48-tET and the modernist Turk's penchant of thinking only in terms of multiples of 12-tET

There is this guy who wrote a theory book on Turkish Maqam Music using
48-EDO. Unfortunately, thinking in multiples of 12-tone equal temperament is
a disease in Turkish music circles. Not only did he stoop so low as to
attempt to belittle my work on 79 MOS 159-tET during the congress mentioned,
but he also made a ridiculous claim that anything smaller than a "comma" (he
means 20-25 cents) will be "perceived as the same pitch" and that 79 MOS
159-tET was meaningless and devoid of physical basis for that reason.

I don't know about his hearing ability, but I can certainly discern a
difference of 2/3 Holdrian commas as indicating distinct pitches on my
qanun.

Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when there is a
much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other words,
what is so special about 48-tET?

Oz.

Hi Oz;

I am not surprised in the least.

It's not only the Turks who have difficulty in thinking beyond multiples of 12 as the basis of their edo's.
The grant-applying UK microtonalists mostly seem to go for 96 edo or multiples of 12 edo, which is easy for the arts charities to understand, and easy for the instrument makers and "academic musos" to use.

Musicians and their management/admin do tend generally to take the lazy route, and the academics I find are mostly hostile to microtuning, as it threatens their competence, experience, and world view.
At least if they use multiples of 12, a few may eventually explore a little further or encourage future generations to question the limits of 12 edo.

On 7 Mar 2008, at 12:09, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> There is this guy who wrote a theory book on Turkish Maqam Music using
> 48-EDO. Unfortunately, thinking in multiples of 12-tone equal > temperament is
> a disease in Turkish music circles. Not only did he stoop so low as to
> attempt to belittle my work on 79 MOS 159-tET during the congress > mentioned,
> but he also made a ridiculous claim that anything smaller than a > "comma" (he
> means 20-25 cents) will be "perceived as the same pitch" and that 79 > MOS
> 159-tET was meaningless and devoid of physical basis for that reason.
>
> I don't know about his hearing ability, but I can certainly discern a
> difference of 2/3 Holdrian commas as indicating distinct pitches on my
> qanun.
>
> Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when > there is a
> much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other > words,
> what is so special about 48-tET?
>
> Oz.
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@lucytune.com

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

perhaps you could mention that 48 is four cycles of fifths that have little in common.
It is always a shame when microtonality becomes "political" but this seems to be the case more than not. everywhere.

Ozan Yarman wrote:
> There is this guy who wrote a theory book on Turkish Maqam Music using
> 48-EDO. Unfortunately, thinking in multiples of 12-tone equal temperament is
> a disease in Turkish music circles. Not only did he stoop so low as to
> attempt to belittle my work on 79 MOS 159-tET during the congress mentioned,
> but he also made a ridiculous claim that anything smaller than a "comma" (he
> means 20-25 cents) will be "perceived as the same pitch" and that 79 MOS
> 159-tET was meaningless and devoid of physical basis for that reason.
>
> I don't know about his hearing ability, but I can certainly discern a
> difference of 2/3 Holdrian commas as indicating distinct pitches on my
> qanun.
>
> Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when there is a
> much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other words,
> what is so special about 48-tET?
>
> Oz.
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 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

Well if he insists on a multiple of 12, he might as well use 72-tet
since it's so great in 11-limit. But he needs to renounce his
duodecimism altogether.

Has anyone written proposed a 41-tone theory besides Töre and Karadeniz?
~D.

On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 14:09 +0200, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> There is this guy who wrote a theory book on Turkish Maqam Music using
> 48-EDO. Unfortunately, thinking in multiples of 12-tone equal temperament is
> a disease in Turkish music circles. Not only did he stoop so low as to
> attempt to belittle my work on 79 MOS 159-tET during the congress mentioned,
> but he also made a ridiculous claim that anything smaller than a "comma" (he
> means 20-25 cents) will be "perceived as the same pitch" and that 79 MOS
> 159-tET was meaningless and devoid of physical basis for that reason.
>
> I don't know about his hearing ability, but I can certainly discern a
> difference of 2/3 Holdrian commas as indicating distinct pitches on my
> qanun.
>
> Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when there is a
> much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other words,
> what is so special about 48-tET?
>
> Oz.

Ozan Yarman schrieb:

> Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when there is a
> much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other words,
> what is so special about 48-tET?

And don't forget market compatibility.

klaus

Dear Oz,

Your work is very challenging indeed and eighths of tones it is still a better way of expression than quartertones than the standardized quartertones. So your congress mate's thoughts are relevant but still miles away from your work. Keep it up!

