11 limit reason - "prompted" random thoughts on this sunny Spring day at the seaside.

>Charles never seems to use his tuning for anything but 5-limit
>harmony. To boldly go where no Lucy tuning has gone before, I suggest
>the following mapping:

Fair comment; Obviously it is possible to go to any limit, yet to date I have tended to attempt to produce "consonant" music.

I am at present visiting James Sanger, near Barneville-Carteret, France.

James, of course, has a suite of top-notch recording studios, techies, and instruments here at our disposal.

Since we have been sitting out in the sunshine jamming most of the morning, maybe we should produce and record some "super-extreme" intervals just for your amusement.

Thinking in JI terms and nearest integer ratios is entirely foreign to how either of us visualise music and tuning.

We tend to think in terms of steps of fourths and fifths, so to give you something more dissonant,
I'll see if I can persuade James to play some "unusual" intervals from his guitars into his JamMan, and hear what transpires.

BTW I am also attempting to persuade Tony Salinas to tune a set of his conical bells to 88edo instead of the 96edo pattern that he has been using.

Unfortunately it seems that some academics are so locked into 12et, that all they can imagine is dividing semitones into 2, 4, 8, 16 equal divisions,

which merely compounds the "musical horrors" of 12edo.

I sometimes feel that the multiple 12 edo "mcirotonalists?" are as closed minded as the JI people.

(Or are LucyTunaniks floating out there in some other universe?)

Time and the punters will decide;-)

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

SNIP

> BTW I am also attempting to persuade Tony Salinas to tune a set of
> his conical bells to 88edo instead of the 96edo pattern that he has
> been using.
>
> Unfortunately it seems that some academics are so locked into 12et,
> that all they can imagine is dividing semitones into 2, 4, 8, 16
> equal divisions,
>
> which merely compounds the "musical horrors" of 12edo.
>

I second those words.

SNIP

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> Since we have been sitting out in the sunshine jamming most of the
> morning, maybe we should produce and record some "super-extreme"
> intervals just for your amusement.

I'd be most interested if you got 1/3 of a Lucy fifth working and
started stacking those.

> BTW I am also attempting to persuade Tony Salinas to tune a set of
> his conical bells to 88edo instead of the 96edo pattern that he
has
> been using.

Do you know why he likes 96 so well? I don't, and I don't know if
anyone but Salinas does.

> Unfortunately it seems that some academics are so locked into
12et,
> that all they can imagine is dividing semitones into 2, 4, 8, 16
> equal divisions,
>
> which merely compounds the "musical horrors" of 12edo.

You keep dividing enough and in the end you can get anything.

Yes, I do know why Tony likes 96 so well, but the answer is
"political"; so "nuff said"

I don't know how we could set up 1/3rd of a Lucy fifth easily, as we
were playing with 25 and 19 fret LucyTuned guitars,
and as far as I can see the only way would be to retune some of the
strings.

A much easier way would be to do it in Logic or some other DAW, which
we have in the studios.

I'll think about it, and see if I can can set up some 695.5/3 = 232
nearest cent intervals in Logic for it.

I still don't really see the point of using integer fractions of
intervals; this fifth then becomes (3L+s)/3 = L + (s/3)

231.8 ¢ nearest interval in LucyTuning (according to Monz Encyclops)
is 29 steps of fourths:

<quote>-29 230.7039902 231.8181818 + 1.114191617</quote>

Looking at it as (3L+s)*(3) = 9L+3s
reducing to current octave is (9L+3s)-(5L+2s) = (4L+s) which is a
bVIIth.

Iotac music can be played by infinitely dividing "anything". (see
Gene W(iz)ard Smith comment at end of his posting)

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

On 14 Mar 2007, at 21:18, Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> > Since we have been sitting out in the sunshine jamming most of the
> > morning, maybe we should produce and record some "super-extreme"
> > intervals just for your amusement.
>
> I'd be most interested if you got 1/3 of a Lucy fifth working and
> started stacking those.
>
> > BTW I am also attempting to persuade Tony Salinas to tune a set of
> > his conical bells to 88edo instead of the 96edo pattern that he
> has
> > been using.
>
> Do you know why he likes 96 so well?

> I don't, and I don't know if
> anyone but Salinas does.
>
> > Unfortunately it seems that some academics are so locked into
> 12et,
> > that all they can imagine is dividing semitones into 2, 4, 8, 16
> > equal divisions,
> >
> > which merely compounds the "musical horrors" of 12edo.
>
> You keep dividing enough and in the end you can get anything.

>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> I still don't really see the point of using integer fractions of
> intervals; this fifth then becomes (3L+s)/3 = L + (s/3)
>
> 231.8 ?

