WC on NMB

There's a video interview of Wendy Carlos on
New Music Box. She discusses electronic Bach,
serialism, microtonality, and dogma.

My favorite quote: "Why would you leave the
tyranny of equal temperament ... and go to a
different dogma, like, JUST INTONATION...
why lock yourself in on that? Once you've
let yourself out of jail, why go into a
different cell -- even if it's a padde cell?

I've always felt Wendy's recordings reperesnt
the best in music, and the best in synthesis.

-Carl

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

> My favorite quote: "Why would you leave the
> tyranny of equal temperament ... and go to a
> different dogma, like, JUST INTONATION...
> why lock yourself in on that? Once you've
> let yourself out of jail, why go into a
> different cell -- even if it's a padde cell?

I can sort of relate to this, but isn't avoiding
JI just another jail cell?

Of course, I've got my things I avoid, I presume
everyone does. I just don't feel comfortable with
high error (comparded to JI) tunings. I only go so
far with adjusting partial tones.

> I've always felt Wendy's recordings reperesnt
> the best in music, and the best in synthesis.

Damn fine synthesis; she's the master or the mistress
or whatever.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> >> My favorite quote: "Why would you leave the
>> tyranny of equal temperament ... and go to a
>> different dogma, like, JUST INTONATION...
>> why lock yourself in on that? Once you've
>> let yourself out of jail, why go into a
>> different cell -- even if it's a padde cell?
> > I can sort of relate to this, but isn't avoiding
> JI just another jail cell?

You could argue that ... but I don't think that's what she's saying there. I'd have to see it in the context of the article, but I know she's used JI before, so I don't think you can interpret this as wanting to avoid JI.

> Of course, I've got my things I avoid, I presume
> everyone does. I just don't feel comfortable with
> high error (comparded to JI) tunings. I only go so
> far with adjusting partial tones.

I've been avoiding scales with too many notes per octave, but more from technical limitations than anything else. I do have my biases, of course. It's been a while since I did anything much with JI, for instance.

> > My favorite quote: "Why would you leave the
> > tyranny of equal temperament ... and go to a
> > different dogma, like, JUST INTONATION...
> > why lock yourself in on that? Once you've
> > let yourself out of jail, why go into a
> > different cell -- even if it's a padde cell?
>
> I can sort of relate to this, but isn't avoiding
> JI just another jail cell?

She says she's experimented with all sorts of
tunings, letting her ear guide her. What sort of
jail cell is that?

-Carl

i am sorry that Wendy can't use JI imaginatively enough to not feel in a jail. There is a big difference between Lou Harrison and say Kyle Gann. Organize basically any size interval you want any way you want to. where is there a problem.

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Great find. Kept me up late. I was also playing her samples on
Amazon. Someone should post this on M3.

Joe

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> There's a video interview of Wendy Carlos on
> New Music Box. She discusses electronic Bach,
> serialism, microtonality, and dogma.
>
> My favorite quote: "Why would you leave the
> tyranny of equal temperament ... and go to a
> different dogma, like, JUST INTONATION...
> why lock yourself in on that? Once you've
> let yourself out of jail, why go into a
> different cell -- even if it's a padde cell?
>
> I've always felt Wendy's recordings reperesnt
> the best in music, and the best in synthesis.
>
> -Carl
>

> i am sorry that Wendy can't use JI imaginatively enough to
> not feel in a jail. There is a big difference between
> Lou Harrison and say Kyle Gann.
> Organize basically any size interval you want any way you
> want to. where is there a problem.

The problem is numerology.

-Carl

Kraig Grady wrote:
> i am sorry that Wendy can't use JI imaginatively enough to not feel in a > jail. There is a big difference between Lou Harrison and say Kyle Gann. > Organize basically any size interval you want any way you want to. where > is there a problem.

