Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Real-life applications of esoteric tunings

On 4/7/06, J.Smith <jsmith9624@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[...]
> everyone wants to compose or perform music with their PC. Suppose I
> wish to write a string quartet in 79-ET. How are the performing
> musicians to play the pitches I want with any level of accuracy? In
> the best of conditions, the ablest of performers may miss the
> intended pitches by some cents, even in just intonation. Can anyone
> provide me with a fingering chart for my tenor recorder, in such a
> scale? How do I find the pitches I want, by ear, on my 'cello's
> fingerboard? If I miss the intended pitch but hit the next closest
> pitch by ear, then why did I need the first one at all--especially
> if even I, the composer, can't discriminate between the two?

I argue that it's impossible to write a string quartet in 79-edo that
couldn't be better realized in some other system. 79-edo has too many
notes and not enough interesting relationships between them. It's
possible to use it for magic temperament (the temperament in which
four 5/4 major thirds exceed an octave by a 6/5 minor third), but then
you wouldn't really be writing in 79-edo, you'd be writing in magic.

Notice how I described magic temperament not in terms of homomorphisms
and vector spaces, but in terms of relationships between familiar
intervals. From that kind of description it should much easier to
finger on your cello.

[...]
> performance? I mean, TODAY. (Let us leave aside also the question
> of "new" instruments capable of playing these scales, as any such
> acoustic instruments currently in existence would be highly
> idiosyncratic, unstandardized, and most probably incapable of
> performing anything in my favorite tuning. Or yours.)

But that is one of the most important questions, in my opinion.
All-purpose instruments like the cello and the trombone are great, but
all the other "standardized" instruments are designed around meantone
temperament (the temperament in which 3 4/3 perfect fourths exceed an
octave by a 6/5 minor third) and its incarnation in 12-edo. To play
new music, we must build new instruments.

> What exactly, is being searched for here? The ideal temperament? I'd
> like to see the piano (not to mention pipe organ) capable of 144-ET.
> If we are going to select pitches from this scale to approximate a
> 7/6, why not simply use a 7/6? Are theoretically endless modulations
> into remote keys the goal? Just how many intervals can dance on the
> head of a pin, anyway?

Needless to say, different musicians have different goals. The desire
for purity of intervals and the desire for freedom of modulation are
incompatible, but they create a continuum between just intonation and
equal temperaments. Have you read "A Middle Path"? I think I'll write
my own introduction to linear temperaments with less emphasis on math
and more on musical intuition.

[...]

Keenan Pepper

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:

> No offense is meant here, but these are practical questions, I would
> think. If these tunings are not mere intellectual pastimes, rather
> like crossword puzzles, then which of them may immediately be
> applied to an orchestral composition, or be used by a soloist in
> performance? I mean, TODAY.

The existence of electronic means entails that these are not in any
case mere intellectual pastimes. If you want to get something
performed, the first step is finding someone to do the performing; I'm
not an expert on that step. Despite my lack of expertise I'll do
recommendations anyway, and recommend sticking with only a few
microtonal systems. There is a repertoire which has grown up around
72-et, and 72 is a subdivision of 12. That's a good place to land.
There is also a repertoire which has grown up around 31-et, and 31 is
a meantone tuning. That is another place to land.

> What exactly, is being searched for here? The ideal temperament? I'd
> like to see the piano (not to mention pipe organ) capable of 144-ET.

Why 144?

> If we are going to select pitches from this scale to approximate a
> 7/6, why not simply use a 7/6?

That gets into yet another approach which has been sucessfully used;
get a JI scale you like and stick with it, inventing instruments if
needed. There are instruments in existence in JI tunings, so if you
could mobilize them on behalf of a performance of your music you'd be
in business.

Are theoretically endless modulations
> into remote keys the goal?

It's my experience that modulation in terms of key in high-order
mictrotonal systems is less noticable anyway than modulation in terms
of moving to another system of chord relations, eg based on another
linear temperament, and I've been thinking of using that more than in
my few experiments in the past. However, two points: modulation is by
no means the only reason you might want to use tempering, and you
don't *need* to use tempering if you don't want to.

