A more complex barbershop just intonation recording

Greetings again everyone.

I've been busy with lots of stuff. Blah blah blah.

Here's my latest barbershop just intonation project:

Mood Indigo is a Duke tune that is WAY more complex harmonically than
typical barbershop.
Augmented chords and more complex 9th type arrangements are common. A
decent number of diminished 17th harmonic style chords are present.

This is NOT for general consumption but is a part tape to demonstrate
the parts to singers.

I was unsatisfied with any augmented option except 7:9:11, which I am
not sure if actual singers can get. But the 7:11 isn't far from other
common (such as ET) m6 or A5 intervals, and so just telling the middle
voice to sing extra sharp should work. Also, in this arrangement the
octave doubling works very well for 7:9:11:14 as a good harmony.

I'll let the recording speak for itself. It's Melodyne edited.

Full mix:
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20mix.mp3

ET version:
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/ET%20Indigo.mp3

Tenor:
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20tenor.mp3

Lead:
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20lead.mp3

Bari:
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20bari.mp3

Bass:
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20bass.mp3

I'll add that I've had opportunities to play recordings of mine (prior
more typical barbershop ones) for TONS of barbershoppers, ranging from
music professors to inexperienced amateurs and virtually NONE of the
people who heard my recordings thought that they sounded even a bit
different or outside of the barbershop sound, except for being
computerized sounding.

I'll try to find time to respond to questions. Sorry I don't have
time to discuss more detail right now.

-Aaron Wolf

This is an excellent piece. I like the way just intonation resonates. ET
version is not half-bad either. The recording only needs some concert hall
effect. Otherwise, bravo!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 Ekim 2006 �ar�amba 6:22
Subject: [tuning] A more complex barbershop just intonation recording

> Greetings again everyone.
>
> I've been busy with lots of stuff. Blah blah blah.
>
> Here's my latest barbershop just intonation project:
>
> Mood Indigo is a Duke tune that is WAY more complex harmonically than
> typical barbershop.
> Augmented chords and more complex 9th type arrangements are common. A
> decent number of diminished 17th harmonic style chords are present.
>
> This is NOT for general consumption but is a part tape to demonstrate
> the parts to singers.
>
> I was unsatisfied with any augmented option except 7:9:11, which I am
> not sure if actual singers can get. But the 7:11 isn't far from other
> common (such as ET) m6 or A5 intervals, and so just telling the middle
> voice to sing extra sharp should work. Also, in this arrangement the
> octave doubling works very well for 7:9:11:14 as a good harmony.
>
> I'll let the recording speak for itself. It's Melodyne edited.
>
> Full mix:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20mix
.mp3
>
> ET version:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/ET%20Indigo.
mp3
>
> Tenor:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20ten
or.mp3
>
> Lead:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20lea
d.mp3
>
> Bari:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20bar
i.mp3
>
> Bass:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20bas
s.mp3
>
>
> I'll add that I've had opportunities to play recordings of mine (prior
> more typical barbershop ones) for TONS of barbershoppers, ranging from
> music professors to inexperienced amateurs and virtually NONE of the
> people who heard my recordings thought that they sounded even a bit
> different or outside of the barbershop sound, except for being
> computerized sounding.
>
> I'll try to find time to respond to questions. Sorry I don't have
> time to discuss more detail right now.
>
> -Aaron Wolf
>

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

> I'll add that I've had opportunities to play recordings of mine
(prior
> more typical barbershop ones) for TONS of barbershoppers, ranging
from
> music professors to inexperienced amateurs and virtually NONE of
the
> people who heard my recordings thought that they sounded even a bit
> different or outside of the barbershop sound, except for being
> computerized sounding.

Well the tuning don't sound "outside", in a fundamental way, of any
barbershop group I've ever heard, except for the robot aspect as you
mention, so... there you go. :-) It's obvious to the ear that the
most distinguishing aspect of barbershop singing is the continual
adjustment of the harmonies so they do "that thing".

Bet there are some groups that are even more daring than your
recordings, as far as harmonies related to higher partials, so don't
be shy!

Your project is really cool.