I see basically two limitations of JI. I wouldn't call them problems; more constraints, really. Constraints can be useful for inspiration; all tuning systems have them. But the limitations of JI include:

1. Electronic timbres, which can sound lifeless if you're not careful, can have issues with partials cancelling or reinforcing each other, resulting in a sort of "mechanical" sound. JI works better with acoustic timbres, where you've got two or more sound sources physically separated in space. Slightly detuning intervals -- including octaves -- can help to bring electronic timbres to life and keep separate melodic lines distinct.

2. Commas. With JI, you need to worry about the various commas and what you can do to avoid them, hide comma shifts, or just take the resulting dissonant intervals as extra spice to flavor the sound. Temperament gives you other options, such as making the commas vanish, shrinking them, enlarging them to a size that works better as a melodic step, or even making them go negative.

There is no reason JI can't beat, or be limited to low number ratios.
Some of the most interesting beating music i have heard has been in JI.12 Et hasn't seem to have a problem with pure octaves on electronic instruments
Whether having one off comma shows up more than having it spread out is all a matter of context.
I have never had a comma problem,often i have found them indispensable musically
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

The problem is numerology.

-Carl

All tuning involve numerology. and it is a shame we have to rely on them.
While we now have players that have digital readouts to get what they want these days, there are cultures where we have 13 year old girls tune their instruments by the emotional and poetic means with as much accuracy
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Kraig Grady wrote:
> There is no reason JI can't beat, or be limited to low number ratios.

By that standard, all electronic music is JI; even floating point numbers are rational. No one is saying that JI can't beat. But I think there's a distinction worth making between RI and JI, and I was assuming Wendy Carlos's reference to JI was in the context of low number ratio JI.

> Some of the most interesting beating music i have heard has been in > JI.12 Et hasn't seem to have a problem with pure octaves on electronic > instruments
> Whether having one off comma shows up more than having it spread out is > all a matter of context.
> I have never had a comma problem,often i have found them indispensable > musically

They certainly have their uses. But they can also get in the way or be out of character. I wouldn't have thought that octaves on electronic keyboards were a problem, either, until one day I tuned my keyboard with 1/7-comma wide octaves and heard what a difference it made. But problems with octaves tend to be limited and not very noticeable if the rest of the intervals are tempered, or if (as is typical with 12-ET keyboards) timbres are deliberately detuned for a chorus effect.

Certainly it's possible to use large rational numbers to emulate some of the features of tempered tuning systems, but calling that "JI" is a matter of opinion. If your scale has a 63/50 in it (a not uncommon interval in 7-limit JI), and you're using it in a context where it really needs to be an exact 63/50, then it's JI. But if you're using it as a 400 cent major third, it could really be any interval of around that size, and you might as well call it a tempered interval. Anything more complex than that, and you'd really have to have a very specific context (e.g. LaMonte Young's Dream House) to hear it as JI.

Not that there's anything wrong with JI, but it's only one of several possible tuning systems worth exploring. Regular temperaments, circular temperaments, other EDO's or MOS's not considered as temperaments per se (e.g. Erv Wilson's golden horograms), adaptive tuning that approaches JI, and arbitrary tunings each have their own uses and limitations as well, and each kind of tuning or scale has its own musical "flavor".

La Monte is a fine example of someone who uses JI to describe using high number ratios . i like to use the term JI for my own too cause i believe more is gained by expanding a word than adding new ones.

I will confess i am more of the nature of practicing serial monogamy to particular tunings more than i am the one night stand type of guy. Maybe wendy is maybe just like the girl that can't say no as the song goes.
to each their own.
but i don't feel trapped . actually i seem to flirt with a couple of other tunings, but only one might actually make it to the ensemble stage.
That would be meta mavila ( which some see as of the Pelog family) which works much better for my hammer dulcimer than meta Slendro, so maybe i have a bit of a "french ' thing going on.
By that standard, all electronic music is JI; even floating point
numbers are rational. No one is saying that JI can't beat. But I think
there's a distinction worth making between RI and JI, and I was assuming
Wendy Carlos's reference to JI was in the context of low number ratio JI.