> I'll grant the likelihood of their viability in electronic
> compositions, and justifiably so. But I would like to see new tonal
> resources put to good musical (not theoretical) use in the material
> world of present-day acoustic instruments. Can any such scale of
> more than 53 pitches be pointed out? And do we really need another
> fixed and permanent-for-all-time scale?

72 pitches is more than 53, and has been used quite a bit. I still
think the most obvious thing to try would be 31, however, and that is
*less* than 53. 19, 22, 31, and 34 have all been used successfully for
acoustic instruments, and 41 and 46 are certainly worth trying.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

You did not mention that I am in possession of a life-size 79-tone Qanun
that has been certified by at least one master Qanun-player.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 07 Nisan 2006 Cuma 21:59
Subject: [tuning] Re: Real-life applications of esoteric tunings

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
> > No offense is meant here, but these are practical questions, I would
> > think. If these tunings are not mere intellectual pastimes, rather
> > like crossword puzzles, then which of them may immediately be
> > applied to an orchestral composition, or be used by a soloist in
> > performance? I mean, TODAY.
>
> The existence of electronic means entails that these are not in any
> case mere intellectual pastimes. If you want to get something
> performed, the first step is finding someone to do the performing; I'm
> not an expert on that step. Despite my lack of expertise I'll do
> recommendations anyway, and recommend sticking with only a few
> microtonal systems. There is a repertoire which has grown up around
> 72-et, and 72 is a subdivision of 12. That's a good place to land.
> There is also a repertoire which has grown up around 31-et, and 31 is
> a meantone tuning. That is another place to land.
>
> > What exactly, is being searched for here? The ideal temperament? I'd
> > like to see the piano (not to mention pipe organ) capable of 144-ET.
>
> Why 144?
>
> > If we are going to select pitches from this scale to approximate a
> > 7/6, why not simply use a 7/6?
>
> That gets into yet another approach which has been sucessfully used;
> get a JI scale you like and stick with it, inventing instruments if
> needed. There are instruments in existence in JI tunings, so if you
> could mobilize them on behalf of a performance of your music you'd be
> in business.
>
> Are theoretically endless modulations
> > into remote keys the goal?
>
> It's my experience that modulation in terms of key in high-order
> mictrotonal systems is less noticable anyway than modulation in terms
> of moving to another system of chord relations, eg based on another
> linear temperament, and I've been thinking of using that more than in
> my few experiments in the past. However, two points: modulation is by
> no means the only reason you might want to use tempering, and you
> don't *need* to use tempering if you don't want to.
>
> > I'll grant the likelihood of their viability in electronic
> > compositions, and justifiably so. But I would like to see new tonal
> > resources put to good musical (not theoretical) use in the material
> > world of present-day acoustic instruments. Can any such scale of
> > more than 53 pitches be pointed out? And do we really need another
> > fixed and permanent-for-all-time scale?
>
> 72 pitches is more than 53, and has been used quite a bit. I still
> think the most obvious thing to try would be 31, however, and that is
> *less* than 53. 19, 22, 31, and 34 have all been used successfully for
> acoustic instruments, and 41 and 46 are certainly worth trying.
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

i think it requires the building of new instruments, at least this has been the successful method for me. i have not had much luck working with traditional instruments. Although i am still pursuing it, but having instruments right there in front of some one to double the pitch if necessary is vastly helpful.

In general western musicians have not been trained to have the pitch discernment we see in say India especially.
Until this happens we are in trouble, or until we say at least have ensembles dedicated to such intonational practices.
while we can have our players put headphones on, i find what this does to players is not what i want to do.
One has only to see the faces of players emerging from such sessions, to see what type of energy this creates.

Message: 8 Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:11:28 -0000
From: "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Real-life applications of esoteric tunings

: how am I supposed to realize and apply these tunings in the real world of acoustic instruments?