-Cameron Bobro

ha, fun.thanks

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings again everyone.
>
> I've been busy with lots of stuff. Blah blah blah.
>
> Here's my latest barbershop just intonation project:
>
> Mood Indigo is a Duke tune that is WAY more complex harmonically than
> typical barbershop.
> Augmented chords and more complex 9th type arrangements are common. A
> decent number of diminished 17th harmonic style chords are present.
>
> This is NOT for general consumption but is a part tape to demonstrate
> the parts to singers.
>
> I was unsatisfied with any augmented option except 7:9:11, which I am
> not sure if actual singers can get. But the 7:11 isn't far from other
> common (such as ET) m6 or A5 intervals, and so just telling the middle
> voice to sing extra sharp should work. Also, in this arrangement the
> octave doubling works very well for 7:9:11:14 as a good harmony.
>
> I'll let the recording speak for itself. It's Melodyne edited.
>
> Full mix:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20mix.mp3
>
> ET version:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/ET%20Indigo.mp3
>
> Tenor:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20tenor.mp3
>
> Lead:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20lead.mp3
>
> Bari:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20bari.mp3
>
> Bass:
>
http://www.harmonize.com/MotorCity/bachelors/members/MoodIndigo/Indigo%20bass.mp3
>
>
> I'll add that I've had opportunities to play recordings of mine (prior
> more typical barbershop ones) for TONS of barbershoppers, ranging from
> music professors to inexperienced amateurs and virtually NONE of the
> people who heard my recordings thought that they sounded even a bit
> different or outside of the barbershop sound, except for being
> computerized sounding.
>
> I'll try to find time to respond to questions. Sorry I don't have
> time to discuss more detail right now.
>
> -Aaron Wolf
>

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

> I was unsatisfied with any augmented option except 7:9:11, which I am
> not sure if actual singers can get.

I think it works excellently well. What alternatives did you try?
I'm kind of fond of the 5/4-5/4-9/7 version, with slightly flattened
5/4 and 9/7 thirds--for instance, you can use 73 and 82 steps of
228-et, with 73 + 73 + 82 = 228. Anyway, the 7:9:11 triad is an
excellent chord. What should it be called? The 7:9:11:13 chord has its
uses also.

> I'll add that I've had opportunities to play recordings of mine (prior
> more typical barbershop ones) for TONS of barbershoppers, ranging from
> music professors to inexperienced amateurs and virtually NONE of the
> people who heard my recordings thought that they sounded even a bit
> different or outside of the barbershop sound, except for being
> computerized sounding.

Don't think standard barbershop uses 11.

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

> I think it works excellently well. What alternatives did you try?
> I'm kind of fond of the 5/4-5/4-9/7 version, with slightly flattened
> 5/4 and 9/7 thirds--for instance, you can use 73 and 82 steps of
> 228-et, with 73 + 73 + 82 = 228. Anyway, the 7:9:11 triad is an
> excellent chord. What should it be called? The 7:9:11:13 chord has its
> uses also.

An alternative tuning which is interesting is to have sqrt(14)/3 sized
thirds--four cents flat--with pure 9/7s. That's not too far from the
22-equal version of this chord.

I was suggested to try 20:25:32:40, and also to try 12:15:19:24 as
options vs the 7:9:11:14...

End result is that I decided that ALL of these are functional, because
the voice leading is more important than anything else, and none of
these chords have the ring of the simpler normal barbershop chords.

After a lot of trials I came back to using 20:25:32:40 (which is
exactly what I FIRST used - though I didn't initially release that
version). I felt that while 7:9:11:14 CLEARLY was a more consistent
chord across all the notes, the 20:25:32:40 simply was more normal and
more likely in this context.

However, the leading tone sharping for the 7:9 and the grittiness of
the chord was WAY cool at the tag, so I left that in.

The lead, baritone, and mixed tracks are updated, so if you download
them now you'll get the new version. Since the tenor and bass don't
change, I didn't update those, which means there is still the 7:9:11
elements in the left-side mix of those tracks.

Anyway, this is all subtle picky stuff.

As far as the assertion that barbershoppers don't use 11...
That's accurate as far as I know, but barbershoppers also
don't ever sing augmented chords in anything really considered
"barbershop." No normal quartet out there has any real experience
carefully tuning augmented chords. I'm sure they basically drive
through them, and they likely sound like 20:25:32:40, because if
the parts duet they will tune towards those notes with normal 4:5s.