> Some of the most interesting beating music i have heard has been in
> JI.12 Et hasn't seem to have a problem with pure octaves on electronic
> instruments
> Whether having one off comma shows up more than having it spread out is
> all a matter of context.
> I have never had a comma problem,often i have found them indispensable
> musically

They certainly have their uses. But they can also get in the way or be
out of character. I wouldn't have thought that octaves on electronic
keyboards were a problem, either, until one day I tuned my keyboard with
1/7-comma wide octaves and heard what a difference it made. But problems
with octaves tend to be limited and not very noticeable if the rest of
the intervals are tempered, or if (as is typical with 12-ET keyboards)
timbres are deliberately detuned for a chorus effect.

Certainly it's possible to use large rational numbers to emulate some of
the features of tempered tuning systems, but calling that "JI" is a
matter of opinion. If your scale has a 63/50 in it (a not uncommon
interval in 7-limit JI), and you're using it in a context where it
really needs to be an exact 63/50, then it's JI. But if you're using it
as a 400 cent major third, it could really be any interval of around
that size, and you might as well call it a tempered interval. Anything
more complex than that, and you'd really have to have a very specific
context (e.g. LaMonte Young's Dream House) to hear it as JI.

Not that there's anything wrong with JI, but it's only one of several
possible tuning systems worth exploring. Regular temperaments, circular
temperaments, other EDO's or MOS's not considered as temperaments per se
(e.g. Erv Wilson's golden horograms), adaptive tuning that approaches
JI, and arbitrary tunings each have their own uses and limitations as
well, and each kind of tuning or scale has its own musical "flavor".
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

While we're talking of philosophy of 'being trapped in cells'...it
occurs to me that the whole idea of running away from/towards certain
tunings is a jail cell in itself.

One should be free to use whatever one wants, including 12, if it is
appropriate to the particular needs of the muse, and not feel like
some dogma is making you feel shame.

I never understood that tendency in this tuning list. Why does one
have to *pick* between JI, say, and equal temperament? Nothing is
wrong with any EDO whatsoever, or JI. Get along folks, there are so
few of us!

In this sense, I disagree with Carlos--I don't even think the enemy is
12-equal (that's ridiculous) as much as not having an educated choice
among a wide variety of tunings. Lack of awareness is the true enemy.

Besides, no less authority than Stravinsky found it neccessary to
compose within limits--that could easily include a chosen tuning system.

-A.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
>
> > My favorite quote: "Why would you leave the
> > tyranny of equal temperament ... and go to a
> > different dogma, like, JUST INTONATION...
> > why lock yourself in on that? Once you've
> > let yourself out of jail, why go into a
> > different cell -- even if it's a padde cell?
>
> I can sort of relate to this, but isn't avoiding
> JI just another jail cell?
>
> Of course, I've got my things I avoid, I presume
> everyone does. I just don't feel comfortable with
> high error (comparded to JI) tunings. I only go so
> far with adjusting partial tones.
>
> > I've always felt Wendy's recordings reperesnt
> > the best in music, and the best in synthesis.
>
> Damn fine synthesis; she's the master or the mistress
> or whatever.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:

> By that standard, all electronic music is JI; even floating point
> numbers are rational.

Well, no. 2^(7/12) is irrational, and unless there
is some feature of the device which makes it
produce only rational ratios, such as a frequency
divider, it hardly makes sense to claim the device
is producing a rational ratio. Which one would it
be?

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> By that standard, all electronic music is JI; even floating point
>> numbers are rational.
> > Well, no. 2^(7/12) is irrational, and unless there
> is some feature of the device which makes it
> produce only rational ratios, such as a frequency
> divider, it hardly makes sense to claim the device
> is producing a rational ratio. Which one would it
> be?

Do the calculations. Hopefully it ends up as the closest approximation to 2^(7/12) within the specified number of bits. But I should have been more specific and said all *digital* electronic music; analog voltage-controlled synthesizers might have circuitry that can produce irrational frequency intervals.