--
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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > Let me again publicly announce my algebraic, algorithmic and
> > logarithmic deficiencies; not to mention my obvious low-brow,
> > Joe Sixpack anti-intellectual stance. But my questions stand.
>
> Practical methods of performance with acoustic instruments have
> been discussed and debated here ad nauseum for years. I'd tell
> you to check the archives, but until yahoo ugrades their search,
> such efforts are sadly unlikely to bear much fruit.

I'll briefly try to summarize my contributions on this point.

1. As Kraig says, we need to build new instruments. He's
done pretty well on that count, as did Partch. Partch left us
a great manual on how to do it...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030680106X/

Efforts have been made to design new orchestral instruments
(Patrick Ozzard-Low's work comes to mind
http://www.c21-orch-instrs.demon.co.uk ) and to find new
ways of playing traditional ones (Johnny Reinhard and others).

But as far as I'm concerned, creating fixed-pitch instruments
to guide us is priority one (I've said that Western music is
only 12-tET to the extent pianos and guitars are 12-tET).
That means guitars and keyboards. In the guitar dept., it's
straightforward to make equal temperaments up to 31, and from
there approximate what you need. Dave Keenan also showed how
to lay out microtemperaments for practical JI on guitar...
http://dkeenan.com/Music/MicroGuitar.pdf

In the keyboard department, the halberstadt simply has to go.
The Fokker organ and generalized-keyboard Scalatron (George
Secor can tell you all about it) were unique points in history
here, but we're now looking down the face of at least three
major breakthroughs:

- Dylan Horvath's Terpstra keyboard
http://www.cortex-design.com/body-project-terpstra-5.htm

- Paul Vandervoort's Daskin keyboard
http://www.daskin.com

- the Thummer jammer
http://www.thummer.com

Starr Labs' microzone keyboards have been available for a
few years...
http://www.starrlabs.com
...but are much more expensive than the three above projects
are aiming to be.

2. And indeed, in my mind, ignorance of intonation subtleties
in existing musical forms is a huge problem in the microtonal
community. It's something of a myth that "microtonality"
requires greater precision, for all those microscopic things,
than standard music. Sure it's possible to write music that
uses tiny intervals or explores new levels of subtlety. But
I don't think that's the most interesting ground uncovered by
microtonal theory. Rather, a serious palette of new scales,
with 5-12 notes, have been uncovered with vastly different
behavior than the diatonic scale. New chord progressions,
new chord types, new melodic flavors. Too bad so few people
on these lists have bothered to check them out.

3. While less interactive than the new instruments discussed
above, electronic renderings can be useful in the acoustic
realm. Toby Twining used them to guide live performers for
his Crysalid Requiem (discussed here and on MMM at length).

4. Musical traditions take time to evolve. While they take
less time today than ever before, we should be happy if we
only see 5% of the fruits of today's theory in our lifetimes.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

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

> 2. And indeed, in my mind, ignorance of intonation subtleties
> in existing musical forms is a huge problem in the microtonal
> community. It's something of a myth that "microtonality"
> requires greater precision, for all those microscopic things,
> than standard music. Sure it's possible to write music that
> uses tiny intervals or explores new levels of subtlety. But
> I don't think that's the most interesting ground uncovered by
> microtonal theory. Rather, a serious palette of new scales,
> with 5-12 notes, have been uncovered with vastly different
> behavior than the diatonic scale. New chord progressions,
> new chord types, new melodic flavors. Too bad so few people
> on these lists have bothered to check them out.

It seems to me the main interest with these is precisely with acoustic
instruments. When you have the large palette available electronically,
I find it more attractive to explore that. But it remains true that
smaller scales are of interest, and I certainly would not confine that
to 5-12 notes, either. There are many fine scales with a few more
notes than 12 that could be used acoustically. The Heathwaite-Smith
piece Marvelous Penta is in a 15 note scale, the 15 note marvelous
dwarf scale, for example. Of course the 21 note Blackjack scale has
come in for a lot of discussion here, amd Joe Pehrson has done a
number of pieces in it; it's a fine scale to compose in, I've found.
There are many more scales in an acoustic instrument size range.