So I'm pretty sure I like the new version. All 20:25:32:40,
but 7:9:11:14 at the tag where it really counts.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > I was unsatisfied with any augmented option except 7:9:11, which I am
> > not sure if actual singers can get.
>
> I think it works excellently well. What alternatives did you try?
> I'm kind of fond of the 5/4-5/4-9/7 version, with slightly flattened
> 5/4 and 9/7 thirds--for instance, you can use 73 and 82 steps of
> 228-et, with 73 + 73 + 82 = 228. Anyway, the 7:9:11 triad is an
> excellent chord. What should it be called? The 7:9:11:13 chord has its
> uses also.
>
> > I'll add that I've had opportunities to play recordings of mine (prior
> > more typical barbershop ones) for TONS of barbershoppers, ranging from
> > music professors to inexperienced amateurs and virtually NONE of the
> > people who heard my recordings thought that they sounded even a bit
> > different or outside of the barbershop sound, except for being
> > computerized sounding.
>
> Don't think standard barbershop uses 11.
>

Aaron wrote:

> After a lot of trials I came back to using 20:25:32:40 (which is
> exactly what I FIRST used - though I didn't initially release that
> version). I felt that while 7:9:11:14 CLEARLY was a more consistent
> chord across all the notes, the 20:25:32:40 simply was more normal and
> more likely in this context.

If I may chime in, I vote for 16:20:25:32. Then, in the next chord, both of
the "inner voices" (can I call it like that?) would raise by a 16:15, which
is what sounds actually the most natural to me.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > After a lot of trials I came back to using 20:25:32:40 (which is
> > exactly what I FIRST used - though I didn't initially release that
> > version). I felt that while 7:9:11:14 CLEARLY was a more consistent
> > chord across all the notes, the 20:25:32:40 simply was more normal and
> > more likely in this context.
>
> If I may chime in, I vote for 16:20:25:32. Then, in the next chord,
both of
> the "inner voices" (can I call it like that?) would raise by a
16:15, which
> is what sounds actually the most natural to me.
>
> Petr

I agree with Petr, *if* the voice leading has both inner parts, and
particularly the aug 5th, resolving upwards.

Often in Baroque organ music the augmented chord appears in inversion
in the sense that the 'inner' parts are a major third and minor sixth
above the bass. Typically only the major third resolves upwards, and
20:25:32:40 is called for ... and on a meantone-tuned instrument will
actually occur. The aug 5th above the bass was rated a dissonance and
rarely used as harmony.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > After a lot of trials I came back to using 20:25:32:40 (which is
> > exactly what I FIRST used - though I didn't initially release that
> > version). I felt that while 7:9:11:14 CLEARLY was a more consistent
> > chord across all the notes, the 20:25:32:40 simply was more normal and
> > more likely in this context.
>
> If I may chime in, I vote for 16:20:25:32. Then, in the next chord,
both of
> the "inner voices" (can I call it like that?) would raise by a
16:15, which
> is what sounds actually the most natural to me.
>
> Petr
>

I tried that version also originally, and that was really distasteful.
Timbre and dynamics and many other factors are at play here, so it is
hard to be totally concrete in discussing this.

Anyway, 15:16 is not any particularly more of a leading tone than
anything else. Leading tones relate simply to the idea that the pitch
is nearing the resolve note, and within reason the closer it gets, the
more we anticipate the final resolve.

The 7:9:11 version creates the strongest leading tones with both inner
parts reaching toward the resolution.

However, the harmonic content of the measure is a simple V chord, with
the lead doing this melodic dip in the second half which creates the
augmented chord. So I felt the best solution was keeping the other
three parts squarely on the V chord, and let it just be a melodic
almost non-harmonic sort of movement.

As for 16:20:25 vs 20:25:32, I simply tried both in this context and
clearly preferred the 20:25:32 version. One interesting factor is
that the 20:25:32:40 is by far more closely related to the harmonic
root which is 3/2 of the key. In other words, putting a 4:5 on either
side of the root supports that root more than stacking two 4:5s above
it. 16:20:25:32 had a more out of tune dissonant quality in this
case, regardless of understanding the exact explanation.

-Aaron

> Anyway, 15:16 is not any particularly more of a leading tone than
> anything else. Leading tones relate simply to the idea that the
> pitch is nearing the resolve note, and within reason the closer it
> gets, the more we anticipate the final resolve.

Exactly.

-Carl

That's exactly what Yal��n Tura says...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 Ekim 2006 Per�embe 18:59
Subject: [tuning] Re: Important update of barbershop Mood Indigo track

> > Anyway, 15:16 is not any particularly more of a leading tone than
> > anything else. Leading tones relate simply to the idea that the
> > pitch is nearing the resolve note, and within reason the closer it
> > gets, the more we anticipate the final resolve.
>
> Exactly.
>
> -Carl
>
>