 500.000000
21/16: 466.666667
81/64: 400.000000
5/4: 383.333333
6/5: 316.666667
153/128: 300.000000
7/6: 266.666667
9/8: 200.000000
135/128: 83.333333
1: 0.000000

99 Eb

63/32: 1175.757576
15/8: 1090.909091
567/320: 993.939394
27/16: 909.090909
5/3: 884.848485
25/16: 775.757576
3/2: 703.030303
189/128: 678.787879
45/32: 593.939394
1701/1280: 496.969697
21/16: 472.727273
81/64: 412.121212
5/4: 387.878788
9/8: 206.060606
567/512: 181.818182
35/32: 157.575758
135/128: 96.969697
1: 0.000000

99 Ab

63/32: 1175.757576
15/8: 1090.909091
9/5: 1018.181818
27/16: 909.090909
5/3: 884.848485
8/5: 812.121212
3/2: 703.030303
189/128: 678.787879
45/32: 593.939394
7/5: 581.818182
4/3: 496.969697
21/16: 472.727273
81/64: 412.121212
5/4: 387.878788
6/5: 315.151515
153/128: 315.151515
7/6: 266.666667
9/8: 206.060606
135/128: 96.969697
1: 0.000000

140 Eb

63/32: 1174.285714
15/8: 1088.571429
567/320: 994.285714
27/16: 908.571429
5/3: 882.857143
25/16: 771.428571
3/2: 702.857143
189/128: 677.142857
45/32: 591.428571
1701/1280: 497.142857
21/16: 471.428571
81/64: 411.428571
5/4: 385.714286
9/8: 205.714286
567/512: 180.000000
35/32: 154.285714
135/128: 94.285714
1: 0.000000

140 Ab

63/32: 1174.285714
15/8: 1088.571429
9/5: 1020.000000
27/16: 908.571429
5/3: 882.857143
8/5: 814.285714
3/2: 702.857143
189/128: 677.142857
45/32: 591.428571
7/5: 582.857143
4/3: 497.142857
21/16: 471.428571
81/64: 411.428571
5/4: 385.714286
6/5: 317.142857
153/128: 308.571429
7/6: 265.714286
9/8: 205.714286
135/128: 94.285714
1: 0.000000

171 Eb

63/32: 1171.929825
15/8: 1087.719298
567/320: 989.473684
27/16: 905.263158
5/3: 884.210526
25/16: 771.929825
3/2: 701.754386
189/128: 673.684211
45/32: 589.473684
1701/1280: 491.228070
21/16: 470.175439
81/64: 407.017544
5/4: 385.964912
9/8: 203.508772
567/512: 175.438596
35/32: 154.385965
135/128: 91.228070
1: 0.000000

171 Ab

63/32: 1171.929825
15/8: 1087.719298
9/5: 1017.543860
27/16: 905.263158
5/3: 884.210526
8/5: 814.035088
3/2: 701.754386
189/128: 673.684211
45/32: 589.473684
7/5: 582.456140
4/3: 498.245614
21/16: 470.175439
81/64: 407.017544
5/4: 385.964912
6/5: 315.789474
153/128: 308.771930
7/6: 266.666667
9/8: 203.508772
135/128: 91.228070
1: 0.000000

441 Eb

63/32: 1172.789116
15/8: 1088.435374
567/320: 990.476190
27/16: 906.122449
5/3: 884.353741
25/16: 772.789116
3/2: 702.040816
189/128: 674.829932
45/32: 590.476190
1701/1280: 492.517007
21/16: 470.748299
81/64: 408.163265
5/4: 386.394558
9/8: 204.081633
567/512: 176.870748
35/32: 155.102041
135/128: 92.517007
1: 0.000000

441 Ab

63/32: 1172.789116
15/8: 1088.435374
9/5: 1017.687075
27/16: 906.122449
5/3: 884.353741
8/5: 813.605442
3/2: 702.040816
189/128: 674.829932
45/32: 590.476190
7/5: 582.312925
4/3: 497.959184
21/16: 470.748299
81/64: 408.163265
5/4: 386.394558
6/5: 315.646259
153/128: 310.204082
7/6: 266.666667
9/8: 204.081633
135/128: 92.517007
1: 0.000000

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

Here's the intro in 72ET:

www.darktownsaints.com/intro72.mp3

Honestly, it doesn't sound THAT different. It's a tad more fatigueing to my ears.
There's no way that it sounds closer to "right." But in a way, it sounds more
similar to barbershop recordings that, yes, are not perfectly JI.

So you know what? All this leads me to be totally uninterested in exploring more
temperaments. I'll simply say that there's a continuum from JI to way off dissonant
that has no clear dividing lines, it's totally continuous. Remember, by the way, that
even the original JI posting did not have completely no vibrato, so it wasn't absolutely
perfect, and on top of that, it was only accurate to 1 cent at the best.

The difference between JI and 72 is enough for me to have a clear preference, but
I wouldn't care much if I were just a casual listener.