One thing to bear in mind about 12 notes is that it is an interesting
size from a keyboard instrument tuning point of view, and tuning a
piano to different scales is a method which has been used
successfully, and which is capable of many things.

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > But as far as I'm concerned, creating fixed-pitch instruments
> > to guide us is priority one (I've said that Western music is
> > only 12-tET to the extent pianos and guitars are 12-tET).
> > That means guitars and keyboards. In the guitar dept., it's
> > straightforward to make equal temperaments up to 31, and from
> > there approximate what you need. Dave Keenan also showed how
> > to lay out microtemperaments for practical JI on guitar...
>
> More fixed-pitch instruments does seem to be the most direct
> route. But that creates another set of problems: intonational
> subtleties (see below). How many discrete pitches can such an
> instrument produce - in order to accommodate the multitude of
> tunings required of it - before becoming too
> physically/mechanically cumbersome?

Pianos can be built with 31 pitches/octave and still have the
octave span about the same as on a conventional piano.
Harpsichords can be made even smaller. I dunno about tracker
organs, but the sky's the limit with 'trackless' ones. And
that raises the notion of 'play by wire' pianos, with cases
of strings actuated by solenoids... And synthesizers have no
mechanical problems at all. Yes, I know synths aren't acoustic,
but they could still serve to guide acoustic performers, and
most importantly of all, provide a visual & auditory framework
in which composers can think.

And let's not leave out button accordions. The parts can be
made very small.

As for physical limitations, keyboards are apparently feasible
up to 41 pitches/octave, and probably beyond. There's some
debate about where polyphonic guitar playing becomes impossible.
Perhaps around 31, perhaps around 53...

And these are notes *at a time*. One can retune his piano,
switch guitars, or switch out magnetic fretboards (Mark Rankin),
or retune his synth instantly. Further subtleties can be
reached with automatic intonation of some kind and/or by
letting the performer choose roots with pedals.

So I'm not sure what you think is "required", but here I don't
see any "problem". Rather, I see an *embarrassment of riches*.

> That still leaves the question of woodwinds and brass -
> which have a certain amount of intonational leeway - and tuned
> percussion instruments. I would hate to abandon these vital
> tone-colors for a music comprised of only guitars, strings
> and pianos.

Who said anything about that? I said making pianos is the way
to get microtonal brass. I don't mean concurrently, either.
It's a lack of fixed pitch instruments that's holding us back
in a very general way.

> Say that I require a melodic line to progress so:
>
> 1/1 - 9/8 - 81/64 - 4/3, then: 4/3 - 5/4 - 10/9 - 1/1
>
> The "subtlety " here is the comma, 81/80; without it, the
> intention of the composer, and nuance of the melody as
> conceived, is destroyed.

After hearing it, many competent musicians could perform it.

> Nearly all of my microtonal compositions use subsets of
> a larger scale.

Most music stays largely in a single diatonic key, and many
melodies strongly gravitate to a pentatonic or 1/2-triad
subset of that.

Expanding that is a great frontier, and the above resources
are at the ready.

*Changing* it is another great frontier, and again the above
resources should be plenty.

Even the argument that mechanical limitations thwarted
microtonality in antiquity is bogus. There isn't much in
Norman Henry's piano that couldn't have been in Broadwood's
piano. There's no reason 19- or 22-tone guitars/lutes
couldn't have been made in antiquity.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:

> Gene, could you analyze these pitches for Pythagorean and just tuning
> possibilities in the 12 keys, major and minor?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but it has 15 major triads, twelve
of which are just and three of which are schismatic. It likewise has
twelve just and three schismatic minor triads. It looks good when
compared to Schismatic[24], and is similar to the Euler genus
efg3333333355 in the Scala archive. That might be considered
preferable, having the same number of triads but only one rather than
three schismatic ones of each kind.