Part of the point is that this interval is in itself a musically
valuable one. 231.83 cents is nice; so is 1200-231.83 = 968.17. Four of
these intervals add up to 4*(200+100/pi) = 927.32 cents, also an
interval worth having, as is its octave complement, 272.68 cents. If
you add a symbol for s/3, you can even notate it, as we have been
discussing. Or just write Lucy tuning in terms of c=s/3, s=3c, and then
you've got those extra notes which, I claim, are interesting to have.

You could have close approximations of them as I showed from the Monz encyclopedia.

Using them in their steps of fourths form, not only names them, it also shows their harmonic relationship, and indicates how dissonant/consonant
they will sound compared to other intervals.

I'll see if I can produce them in Logic and build an interesting riff using them.

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

On 14 Mar 2007, at 22:52, Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> > I still don't really see the point of using integer fractions of
> > intervals; this fifth then becomes (3L+s)/3 = L + (s/3)
> >
> > 231.8 ?
>
> Part of the point is that this interval is in itself a musically
> valuable one. 231.83 cents is nice; so is 1200-231.83 = 968.17. > Four of
> these intervals add up to 4*(200+100/pi) = 927.32 cents, also an
> interval worth having, as is its octave complement, 272.68 cents. If
> you add a symbol for s/3, you can even notate it, as we have been
> discussing. Or just write Lucy tuning in terms of c=s/3, s=3c, and > then
> you've got those extra notes which, I claim, are interesting to have.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> You could have close approximations of them as I showed from the
Monz
> encyclopedia.

That's pretty much the same as using 88-et as Lucy tuning. If you go -
29 fifths, then three times that is -87 fifths; if this is the same
as +1 fifth, you've equated Lucy tuning with 88-et.

What you get is 3000-8700/pi = 230.7 cents instead of 200+100/pi.
Three times the former gives 9000-26100/pi = 692.11 cents, which is
pretty flat. Three times the latter is the Lucy-tuned fifth of 695.49
cents, which is a much better value. Now, I think it's fine to use 88-
et instead of Lucy tuning, but I thought you didn't. Anyway, if you
do, the two systems of notation notate exactly the same intervals.

> Using them in their steps of fourths form, not only names them, it
> also shows their harmonic relationship, and indicates how
dissonant/
> consonant
> they will sound compared to other intervals.

I don't think so. Why does saying something is +29 Lucy fifths
reduced to an octave tell you anything about how consonant it is?

Why consonance/dissonance pattern?

because it seems that the closer that notes are on the spiral of fourths and fifths, the more consonant they sound in LucyTuning when played together.

This may not match some people's experience with other tuning systems, yet it does seem to be true using these particular values for the L and s values derived from pi.

Hence notes which are 29 odd steps apart on the spiral are likely to be more dissonant than your common or garden pair of naturals

Compromised accuracy?

The tuning of the conical bells varies dependent upon temp, pressure, method of sounding, vibrato, other frequencies (under/overtones);
plus many other variables of the physical variables; so an approximation to 88edo is a pragmatic solution and will please the edo fans;-)

Charles Lucy lucy@lucytune.com

----- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -----

For information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com

LucyTuned Lullabies (from around the world):
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Skype user = lucytune

On 15 Mar 2007, at 00:07, Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
> >
> > You could have close approximations of them as I showed from the
> Monz
> > encyclopedia.
>
> That's pretty much the same as using 88-et as Lucy tuning. If you go -
> 29 fifths, then three times that is -87 fifths; if this is the same
> as +1 fifth, you've equated Lucy tuning with 88-et.
>
> What you get is 3000-8700/pi = 230.7 cents instead of 200+100/pi.
> Three times the former gives 9000-26100/pi = 692.11 cents, which is
> pretty flat. Three times the latter is the Lucy-tuned fifth of 695.49
> cents, which is a much better value. Now, I think it's fine to use 88-
> et instead of Lucy tuning, but I thought you didn't. Anyway, if you
> do, the two systems of notation notate exactly the same intervals.
>
> > Using them in their steps of fourths form, not only names them, it
> > also shows their harmonic relationship, and indicates how
> dissonant/
> > consonant
> > they will sound compared to other intervals.
>
> I don't think so. Why does saying something is +29 Lucy fifths
> reduced to an octave tell you anything about how consonant it is?
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> Why consonance/dissonance pattern?
>
> because it seems that the closer that notes are on the spiral of
> fourths and fifths, the more consonant they sound in LucyTuning
when
> played together.

So you are claiming a tone is more consonant than a major third,
comprised of two tones?

> This may not match some people's experience with other tuning
> systems, yet it does seem to be true using these particular values
> for the L and s values derived from pi.

I don't think it matches anyone's experience, including yours. See
above. Also, if you go up 89 fifths and reduce to the octave, you get
another fifth--have you tested that fifth by ear? Go up 2*88+1=177
fifths, and you get still another fifth. Have you tried that one? I
suspect the answer to these questions is "no". Then also, C-B merely
involves going up five fifths. It's not very consonant, and B-C less
so.