As I said originally, I've renounced my fundamentalism. Temperament is ok.
It's all a question of tolerances and where to put one's time while working on
music. So here's where I'll stand:

The nature of this style is harmonizing by matching overtones. That implies JI,
but there are tolerances for all sorts of variations. As that is the case, some
quartets focus more than others on subtleties of tuning, or on lessening vibrato.
There really is enough range that we can't honestly break apart all the elements
from a complete performance. There is still no doubt in my mind that no quartet out
there would be in a position to hear the difference between JI and subtle temperament
and care about the difference and choose the temperament as preferred. In other
words, most any quartet would barely care about this level of subtlety. What you'd
never find, I predict, is one that did, yet preferred temperament.

What my recording still shows is that comma shift is NOT a problem, and that the
essential feel of barbershop is based on raising by a comma when leaving tonic
and then heading around the circle of fifths back home. And this is very different
from the ideas I've seen that claim that barbershop has a near equal tempered melody
and then near JI chords around it. It's quite clear to me that nearly every lead singer
is also tuning subtley to the chords around them, and that as often as not the bass
part is the most stable, as it is nearly always on roots and fifths. And basses learn to
sing most notes a comma high, such as in Pythagorean, because they only sing 3 based
harmonies. There's no 5s or 7s in the bass part almost ever. So of course the bass
would be used to pythagorean intervals, that's all they ever sing, and all exceptions
are treated as the bass singer on a non-bass note.

To summarize: barbershop tuning is basses on pythagorean intervals when the
harmony changes, and everyone else tuning to that and basically matching harmonics,
which implies JI, even though the result will be tempered by varying degrees for various
reasons. Comma shifts are fine and happen.

To conclude finally, there is a large range of what will be accepted as barbershop.
Most importantly in my mind, the "problems" of JI that most people cite are not
problems. Therefore, it is wholly reasonable for me to say that I'd like my quartet
and chorus to aim for JI, and that doing so is entirely within the barbershop
tradition, even if it is not always the way things are done. And there are no
cons to be wary of when taking this JI approach.

A final note, every theorist within the barbershop society has the underlying
idea that JI is the goal we all have, so I'm not imposing some new idea on something
that was previously done differently.

Love to hear any feedback. And Gene, thanks for encouraging me to try other options.

-Aaron

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the intro in 72ET:
>
> www.darktownsaints.com/intro72.mp3
>
> Honestly, it doesn't sound THAT different. It's a tad more
fatigueing to my ears.
> There's no way that it sounds closer to "right."

It sounds much much more as if actual humans were singing it. I'm not
saying that makes it better, but there is a clear difference. However,
72 is the least accurate tuning I gave; I was wondering if for some of
the more accurate tunings the sound would be more convincingly human,
but still have the special "barbershop chord" quality which is to a
fair extent lacking in the 72 version.

> So you know what? All this leads me to be totally uninterested in
exploring more
> temperaments. I'll simply say that there's a continuum from JI to
way off dissonant
> that has no clear dividing lines, it's totally continuous.

We don't know what happens with this barbershop stuff. I would surmise
that 171 would sound much closer to your JI version, but still might
be distinguishable, which is hard to do with a lot of music.

> The difference between JI and 72 is enough for me to have a clear
preference, but
> I wouldn't care much if I were just a casual listener.

They're quite different, I think. The JI version is cooler, but it
sounds a lot less like human beings.

> What you'd
> never find, I predict, is one that did, yet preferred temperament.

We don't know what people would prefer at this point. I suspect I
would prefer something in between 72 and JI, but I don't know. I know
I like that intermediate range with some things, but barbershop seems
to bring out the intervals meshing very clearly, and I don't know what
I'd actually end up liking the best.

Anyone else care to comment on these two?

> What my recording still shows is that comma shift is NOT a problem,
and that the
> essential feel of barbershop is based on raising by a comma when
leaving tonic
> and then heading around the circle of fifths back home.

You make a good case for that, but are your fifths in a circle? If you
are using strict JI, they can't be.

And this is very different
> from the ideas I've seen that claim that barbershop has a near equal
tempered melody
> and then near JI chords around it.

That sounds more like an adaptive JI theory of barbershop, where you
would have a circle.

It's quite clear to me that nearly every lead singer
> is also tuning subtley to the chords around them, and that as often
as not the bass
> part is the most stable, as it is nearly always on roots and fifths.

In any choral group I've ever sung in, the bass part is the most stable.

> To conclude finally, there is a large range of what will be accepted
as barbershop.
> Most importantly in my mind, the "problems" of JI that most people
cite are not
> problems.

I'd like to hear Paul Erlich's reaction; he has a bad reaction to
comma shifts.

> Love to hear any feedback. And Gene, thanks for encouraging me to
try other options.

Thanks. Kind of wish you'd tested something other than 72, though. :)

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> And this is very different
> > from the ideas I've seen that claim that barbershop has a near equal
> tempered melody
> > and then near JI chords around it.
>
> That sounds more like an adaptive JI theory of barbershop, where you
> would have a circle.
>

I didn't mean a real circle, I just meant the standard idea of chord root resolution
by fifths. It's not a circle.