Here it is in Scala format:

! jsmith24.scl
J. Smith 5-limit JI scale April 8, 2006 tuning@yahoo
24
!
81/80
256/243
16/15
10/9
9/8
32/27
6/5
5/4
81/64
4/3
27/20
45/32
64/45
40/27
3/2
128/81
8/5
5/3
27/16
16/9
9/5
15/8
243/128
2

The Euler genus:

! efg333333355.scl
!
Genus [333333355]

24
!
81/80
135/128
16/15
10/9
9/8
1215/1024
6/5
5/4
81/64
4/3
27/20
45/32
64/45
3/2
243/160
405/256
8/5
5/3
27/16
16/9
9/5
15/8
243/128
2/1

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

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

> Pianos can be built with 31 pitches/octave and still have the
> octave span about the same as on a conventional piano.
> Harpsichords can be made even smaller. I dunno about tracker
> organs, but the sky's the limit with 'trackless' ones. And
> that raises the notion of 'play by wire' pianos, with cases
> of strings actuated by solenoids...

If some brave soul were to wire up a generalized keyboard to six
ordinary pianos, tuned in 1/12 tone intervals, he'd be in the 72-et
business. That sounds quite doable, if somewhat clumbersome. Of course
once you have your piano all you need is a violin and a cello and you
have a piano trio.

And synthesizers have no
> mechanical problems at all. Yes, I know synths aren't acoustic,
> but they could still serve to guide acoustic performers, and
> most importantly of all, provide a visual & auditory framework
> in which composers can think.

Joe Pehrson is getting performances by sticking synth sounds with live
ones.

> And these are notes *at a time*. One can retune his piano,
> switch guitars, or switch out magnetic fretboards (Mark Rankin),
> or retune his synth instantly. Further subtleties can be
> reached with automatic intonation of some kind and/or by
> letting the performer choose roots with pedals.

By the way, how good are the best electronic pianos these days?

> Even the argument that mechanical limitations thwarted
> microtonality in antiquity is bogus. There isn't much in
> Norman Henry's piano that couldn't have been in Broadwood's
> piano. There's no reason 19- or 22-tone guitars/lutes
> couldn't have been made in antiquity.

Costeley, who invented 19-et, also had a keyboard instrument to play it.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

I understand that Michael managed to arrive at something similar to the
Arel-Ezgi system with that unicorda method. On the other hand, the
Ultratonal Piano sketch designed by my lowly self could be the candidate to
overcome that engineering challenge. I even figured out how to make use of
atomic technology to determine the frequency of each individual string
instantaneously to extreme precisions surpassing the sensitivity of an
ordinary human ear by a factor of 1 to a million.

Incredible is not the right word.
Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 Nisan 2006 Cumartesi 22:12
Subject: [tuning] Re: Real-life applications of esoteric tunings

> > Harps make use of pedals to raise or lower string tension,
> > thus raising/lowering pitch by a tempered semitone. The same
> > mechanism, applied to the piano, could raise the pitch of a set
> > of strings by only the comma 81/80.
>
> That's an interesting idea, and it could probably be made to
> work. Keep in mind, however, that piano strings are under
> far greater tension than harp strings. So there's an engineering
> challenge here.
>
> However, modern pianos already have a way of selecting different
> strings for each key -- the una corda pedal. Michael Harrison
> recorded _From Ancient Worlds_ using a modified grand piano with
> 24 (non-simultaneous) pitches/octave. Everyone on this list
> should own that CD.
>
> -Carl
>
>

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

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

Hi Ozan,

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> Hey Yahya, I listened to your piece from the microtonal podcast by Prent.
> Impressive modulations on the Phyrigian mode, or else, Maqam Kurdi.

Thank you kindly, kind sir! :-)

I hasten to point out that the tune is exactly as I
remember finding it, many years ago, while living in
Malaysia. The arrangement alone is mine.

Yes, I did think to myself, "I bet Oz will call the
feel of the upper tetrachord 'a modulation'." ;-)
It certainly has the *feel* of a mode change,
doesn't it? Of course, every one of its notes comes
from a white note of the piano keyboard (albeit
tuned to Pythagorean intonation on E.)

