Xenharmonic singing on its way

Hi again.

The set of short pieces for voices in non-12-EDO tunings will probably be
finished by the end of next week. Up until then, I'm still leaving the
chance for you to suggest any tunings you'd like me to try to sing in. I
already have some ideas about what to try and I will welcome any of yours.
But if you can't think of anything, don't worry. I'm just giving the chance
and I would never want this to look like if I explicitely required your
contribution.

Happy "xentonation".

Petr

On 6/29/07, Petr Pařízek <p.parizek@chello.cz> wrote:
> Hi again.
>
> The set of short pieces for voices in non-12-EDO tunings will probably be
> finished by the end of next week. Up until then, I'm still leaving the
> chance for you to suggest any tunings you'd like me to try to sing in. I
> already have some ideas about what to try and I will welcome any of yours.
> But if you can't think of anything, don't worry. I'm just giving the chance
> and I would never want this to look like if I explicitely required your
> contribution.
>
> Happy "xentonation".

Ooh, try to do something with a lot of neutral seconds, for example, a
neutral thirds scale like 0, 200, 350, 550, 700, 900, 1050 cents.

Also, do 5-EDO.

Keenan

Hi Keenan.

Thanks for the neutral second scale suggestion.

You're reading my mind. 5-EDO was among the very first ideas I came up with
for this. So I will certainly try that. :-)
Still open.

Petr

----- Original Message ----- From: "Petr Pařízek" <p.parizek@chello.cz>
To: "Tuning List" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: [tuning] Xenharmonic singing on its way

> Hi again.
>
> The set of short pieces for voices in non-12-EDO tunings will probably be
> finished by the end of next week. Up until then, I'm still leaving the
> chance for you to suggest any tunings you'd like me to try to sing in. I
> already have some ideas about what to try and I will welcome any of yours.
> But if you can't think of anything, don't worry. I'm just giving the
> chance
> and I would never want this to look like if I explicitely required your
> contribution.

Something non-octave! Like 83-cet and 117-cet.

~D.

Danny wrote:

> Something non-octave! Like 83-cet and 117-cet.

My goodness. :-D
Well, I may try but I'm not very sure which intervals of this tuning I could
easily distinguish by ear at this moment. Perhaps you have any ideas? I
would't like to end up similarly like those who unsuccessfully tried to sing
24-EDO which is very hard to tune by ear.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Pařízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again.
>
> The set of short pieces for voices in non-12-EDO tunings will probably be
> finished by the end of next week. Up until then, I'm still leaving the
> chance for you to suggest any tunings you'd like me to try to sing in.

Thirty-one! Traces of the recent singing camp I did:
<http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/ThirtyOneToneSinginCamp>

The dieses are tiny tiny but the triads and tetrads are solid. You can build scales by choosing
particular sets of familiar and unfamiliar intervals which will stretch your ears but keep them
grounded. It can also do nonoctave impressions - 77cET, 115cET, ETc.

> I'm just giving the chance
> and I would never want this to look like if I explicitely required your
> contribution.

In whose interest is this disclaimer?

Jacob wrote:

> <http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/ThirtyOneToneSinginCamp>

Thanks for the link. I've found Twining's requiem being recommended there.
I've heard some good ratings for that, can this be found somewhere to listen
to? I would be especially interested in the Kirie.

> In whose interest is this disclaimer?

I just wanted to prevent someone possibly thinking that I insisted on that
or that I was willing to finnish the pieces only if he/she contributed with
their idea. Nothing more.

Petr

On 6/30/07, Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Something non-octave! Like 83-cet and 117-cet.

Oh, and you have to try signing in Bohlen-Pierce.

Keenan

Keenan wrote:

> Oh, and you have to try signing in Bohlen-Pierce.

How are you managing to do this? It's been the second time you've found
another of my ideas which I thought about long before I got started with
this.
I'll do my best. I'm interested myself in what comes out because this will
be the very first time I try to sing in a non-octave tuning! And if I really
finally find a way to reliably hear the tunings Danny suggested, then I'm
willing to defend almost any tuning I understand. Anyway, I suppose this
will be one of the most sensitive kind of intonation lessons I can ever
experience, hahahahh.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> On 6/30/07, Danny Wier <dawiertx@...> wrote:
> > Something non-octave! Like 83-cet and 117-cet.
>
> Oh, and you have to try signing in Bohlen-Pierce.

Guys, people have trouble singing in 12-equal.

Gebe wrote:

> Guys, people have trouble singing in 12-equal.

What does this have to do with my idea of suggesting non-12-EDO tunings to
sing in?

Petr

On 6/30/07, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz> wrote:
> Gebe wrote:
>
> > Guys, people have trouble singing in 12-equal.
>
> What does this have to do with my idea of suggesting non-12-EDO tunings to
> sing in?