One likely representation of 2^(7/12) is 12568711/8388608. That's so close to 700 cents you won't be able to hear the difference.

> In this sense, I disagree with Carlos--I don't even think the
> enemy is 12-equal (that's ridiculous)

Aaron, she specifically says that 12 should not be poo-pooed,
that it has both good and not-so-good things to be said for it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
wrote:
>
>
> While we're talking of philosophy of 'being trapped in cells'...it
> occurs to me that the whole idea of running away from/towards
>certain
> tunings is a jail cell in itself.

Speaking of being trapped in cells, conceiving of music only in
terms of major/"minor" triads is a real dungeon, and exploring the
infinity of tunings with common practice thinking is like taking
your ball and chain with you on the prison break.

With "scales" it's not so much a question of freedom but of putting
the cart before the horse, as scales are abstractions. When they
assume a more prominent postion as "pre-compostional material" or
whatever you might as well just head off to Schoenbergland. This is
something wonderful about the diamond kinds of approaches- the whole
thing can move with the musical impulse, infinity without aimless
wandering.
>
> One should be free to use whatever one wants, including 12, if it
>is
> appropriate to the particular needs of the muse, and not feel like
> some dogma is making you feel shame.

Every artist needs their personal freedoms and limitations- they're
going to manifest themselves willy-nilly so might as well enjoy it!

> I never understood that tendency in this tuning list. Why does one
> have to *pick* between JI, say, and equal temperament?

Finite lifespans. Also, apples and oranges in the case of smaller
equal divisions or strict subsets of larger, because they have a
perceivable logic of their own by virtue of symmetries.

>Nothing is
> wrong with any EDO whatsoever, or JI. Get along folks, there are so
> few of us!

It's more fun to bicker. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> One likely representation of 2^(7/12) is 12568711/8388608. That's so
> close to 700 cents you won't be able to hear the difference.

Which means you cannot tell an irrational interval from
a rational one. Which means claiming the intervals
you hear are rational is nonsense, unless *by the
way the ratio is produced* it makes sense to claim
such a thing, or else you are close enough to a
rational interval that you are happy to call it that
interval.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> >> One likely representation of 2^(7/12) is 12568711/8388608. That's so >> close to 700 cents you won't be able to hear the difference.
> > Which means you cannot tell an irrational interval from
> a rational one. Which means claiming the intervals
> you hear are rational is nonsense, unless *by the
> way the ratio is produced* it makes sense to claim
> such a thing, or else you are close enough to a > rational interval that you are happy to call it that
> interval.

Please go back and see my comment in its original context.

</tuning/topicId_71010.html#71112;_ylc=X3oDMTJwb25sNXBoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTg5Nzc1MwRtc2dJZAM3MTExMgRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMTc2MzU5MzQ4>

I fully agree on the pre occupation of triads especially asif the 1-3-5 is the only possible harmonic unit possible or something that is added to with higher ones.

but tend to disagree when it comes to scales.

Scales are "melodic" constructs and the big problem with the diamond is it lack of melodic integrity. It is strictly a harmonic construct.
that is the big prison i see in the JI community is that it thinks strictly in harmonic units.
This is why both Partch and Novaro added pitches to it. to fill in the gaps that one could subtend any interval with an equal amount of steps.
one can live without harmony much easier than melody. And Partch rarely used the diamond in the way it was theoretically constructed.
He made it and did what his great melodic ear made him do next, add pitches where he heard them.
If you want to stick with diamond material have two a 3/2 apart and you will have more tetrachordal scales than you can handle. and the harmonies within them work fine without resorting to simpler harmonic units falling outside these scales

there are very few cases of either a straight harmonic or subharmonic series being used by any culture.
(even Schlesinger points out the tuning of the exit hole in her extensive exposition on the subharmonic).
On the other hand we find what many have come to know as scale symmetries just about everywhere.

that at a certain point JI and ET differences break down has been pointed out by many, but most the scales constructed via JI produce more variation in intervals allowing a broader range of emotional quality.
If i take my 12 tone 7 limit tuning i have over 50 intervals available in the octave, all organized in a consistent way with repeating intervals occuring in the most closely related way. If you want to have this variety in an ET in completely an disorganized way with an ET the math is simple, 50.