Oz, I have a confession to make! You see, I thought
that perhaps you were just being, let's say, "ornery",
in persisting in calling this kind of re-centring of a
melody on a different note, "modulation". But I have
recently visited www.maqamworld.com, and there I
find them using the exact same language. I realise
that you are justly famed for your musical
knowledge and abilities, but even so, I hardly think
that Arab musicians will ever be in a rush to take
their theoretical terms from a Turk - no matter how
knowledgeable he may be! ;-) Therefore, I conclude
that you are following an established convention for
discussing maqam music in English. Please accept my
abject apologies for hastily concluding that you were
making difficulties ...

I still believe that using the term "modulation" in this
kind of context gives it yet another meaning, rather
than simply generalising its other meanings. Whether
this is too great a burden for the term, only time will
tell. I could wish for a separate term to describe "a
change of mood without a change of tonic".

In terms of melody rather than harmony: -
1. Given that Western modulation involves a change of
(seven-note, diatonic) key or a change of the tonic
of the key, I think we are invariably talking about
a change of seven-note, diatonic key when we use the
term in describing Western music. Hmmm?

2. Given that maqam scales are constructed by
combining two tetrachords (or occasionally, trichords
or pentachords, depending on how one chooses to
analyse them), and that a maqam modulation can
involve no more than substituting a different upper
tetrachord for the usual one, perhaps we are talking
about a change of tetrachord (or occasionally,
trichords or pentachords), when we use the term in
describing Maqam music.

What do you think of this characterisation of the way
the term "modulation" applies to Western and to
Maqam music?

In these purely melodic terms, classical Indian music,
of both the north and the south, has no modulation at
all. It surely has melodic inflections which may use
non-scale notes, but never supplant them. And of
course the harmonic meanings of "modulation" do not
apply to Indian music.

Sometimes, as in Bunga Seroja, a melody may have
quite different characters in its lower and upper
tetrachords. So, at the point the melody moves from
the lower to the upper, there is a distinct change of
mood. Actually, one can analyse this tune as having
two distinct portions, the first having a span of a
seventh rooted on E, and the second having a span of
a seventh, rooted on A. In each part, the "essential
span" of the melody is only a fifth, the upper two
notes serving only as parts of an extended ornament.
On this analaysis, the tune as a whole does have a
change of mode, from E Phrygian to A (?, minor), and
one can certainly call this "modulation" - even more so
if one chooses to harmonise the two parts with E
minor, A minor. So perhaps this round goes to you! :-)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/306 - Release Date: 9/4/06

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

> >
> > Hey Yahya, I listened to your piece from the microtonal podcast by
Prent.
> > Impressive modulations on the Phyrigian mode, or else, Maqam Kurdi.
>
> Thank you kindly, kind sir! :-)

I detect your cynicism brother.

>
> I hasten to point out that the tune is exactly as I
> remember finding it, many years ago, while living in
> Malaysia. The arrangement alone is mine.
>

I thought something was authentic about it so much so that it was probably
much older than yourself!

>
> Yes, I did think to myself, "I bet Oz will call the
> feel of the upper tetrachord 'a modulation'." ;-)

Why, of course it is.

> It certainly has the *feel* of a mode change,
> doesn't it?

It had the `feel` alright... to say the least.

Of course, every one of its notes comes
> from a white note of the piano keyboard (albeit
> tuned to Pythagorean intonation on E.)
>

Indeed.

> Oz, I have a confession to make! You see, I thought
> that perhaps you were just being, let's say, "ornery",

ornery ï¿½rï¿½neï¿½ri, (North American dialect or colloquial)
adjective commonplace; inferior, poor, worthless; touchy, cantankerous;
stubborn; mean, contemptible.
[A variant of ordinary]

> in persisting in calling this kind of re-centring of a
> melody on a different note, "modulation". But I have
> recently visited www.maqamworld.com, and there I
> find them using the exact same language. I realise
> that you are justly famed for your musical
> knowledge and abilities,

Shucks.

but even so, I hardly think
> that Arab musicians will ever be in a rush to take
> their theoretical terms from a Turk - no matter how
> knowledgeable he may be! ;-)

Maybe I will make my point among the Ehl-i Kitab, considering that I'm a
total ignoramus!