I think Gene's skeptical of your ability. Sounds like a challenge to me!

Keenan

Keenan wrote:

> I think Gene's skeptical of your ability. Sounds like a challenge to me!

Souds like a challenge to you? In which way?

Petr

On 6/30/07, Petr Pařízek <p.parizek@chello.cz> wrote:
> Souds like a challenge to you? In which way?

It sounds to me like Gene doesn't think you'll be able to sing
accurately in any strange temperaments. Your challenge is to prove him
wrong.

Keenan

Okay, now I feel a bit embarrassed for having asked about such a clear thing
and therefore having forced you to say it loudly.
Nevertheless, who knows why he put it that way anyway? We may as well have
misinterpreted his words and not know it, possibly.

Petr

Petr Pařízek wrote:

> Danny wrote:
>
>> Something non-octave! Like 83-cet and 117-cet.
>
> My goodness. :-D
> Well, I may try but I'm not very sure which intervals of this tuning I > could
> easily distinguish by ear at this moment. Perhaps you have any ideas? I
> would't like to end up similarly like those who unsuccessfully tried to > sing
> 24-EDO which is very hard to tune by ear.

I had to throw a challenge out there, and I'm a fan of non-octave scales. There's no way I can do either of those tunings right now; I'm just now beginning to train my voice to anything other than a vague quarter-tone scale. (And I sing rock and blues and such, not classical.)

83-cet divides the perfect fourth (498 cents; I rounded up for convenience) into six equal parts, or 5 degrees of 72-edo. These are the simplest ratios from the 11-limit diamond multiplied by itself I call "HyperPartch":

83: 22/21 or 21/20
166: 11/10
249: 81/70
332: 40/33
415: 14/11
498: 4/3
and so on.

117-cet is a sixth of a perfect fifth (702 cents), 7 steps in 72-edo. And we should all recognize it as a MIRACLE generator.

117: 16/15 or 15/14
234: 8/7
351: 11/9
468: 21/16
585: 7/5
702: 3/2

And I can use that 31-tone training camp Jacob was talking about.

~D.

> Thanks for the link. I've found Twining's requiem being recommended there.
> I've heard some good ratings for that, can this be found somewhere to listen
> to? I would be especially interested in the Kirie.

Samples here: <http://www.justintonation.net/soundfiles.html>

Everybody buy it.

Danny wrote:

> 249: 81/70
> 332: 40/33

If someone gave me an acoustic instrument and asked me to tune these
intervals, I'm not sure if I could really hear them well. 332 cents lies
quite nicely between 6/5 and 11/9 and therefore will probably be quite a
tough one for hearing as these two are much simpler ratios and thus much
easier to find by ear. And just because they are that much simpler ratios,
my hearing can happily lead me to choose either of these, even if I dodn't
intent, as the one between them is significantly harder to find. BTW: You
haven't mentioned that 249 cents is acceptably close to 15/13.

Petr

From: "Petr Pařízek" <p.parizek@chello.cz>

> Danny wrote:
>
>> 249: 81/70
>> 332: 40/33
>
> If someone gave me an acoustic instrument and asked me to tune these
> intervals, I'm not sure if I could really hear them well. 332 cents lies
> quite nicely between 6/5 and 11/9 and therefore will probably be quite a
> tough one for hearing as these two are much simpler ratios and thus much
> easier to find by ear. And just because they are that much simpler ratios,
> my hearing can happily lead me to choose either of these, even if I dodn't
> intent, as the one between them is significantly harder to find. BTW: You
> haven't mentioned that 249 cents is acceptably close to 15/13.

Ugh, how could I forget 15/13; I should've also quoted the 17-limit diamond. And 332 cents is close enough to 17/14 (~ 336.130 c).

~D.

Danny wrote:

> Ugh, how could I forget 15/13; I should've also quoted the 17-limit
diamond.
> And 332 cents is close enough to 17/14 (~ 336.130 c).

Aha, okay, let's see what that looks like:
---
Lower tone = 14
Higher tone = 17
Fundamental = 1
Guide = 238
Sum = 31
Difference = 3
Surrounding differences = 11 and 20
---
Whoops, what a strange set of intervals that is.
As I'm viewing this again and again, I'm getting the impression that if
those 14 and 17 were in the sixth octave or higher, maybe I could hear it
then. But otherwise? I'm still not sure. And I really can't sing as high as
the sixth octave.

Petr

Hi again.

I've underestimated my time expectations. I can't manage to do all the
pieces at the end of this week, as I originally wanted to. But I should be
able to get at least some of them finished at that time. Do you want to hear
some of them sooner or shall I upload them all at once within next week when
they are ready?

Petr