How many exact repetition of the same material does one need?
Timbre changes even when you have anET and no one gets bent out of shape, why not a fluctuation in the intonation too, i may ask. but to each their own.
many cultures aroundthe world have developed along this type of fluctuation for the mere reason material does not allow them the luxury of a large amount of tones. So they developed along the most fruitful line they could.
take a JI pentatonic and you might find you haver more intervals to pick from than webern or schoenberg.

Posted by: "Cameron Bobro" misterbobro@yahoo.com
<mailto:misterbobro@yahoo.com?Subject=%20Re%3A%20WC%20on%20NMB> misterbobro <http://profiles.yahoo.com/misterbobro>

Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:03 am (PST)

Speaking of being trapped in cells, conceiving of music only in
terms of major/"minor" triads is a real dungeon, and exploring the
infinity of tunings with common practice thinking is like taking
your ball and chain with you on the prison break.

With "scales" it's not so much a question of freedom but of putting
the cart before the horse, as scales are abstractions. When they
assume a more prominent postion as "pre-compostional material" or
whatever you might as well just head off to Schoenbergland. This is
something wonderful about the diamond kinds of approaches- the whole
thing can move with the musical impulse, infinity without aimless
wandering.
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:

> Scales are "melodic" constructs and the big problem with the
diamond is
> it lack of melodic integrity. It is strictly a harmonic construct.
> that is the big prison i see in the JI community is that it thinks
> strictly in harmonic units.

There's a hell of a lot more on offer than just
diamonds. Much of the theorizing on tning-math and
elsewhere has concerned melodic properties, such
as propriety, epimorphic/constant structure, and so
forth.

> If you want to stick with diamond material have two a 3/2 apart and
you
> will have more tetrachordal scales than you can handle. and the
> harmonies within them work fine without resorting to simpler
harmonic
> units falling outside these scales

They work fine if the static harmonic structure suits
the music you want to write.

> If i take my 12 tone 7 limit tuning i have over 50 intervals
available
> in the octave, all organized in a consistent way with repeating
> intervals occuring in the most closely related way. If you want to
have
> this variety in an ET in completely an disorganized way with an ET
the
> math is simple, 50.

If you look at major triads in the Centaur scale, you get
four pure triads, a triad with the third flat by 224/225,
a triad with both third and fifth flat by 224/225, and
a triad with the third sharp by 126/125 (the 63/50 third
mentioned here recently.) Is all this variety good or
bad? Depends on what you want. You can make six homogenous
triads, none very far out of tune, by tempering out
225/224, by eg putting everything in 228-et. You can make
seven homogenous triads, less well in tune, by putting
everything in meantone, say by tuning to the aforementioned
50-et. Whatever people do, I think they should consider
the options.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> Scales are "melodic" constructs

I put "scales" in quotes because I think the problem comes from
forgetting where scales come from.

Scales are abstracted from melodic constructs, not literally melodic
constructs except in serial music and sometimes algorithmic music,
and therein lies the problem. How can I put this... it might be
better if scales were written with different sizes and colors for
the letters, and the letters had little arrows sticking out of them.

In practice I certainly agree with you about scales and the
diamond, since I work with melodies first and foremost to the point
where harmonies get downright accidental. The problem is as I see it
that without melodic roots and melodic interpretation of the
material, a scale is either going to serve only harmony well, or be
just a "pitch class set".

It's a matter of terminology but I think it is a very important
issue, especially every time I hear a jazzhole rocketing up and down
D-d under the impression that he's playing in the Dorian mode. :-)

-Cameron Bobro