Therefore, I conclude
> that you are following an established convention for
> discussing maqam music in English. Please accept my
> abject apologies for hastily concluding that you were
> making difficulties ...

Oh, but I am... ;)

>
> I still believe that using the term "modulation" in this
> kind of context gives it yet another meaning, rather
> than simply generalising its other meanings. Whether
> this is too great a burden for the term, only time will
> tell. I could wish for a separate term to describe "a
> change of mood without a change of tonic".
>

You don't necessariliy need to change the `tonic` to change the key. Drones
and common-tones come to mind.

> In terms of melody rather than harmony: -
> 1. Given that Western modulation involves a change of
> (seven-note, diatonic) key or a change of the tonic
> of the key, I think we are invariably talking about
> a change of seven-note, diatonic key when we use the
> term in describing Western music. Hmmm?
>

Not necessarily. This is the tuning list for gosh sakes! Even 3-tET could
involve modulation.

> 2. Given that maqam scales are constructed by
> combining two tetrachords (or occasionally, trichords
> or pentachords, depending on how one chooses to
> analyse them), and that a maqam modulation can
> involve no more than substituting a different upper
> tetrachord for the usual one, perhaps we are talking
> about a change of tetrachord (or occasionally,
> trichords or pentachords), when we use the term in
> describing Maqam music.

Ah... but I insist that principal Maqam scales are all but diatonical,
unless they are octatonal or else.

>
> What do you think of this characterisation of the way
> the term "modulation" applies to Western and to
> Maqam music?
>

Even tetrachodal modulation is modulation per se.

> In these purely melodic terms, classical Indian music,
> of both the north and the south, has no modulation at
> all. It surely has melodic inflections which may use
> non-scale notes, but never supplant them. And of
> course the harmonic meanings of "modulation" do not
> apply to Indian music.

Really now... all that requires is to harmonize a piece. But tell me, if I
were to play only the upper voice of the first invention of J.S. Bach for
duo voci, would you say that there is no modulation and the few non-scale
notes are just alterations of the same mode?

>
> Sometimes, as in Bunga Seroja, a melody may have
> quite different characters in its lower and upper
> tetrachords. So, at the point the melody moves from
> the lower to the upper, there is a distinct change of
> mood. Actually, one can analyse this tune as having
> two distinct portions, the first having a span of a
> seventh rooted on E, and the second having a span of
> a seventh, rooted on A. In each part, the "essential
> span" of the melody is only a fifth, the upper two
> notes serving only as parts of an extended ornament.
> On this analaysis, the tune as a whole does have a
> change of mode, from E Phrygian to A (?, minor), and
> one can certainly call this "modulation" - even more so
> if one chooses to harmonise the two parts with E
> minor, A minor. So perhaps this round goes to you! :-)
>

Since you are the arranger, I expect you to harmonise it to disprove my
claims!

> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>

Cordially,
O. wizard

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
>
> > But as far as I'm concerned, creating fixed-pitch instruments
> > to guide us is priority one (I've said that Western music is
> > only 12-tET to the extent pianos and guitars are 12-tET).
> > That means guitars and keyboards. In the guitar dept., it's
> > straightforward to make equal temperaments up to 31, and from
> > there approximate what you need. Dave Keenan also showed how
> > to lay out microtemperaments for practical JI on guitar...
>
> More fixed-pitch instruments does seem to be the most direct route.
> But that creates another set of problems: intonational subtleties
> (see below). How many discrete pitches can such an instrument
> produce - in order to accommodate the multitude of tunings required
> of it - before becoming too physically/mechanically cumbersome?
> Keyboards can be retuned (I have a thought on that, but later);
> guitars and bowed strings can return to the use of moveable frets
or
> ligatures. That still leaves the question of woodwinds and brass -
> which have a certain amount of intonational leeway ...