>
> > Love to hear any feedback. And Gene, thanks for encouraging me to
> try other options.
>
> Thanks. Kind of wish you'd tested something other than 72, though. :)
>

I only stopped there because it convinced me of the value of being slightly off fromJI.
Really, it did. I don't think that it is any of these particular temperaments, but
simply being tempered that creates the effect. And it has its place for sure.

If I intended this for mass consumption, I'm quite certain that what would deliver the
best result would be to use JI as a foundation, and then have a live quartet sing
it well. Then, I could even move pitches around if I chose, but I wouldn't squash the
vibrato so much. I think simply having less squashed vibrato will have the same
effect as the tempering. Besides that, if I felt that expressively it would be nice
to move some notes away from JI, I'll do that.

I mainly think JI is still the foundation to which everything else is off by.

Just like a late beat in a groove has the effect of being late because the strict
beat pattern is the simple foundation. And late beats can be wonderful, no
doubt! Just like temperament can be.

To put it another way, there is no need for "compromise" in barbershop that
results in tempering. It can simply be off from JI because that effect may be
musically desired (or not, it's up to the musicians making the music).

So understanding that, I have no need to try other temperaments. I know what
I need to know. That JI works and that slight tempering doesn't destroy the sound
and less than 72TET tempering would be subtler and I bet I'd like it.

If I ever create a barbershop recording for mass consumption that I don't feel
is innapropriate to have retuning done, I will consider all these options and how
they fit my expressive goal. So it may or may not be JI or may fluxuate. But JI
will always be the starting point for undertanding the harmonic content.

Thanks for helping me see the big picture.

I think I can build from here to create truly flexible recordings that are less
stagnant and have more life. Again, the important stuff is that I've learned that
JI really can work, so I can disregard the warnings against it, and consider tuning
only on the basis of desired musical effect, and I'll be open to the possibilities in
that regard.

And while I think anyone could accept the comma shift in my JI recording, I think
that they'd be even less blatant with subtle, natural vibrato and less aliasing, and
I could even use more sliding to hide the shift, so there's no way it could ever be
a distraction and problem musically.

The one other bit of knowledge is that I don't have to accept any comma DRIFT.
I can have it if I want it, but I've shown that it can be cleanly avoided without
any compromise to any harmonies.

-Aaron

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@smartelectronix.com>

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006, Aaron Wolf wrote:

[snip]
> Gene, and everyone: listen to this: www.darktownsaints.com/Nora.mp3

Aaron,

Awesome!!! :-)

Also listened to a couple more DTs tracks - Borrowed Time and
Breakthrough. Based on these three, you don't need me to wish
you luck - you've got what it takes to make good (and probably
commercial) music. I was wondering how you all got so _tight_.
But I read that Drew, Jay and Phil have been together for four
years as Amadeus before forming Dts in 2003, so that accounts
for a lot of it.

Checked out your page -
http://www.darktownsaints.com/band.php?name=aaron
- so you're the good looking one? ;-)

BTW, nice quote!:
"Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom,
wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love,
love is not music. Music is the best." ï¿½ Frank Zappa

I wasn't here last time you were around. But welcome back!
I'm looking forward to hearing MUCH more of your music.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/3/06

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

> Aaron,
>
> Awesome!!! :-)
>
> Also listened to a couple more DTs tracks - Borrowed Time and
> Breakthrough. Based on these three, you don't need me to wish
> you luck - you've got what it takes to make good (and probably
> commercial) music. I was wondering how you all got so _tight_.
> But I read that Drew, Jay and Phil have been together for four
> years as Amadeus before forming Dts in 2003, so that accounts
> for a lot of it.
>
> Checked out your page -
> http://www.darktownsaints.com/band.php?name=aaron
> - so you're the good looking one? ;-)
>
> BTW, nice quote!:
> "Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom,
> wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love,
> love is not music. Music is the best." Frank Zappa
>
> I wasn't here last time you were around. But welcome back!
> I'm looking forward to hearing MUCH more of your music.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>

Thanks so much for the kind words Yahya. Unfortunately, the DtS stuff was edited (not
the live stuff, though mind you), so we weren't actually THAT perfect in the studio. I have
dreams of having a band like this that can work in microtonal elements but keep the
accessibility that we had. DtS is no longer, and we are going our separate ways. While
there was conflict, we are on good terms. We all have different priorities. Drew, the
keyboard player is the driving force behind being commercial, and I'm glad to have learned
what I did from that focus, but it isn't my priority (although I do care to be accessible). I'm
working on developing new microtonal music, and I've got some LONG term projects that I
think everyone here will find exciting, but there unfortunately won't be any results for
quite some time. In the mean time, I hope to create more barbershop part tapes and on,
on, well, lots of ideas anyway. Thanks for the encouragement.

-Aaron