As for Charles' comments, I would say that the smaller the intervals used on a tuning system, the more irrelevant the mathematics used to devise the system is. In other words, as you get close to infinite divisions of the auditory range you also get close to the point where is 100% irrelevant what mathematics you use to divide it.

I hope that makes sense!

Tony Salinas

Erv Wilson promoted 41 ET for a bit at the same time as 31. That Partch's system maps well over it he has papers on which sadly i have not had the opportunity to get up. ( i am backed on about 100 pages, many on the co-prime grid) which will have to wait till everything arrives at my new home, at least a month if i am lucky.
While I am biased to just, 41 would give Turkey a connection to their past as well as room to go in new directions if it chooses so.

Danny Wier wrote:
>
> Well if he insists on a multiple of 12, he might as well use 72-tet
> since it's so great in 11-limit. But he needs to renounce his
> duodecimism altogether.
>
> Has anyone written proposed a 41-tone theory besides Töre and Karadeniz?
> ~D.
>
> On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 14:09 +0200, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > There is this guy who wrote a theory book on Turkish Maqam Music using
> > 48-EDO. Unfortunately, thinking in multiples of 12-tone equal > temperament is
> > a disease in Turkish music circles. Not only did he stoop so low as to
> > attempt to belittle my work on 79 MOS 159-tET during the congress > mentioned,
> > but he also made a ridiculous claim that anything smaller than a > "comma" (he
> > means 20-25 cents) will be "perceived as the same pitch" and that 79 MOS
> > 159-tET was meaningless and devoid of physical basis for that reason.
> >
> > I don't know about his hearing ability, but I can certainly discern a
> > difference of 2/3 Holdrian commas as indicating distinct pitches on my
> > qanun.
> >
> > Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when > there is a
> > much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other > words,
> > what is so special about 48-tET?
> >
> > Oz.
>
> -- 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

This is the way people thought about the midi standard when it was being put into place, 768 (I can't remember off hand) was supposed to do everything. It turned out to be a big problem. I have a synth that does 6144 and even that i can hear the difference from 'pure'. The quality is recognizable almost immediately. pretty good though

J.A.Martin Salinas wrote:
>
> Dear Oz,
>
> Your work is very challenging indeed and eighths of tones it is still
> a better way of expression than quartertones than the standardized
> quartertones. So your congress mate's thoughts are relevant but still
> miles away from your work. Keep it up!
>
> As for Charles' comments, I would say that the smaller the intervals
> used on a tuning system, the more irrelevant the mathematics used to
> devise the system is. In other words, as you get close to infinite
> divisions of the auditory range you also get close to the point where
> is 100% irrelevant what mathematics you use to divide it.
>
> I hope that makes sense!
>
> Tony Salinas
>
> -- 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

Very well put Charles.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Lucy" <lucy@harmonics.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 07 Mart 2008 Cuma 19:58
Subject: Re: [tuning] 48-tET and the modernist Turk's penchant of thinking
only in terms of multiples of 12-tET

> Hi Oz;
>
> I am not surprised in the least.
>
> It's not only the Turks who have difficulty in thinking beyond
> multiples of 12 as the basis of their edo's.
> The grant-applying UK microtonalists mostly seem to go for 96 edo or
> multiples of 12 edo, which is easy for the arts charities to
> understand, and easy for the instrument makers and "academic musos" to
> use.
>
> Musicians and their management/admin do tend generally to take the
> lazy route, and the academics I find are mostly hostile to
> microtuning, as it threatens their competence, experience, and world
> view.
> At least if they use multiples of 12, a few may eventually explore a
> little further or encourage future generations to question the limits
> of 12 edo.
>
>
>
> On 7 Mar 2008, at 12:09, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > There is this guy who wrote a theory book on Turkish Maqam Music using
> > 48-EDO. Unfortunately, thinking in multiples of 12-tone equal
> > temperament is
> > a disease in Turkish music circles. Not only did he stoop so low as to
> > attempt to belittle my work on 79 MOS 159-tET during the congress
> > mentioned,
> > but he also made a ridiculous claim that anything smaller than a
> > "comma" (he
> > means 20-25 cents) will be "perceived as the same pitch" and that 79
> > MOS
> > 159-tET was meaningless and devoid of physical basis for that reason.
> >
> > I don't know about his hearing ability, but I can certainly discern a
> > difference of 2/3 Holdrian commas as indicating distinct pitches on my
> > qanun.
> >
> > Could 48-tET be preferred as an approximation to 11-limit JI when
> > there is a
> > much better 41-tET in the arsenal of the tuning enthusiast? In other
> > words,
> > what is so special about 48-tET?
> >
> > Oz.
> >
> >

Tony, thank you for your acknowledgement of my work. I still think reverting
to 48-EDO from the already utilized 72-EDO is a sign of backwardness.