For a few of my ideas regarding *generalized* (multi-tuning)
microtonal brass instruments, please see:

/tuning/topicId_45684.html#45966
/tuning/topicId_45684.html#45990

The first link mentioned an instrument under development
incorporating a thumb-operated (analog) slide; this referred to Steve
Altoft's 19-tone trumpet, which I mentioned in this later posting
(along with a number of other microtonal instrument possibilities):

/makemicromusic/topicId_8286.html#8310

For a few thoughts on how instruments built for the 19, 31, or 38
octave divisions might be used to achieve even more refinement in
pitch (approaching JI), see footnote 15 on page 20 of the following
article on a generalized system of microtonal notation:

http://dkeenan.com/sagittal/Sagittal.pdf

--George Secor

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

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

Hi Ozan,

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> Sorry to barge in like that, but I believe the answer to be: way way away
> from me.

But why ever would you say so? I understood
that you not only have a theoretical grasp of
what maqam music was about, but were also a
competent performer. Or did my ears deceive
me when I heard your improvisation on the new,
improved, Ozan Yarman Qanun?

> > Where else (on the net) might I find informed
> > discussion of modulations in maqam music?

You realise that this question was aimed at
finding further sources of information, which
would surely reduce my demands on your time.
Even the most patient teacher eventually tires
of explaining the same thing to a block-headed
pupil. And being block-headed, this pupil feels
the need to take himself off to learn a little
more from some other master, lest by his
persistent, wearying attentions he completely
tire out his first teacher and render him unable
to function to his best ability. Since it seems
I am unable to learn from you, I would rather
reserve your energy for making more of that
delightful music I've enjoyed in the past. Very
selfish of me, I know! ;-) But I'm sure we could
both benefit from a break.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/4/06

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Dear Yahya,

> > Sorry to barge in like that, but I believe the answer to be: way way
away
> > from me.
>
> But why ever would you say so? I understood
> that you not only have a theoretical grasp of
> what maqam music was about, but were also a
> competent performer. Or did my ears deceive
> me when I heard your improvisation on the new,
> improved, Ozan Yarman Qanun?
>

Perhaps... I make no claims toward being an expert on this genre. I merely
believe to have a grasp of some of its fundamentals, that's all. And we
don't seem to be able to make progress based on them.

> > > Where else (on the net) might I find informed
> > > discussion of modulations in maqam music?
>
> You realise that this question was aimed at
> finding further sources of information, which
> would surely reduce my demands on your time.
> Even the most patient teacher eventually tires
> of explaining the same thing to a block-headed
> pupil. And being block-headed, this pupil feels
> the need to take himself off to learn a little
> more from some other master, lest by his
> persistent, wearying attentions he completely
> tire out his first teacher and render him unable
> to function to his best ability.

I would not tire of repetitions lest you - having at first succumbed to my
presumptuous tutelage - resist my teachings, which include (but are not
limited to) all our futile arguments on keys, modes and modulation.

Since it seems
> I am unable to learn from you, I would rather
> reserve your energy for making more of that
> delightful music I've enjoyed in the past. Very
> selfish of me, I know! ;-) But I'm sure we could
> both benefit from a break.
>

A break it is you want, a break it is you get. Unfortunately, I dare not
suggest any source in Turkish written hereabouts that would muddle your
delicate understanding of the situation. Nay, I propound my own doctrines on
this matter and have summarized more than once other schools by which you
could gain insight should you wish to inquire further. However, I strongly
recommend otherwise, because:

1. The diverse tuning methods thus far proposed are hardly compelling for
the layman.
2. Without an instrumental instruction, the theoretical pursuit is endless,
if not inconclusive.
3. Nobody has yet reached a clear consensus about Perdes, Maqams and Usuls.
4. A myriad of traditions have sprung up since the past 150 years that will
only serve to confuse the inquisitive mind.
5. Experiments and frequency measurement tests have commenced only recently.
6. A wholesome temperament solution based on the above-mentioned premises
has just been developed, however lacking.
7. Notation and Solfege is still a great problem.
8. The gateway to Microtonal Polyphony has not been achieved to our
satisfaction.

> Regards,
> Yahya
>

Cordially,
Oz.

Re: [tuning] Real-life applications of esoteric tunings

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗threesixesinarow <CACCOLA@NET1PLUS.COM>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

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

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>