Struuuuugggggggggling to find ............

Random thoughts and comments on system choices:

>>
>> A good test is how well you can sing it.
>>
>> Keenan

Great way of putting it.

> My goal though is a system that I can
> learn and get used to and not change all the time.

> Aaaron

So the obvious solution is to base your chosen system upon the generations-tested practices of western harmony and note naming.
Much as we wish to explore new territory and subvert the established "order"; a system of composition, theory and analysis has evolved, which still requires improvements and the elimination of its many paradoxes and ambiguities; yet it remains the language for 99% of trained musicians.
If you choose to use it (e.g. in an extended meantone form) as well as being able to manipulate keys, modulations, and having a universally understood notation system, most other musicians will be able to relate to it, and understand both audibly and theoretically what you are attempting to achieve.
It also has a wealth of previous work from which to draw ideas, comparisons, and knowledge.
Such a system will enable to you closely approximate (by notename) any integer ratio you may choose, and play it immediately.

> Pitch bend
> Aaaron

This has now become a redundant system for microtuning. Avoid it like the plague.
Not only is it so "late 20th century - Game Over!", but it really doesn't work very well.
It will give you more frustrations: (unintended portamentos, channel allocation restrictions, and implementation inconsistencies), than any sane musician would tolerate.

There are many systems now available which can use tuning tables e.g. scala, mtx etc.
Although my personal choice (Logic Pro 7.2.1 on Tiger) may seem extravagant, your initial hardware costs may be high, yet once installed, you can immediately produce quality results without further investment.
It only needs to be extended/expanded as you need or can afford.
There are other options on other platforms, but it becomes a question of how you value your time.
Do you want to spend your time fighting code, virii, and obsolete or untested operating systems (Longhorn;-) or making music?

Charles Lucy - lucy@lucytune.com ------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning ------- for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com
for LucyTuned Lullabies, contest and Flash cartoon go to
http://www.lullabies.co.uk
Buy CD from:
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/lucytuned2
Lullabies at iTunes (if you already have iTunes installed):
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?a=5165209&s=143441
To install iTunes go to:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/affiliates/download/

>
> So the obvious solution is to base your chosen system upon the
> generations-tested practices of western harmony and note naming.
> Much as we wish to explore new territory and subvert the established
> "order"; a system of composition, theory and analysis has evolved,
> which still requires improvements and the elimination of its many
> paradoxes and ambiguities; yet it remains the language for 99% of
> trained musicians.
> If you choose to use it (e.g. in an extended meantone form) as well
> as being able to manipulate keys, modulations, and having a
> universally understood notation system, most other musicians will be
> able to relate to it, and understand both audibly and theoretically
> what you are attempting to achieve.
> It also has a wealth of previous work from which to draw ideas,
> comparisons, and knowledge.
> Such a system will enable to you closely approximate (by notename)
> any integer ratio you may choose, and play it immediately.
>

I appreciate that, but it is more clear to me to think in terms of INTERVAL
meaning: Major 3rd, or by solfege, Do Re Mi, than by letter name. Letter
name is so impractical because the system of sharps and flats and related
notes has no logic to it. Write a piece in E major, and the Major third, is
G#, implying that it is an altered note, but it is not. Interval is a 10-times
better way to think about music, and any serious trained musician
understands intervals like e.g. "perfect fourth."

>
> > Pitch bend
> > Aaaron
>
> This has now become a redundant system for microtuning. Avoid it like
> the plague.
> Not only is it so "late 20th century - Game Over!", but it really
> doesn't work very well.
> It will give you more frustrations: (unintended portamentos, channel
> allocation restrictions, and implementation inconsistencies), than
> any sane musician would tolerate.
>
> There are many systems now available which can use tuning tables e.g.
> scala, mtx etc.
> Although my personal choice (Logic Pro 7.2.1 on Tiger) may seem
> extravagant, your initial hardware costs may be high, yet once
> installed, you can immediately produce quality results without
> further investment.
> It only needs to be extended/expanded as you need or can afford.
> There are other options on other platforms, but it becomes a question
> of how you value your time.
> Do you want to spend your time fighting code, virii, and obsolete or
> untested operating systems (Longhorn;-) or making music?
>
>

Do you understand what I'm suggesting? I'm talking about not using
pitch bend to acheive microtonal harmonies, I'm thinking to use it only
for KEY CHANGES and strong progression changes.
I'd set up all my notes within .tun files or whatever, and then when I
wanted to shift to a II7-V7-I progression, I'd use one overall pitch bend
signal to shift everying first by 204cents and then up another 498 and then
back to center. That's IT. Then I can have a V9 chord without including
27/16 in my original system, for example. So the whole progression would
only have three total pitch bend entries.
Would you still say that this is a bad idea and I should avoid pitch bending?

-Aaron