Your second paragraph is applicable only to those intervals that cannot be
perceived by the auditory nerve as functionally different pitches. Surely,
the threshold is much lower than 20-25 cents.

Cordially,
Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.A.Martin Salinas" <tony@tonysalinas.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 Mart 2008 Cumartesi 3:30
Subject: Re: [tuning] 48-tET and the modernist Turk's penchant of thinking
only in terms of multiples of 12-tET

> Dear Oz,
>
> Your work is very challenging indeed and eighths of tones it is still
> a better way of expression than quartertones than the standardized
> quartertones. So your congress mate's thoughts are relevant but still
> miles away from your work. Keep it up!
>
> As for Charles' comments, I would say that the smaller the intervals
> used on a tuning system, the more irrelevant the mathematics used to
> devise the system is. In other words, as you get close to infinite
> divisions of the auditory range you also get close to the point where
> is 100% irrelevant what mathematics you use to divide it.
>
> I hope that makes sense!
>
> Tony Salinas
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I forgot to say: I was asking if anyone proposed 41-tet for *Turkish*
theory, not theory in general. Ozan wrote that he knows of no one other
than the two theorists I mention below, but I'm with both of you on
recommending it for Turkish music, since it's Pythagorean but has better
middle seconds/thirds/sixths/sevenths than 53-tet, and does it all with
only 41 pitches per octave.

(I use 31, 41 and 72 myself; I don't write maqam music, but I do borrow
from Middle Eastern and Indian theories. 72-tet also does a good job
approximating Partch's 43-tone scale, by the way.) ~D.

On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:41 -0800, Kraig Grady wrote:
> Erv Wilson promoted 41 ET for a bit at the same time as 31. That
> Partch's system maps well over it he has papers on which sadly i have
> not had the opportunity to get up. ( i am backed on about 100 pages,
> many on the co-prime grid) which will have to wait till everything
> arrives at my new home, at least a month if i am lucky.
> While I am biased to just, 41 would give Turkey a connection to their
> past as well as room to go in new directions if it chooses so.
>
> Danny Wier wrote:
> >
> > Well if he insists on a multiple of 12, he might as well use 72-tet
> > since it's so great in 11-limit. But he needs to renounce his
> > duodecimism altogether.
> >
> > Has anyone written proposed a 41-tone theory besides Töre and Karadeniz?
> > ~D.

Yasser might point out that 31 + 41 =72

Danny Wier wrote:
>
> I forgot to say: I was asking if anyone proposed 41-tet for *Turkish*
> theory, not theory in general. Ozan wrote that he knows of no one other
> than the two theorists I mention below, but I'm with both of you on
> recommending it for Turkish music, since it's Pythagorean but has better
> middle seconds/thirds/sixths/sevenths than 53-tet, and does it all with
> only 41 pitches per octave.
>
> (I use 31, 41 and 72 myself; I don't write maqam music, but I do borrow
> from Middle Eastern and Indian theories. 72-tet also does a good job
> approximating Partch's 43-tone scale, by the way.) ~D.
>
> On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:41 -0800, Kraig Grady wrote:
> > Erv Wilson promoted 41 ET for a bit at the same time as 31. That
> > Partch's system maps well over it he has papers on which sadly i have
> > not had the opportunity to get up. ( i am backed on about 100 pages,
> > many on the co-prime grid) which will have to wait till everything
> > arrives at my new home, at least a month if i am lucky.
> > While I am biased to just, 41 would give Turkey a connection to their
> > past as well as room to go in new directions if it chooses so.
> >
> > Danny Wier wrote:
> > >
> > > Well if he insists on a multiple of 12, he might as well use 72-tet
> > > since it's so great in 11-limit. But he needs to renounce his
> > > duodecimism altogether.
> > >
> > > Has anyone written proposed a 41-tone theory besides Töre and > Karadeniz?
> > > ~D.
>
> -- 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

On 2008/03/08, at 19:22, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Tony, thank you for your acknowledgement of my work. I still think > reverting
> to 48-EDO from the already utilized 72-EDO is a sign of backwardness.

