To Cameron on "gingko"

0: 1/1 0.000

1: 73/70 72.650

2: 35/32 155.140

3: 81/70 252.680

4: 729/560 456.590

5: 146/105 570.695

6: 219/140 774.605

7: 105/64 857.095

8: 243/140 954.635

9: 2/1 1200.000

-----------------------------
    I tried your tuning and it actually sounds...incredibly good to my ears as well, at least with pure sine waves (it, like my scale, probably need a timbre-changing algorithm to mold instruments to work with it well enough for "public consumption", though).
 
    I am still rather ambiguous as to whether your scale or my own sounds more "constant in character"...they both sound about the same to my ears, though yours has a more "minor" feel and mine a more "major"...so I'm wondering if we can figure out a clever way to use them in conjunction with each other...
     ******************************************************************
    ............I'm also just wondering how you came up with these ratios. 
    Mine came out of just the
simplest/lowest-denominator Just Intonation intervals, plus the square roots over several of them IE sqrt(3/2) IE square root of the fifth.  Before I had made a scale purely by ear and came up with ratios like 1.111 and 3.3333 and 4.4444 and thought "many of these sound like the results of square roots", thus leading me to want to take the square root of fractions to see if I could come close to reproducing these numbers + find some more new "in character" ratios.

*****************************************
   I think we may truly be on to something...one thing that seems obvious is making notes consonant relative to each other is not enough in and of itself. 
******************************************

All the best, Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>
wrote:
>
>
> 0: 1/1 0.000
>
> 1: 73/70 72.650
>
> 2: 35/32 155.140
>
> 3: 81/70 252.680
>
> 4: 729/560 456.590
>
> 5: 146/105 570.695
>
> 6: 219/140 774.605
>
> 7: 105/64 857.095
>
> 8: 243/140 954.635
>
> 9: 2/1 1200.000
>
>
> -----------------------------
> B B B I tried your tuning and it actually
sounds...incredibly good to my ears as well, at least with pure sine
waves (it, like my scale, probably need a timbre-changing algorithm
to mold instruments to work with it well enough for "public
consumption", though).

Have you tried different timbres? I use a couple dozen different,
about 10 continually. As far as "public consumption", it depends on
the public, and the context. All this fun stuff is my job, and so far
noone has ever even noticed that I do only alternative tunings,
except for the occasional comment that something is too soft and
mellow.

When there are visuals you can get away with absolutely anything as
far as tuning anyway, even completely mainstream movies use
alternative tunings and trippy sounds of all kinds. With art video,
anything goes- and there are always non-poseur artists and serious
art lovers who are delighted to hear something other than the usual
Max/Msp zooshing and farting or po-mo pastiches.

> B
> B B B I am still rather ambiguous as to whether your
scale or my own sounds more "constant in character"...they both sound
about the same to my ears, though yours has a more "minor" feel and
mine a more "major"...so I'm wondering if we can figure out a clever
way to use them in conjunction with each other...

Don't know how that would work, but I think either tuning would work
well with straight "simple JI".
>
B B B B ******************************************************************
> B B B ............I'm also just wondering how you came
up with these ratios.

The ratios as such don't matter, I just got lucky in
deciding to flip-flop multiples of 70, x70/d, n/x70, trying to find
what sounded right. One ratio system I use quite a bit could be
described with this example: 10401/10000, 10402/10000... because it
is measuring in Hz to .01 accuracy over a 104 Hz drone. Sadly the
tuning pots on my discrete analog are not creamy smooth even when
clean because this is my favorite method; record a drone then play
over it tweaking the tuning knob and hitting record when it's right.

Then the ratio is Track2-Hz/Track1-Hz. If ratios and proportions were
described by things like "Aunt Mathilda and hang a left at Oki Dogs"
it wouldn't matter, it's about sounds and the percieved relationships
between them.

Numerology approaches which enfore patterns but whose chances of
being audibly acoustically relevant are slim to none seem to be good
for making horrifying sounds. I have one such tuning made on a lark
and I hesitate to use or discuss it because it is very beautiful in a
slinky way but makes me literally ill and I frankly feel that it is
evil. It is like a poisonous green snake.

B
> B ;B B Mine came out of just the
> simplest/lowest-denominator Just Intonation intervals, plus the
square roots over several of them IE sqrt(3/2) IE square root of the
fifth.B Before I had made a scale purely by ear and came up with
ratios like 1.111 and 3.3333 and 4.4444 and thought "many of these
sound like the results of square roots", thus leading me to want to
take the square root of fractions to see if I could come close to
reproducing these numbers + find some more new "in character" ratios.

And if it didn't sound right you'd toss the idea and look for
something else, and if you couldn't find anything you'd say whatever
and keep using the tuning because you like it, right? In that case
we've got the same basic approach.

>
> *****************************************
> B B I think we may truly be on to something...one thing
that seems obvious is making notes consonant relative to each other
is not enough in and of itself.B

Literal consonance and euphony and artistic worth aren't all the same
thing.

-Cameron Bobro