Yes indeed! ...and if I hear again that those people get on your way I will give them a kick in the pants!

>
> Your second paragraph is applicable only to those intervals that > cannot be
> perceived by the auditory nerve as functionally different pitches. > Surely,
> the threshold is much lower than 20-25 cents.

Around 0.1 cents with a clean sustained tone is easy to notice by anybody (no need to develop any skills just put some attention), but I have not experimented with the 0.01 cents, even though I am sure in the right conditions it could be noticed too.

If we consider the tuning system based on the smallest interval that can be used to make a difference to the sound (it may differed according to timbre and sound duration) then any tuning system, scale, chord, or interval is possible.

I do not agree with any tuning system that excludes any interval that can be perceived.

Charles Lucy claims the infinite with his tuning system but what is the difference between doing that and subdividing the 12 equal temperament until we reach the limit the threshold of our perception. I can still play in Lucy Tuning using subdivisions of the 12 equal temperament and still play original compositions of our ancestors in the tuning they were written.

Just some thoughts, nothing serious!

Tony Salinas

Dear Tony,

----- Original Message -----
From: "J.A.Martin Salinas" <tony@tonysalinas.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 Mart 2008 Cumartesi 19:27
Subject: Re: [tuning] 48-tET and the modernist Turk's penchant of thinking
only in terms of multiples of 12-tET

>
> On 2008/03/08, at 19:22, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > Tony, thank you for your acknowledgement of my work. I still think
> > reverting
> > to 48-EDO from the already utilized 72-EDO is a sign of backwardness.
>
> Yes indeed! ...and if I hear again that those people get on your way
> I will give them a kick in the pants!
>

Uh, no need for you to get involved with such riff-raff, particularly since
I have a terrific body build exceeding 125 kgs! Kicking them down is the
easy part; the real problem is the time and effort it takes to reduce their
sophistry to shambles.

> >
> > Your second paragraph is applicable only to those intervals that
> > cannot be
> > perceived by the auditory nerve as functionally different pitches.
> > Surely,
> > the threshold is much lower than 20-25 cents.
>
> Around 0.1 cents with a clean sustained tone is easy to notice by
> anybody (no need to develop any skills just put some attention), but
> I have not experimented with the 0.01 cents, even though I am sure in
> the right conditions it could be noticed too.
>

In a flowing piece of music, I would suspect that any interval greater than
1/3 Holdrian commas is pretty easily noticable.

> If we consider the tuning system based on the smallest interval that
> can be used to make a difference to the sound (it may differed
> according to timbre and sound duration) then any tuning system,
> scale, chord, or interval is possible.
>
> I do not agree with any tuning system that excludes any interval that
> can be perceived.
>
> Charles Lucy claims the infinite with his tuning system but what is
> the difference between doing that and subdividing the 12 equal
> temperament until we reach the limit the threshold of our perception.
> I can still play in Lucy Tuning using subdivisions of the 12 equal
> temperament and still play original compositions of our ancestors in
> the tuning they were written.
>
> Just some thoughts, nothing serious!
>

12000-EDO is the obvious choice as the king of multiples of 12 equal tones.

> Tony Salinas
>
>
>

Oz.

Yeah, that's another reason I'm so attracted to 72. (And 19 + 53, 22 +
50, etc.)

I made a chart of 72-tet with the 31 pitches of canasta (or a scale with
stepsizes of 72/31 octave and each tone rounded to the nearest 72-edo
degree) given Western names using single, double, half and sesqui-sharps
and flats. Next to that, the 41 notes of studloco (72/41 octave steps
again rounded) with Töre-Karadeniz names, 1/1 = Rast/Gerdaniye.

And also Partch's 43 JI ratios plus six of my own. I need to redo my
personal homepage and I'll try to get it up there soon. ~D.

On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 07:19 -0800, Kraig Grady wrote:
> Yasser might point out that 31 + 41 =72
>
> Danny Wier wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to say: I was asking if anyone proposed 41-tet for *Turkish*
> > theory, not theory in general. Ozan wrote that he knows of no one other
> > than the two theorists I mention below, but I'm with both of you on
> > recommending it for Turkish music, since it's Pythagorean but has better
> > middle seconds/thirds/sixths/sevenths than 53-tet, and does it all with
> > only 41 pitches per octave.
> >
> > (I use 31, 41 and 72 myself; I don't write maqam music, but I do borrow
> > from Middle Eastern and Indian theories. 72-tet also does a good job
> > approximating Partch's 43-tone scale, by the way.) ~D.