Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Computational Equivalence.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps some of the computer progammers among you might appreciate
> this reference:
>
> 12tet x 100tet = 1200tet.
>
> http://www.wolframscience.com/
>
> I'm not an expert on Wolfram's work so please don't "jump down my
> throat".

OK, I'll try not to jump down your throat. I don't get it though.
12 X 100 = 1200. That's basic arithmetic. What does it have to
do with Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"? You didn't give much
of a reference -- you just linked to his home page. Does he talk
about equal temperaments somewhere?

That said, I have proposed that Wolfram's insight into "constraint
systems" has applications in music theory (since music theory
usually takes the form of a list of constraints).

-Carl

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps some of the computer progammers among you might appreciate
> > this reference:
> >
> > 12tet x 100tet = 1200tet.
> >
> > http://www.wolframscience.com/
> >
> > I'm not an expert on Wolfram's work so please don't "jump down my
> > throat".
>
> OK, I'll try not to jump down your throat. I don't get it though.
> 12 X 100 = 1200. That's basic arithmetic. What does it have to
> do with Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"? You didn't give much
> of a reference -- you just linked to his home page. Does he talk
> about equal temperaments somewhere?
>
> That said, I have proposed that Wolfram's insight into "constraint
> systems" has applications in music theory (since music theory
> usually takes the form of a list of constraints).
>
> -Carl
>
From Robert. My math skills are limited to basic algebra and
logarithms so perhaps I imagine relationships that don't really
exist. At any rate, it doesn't hurt to remind the members about
Wolfram's wonderful websites every now and again for the benefit
of newcomers. Where might I find your proposal concerning
constraint systems?

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

> From Robert. My math skills are limited to basic algebra and
> logarithms so perhaps I imagine relationships that don't really
> exist. At any rate, it doesn't hurt to remind the members about
> Wolfram's wonderful websites every now and again for the benefit
> of newcomers. Where might I find your proposal concerning
> constraint systems?

Perhaps the text below will make some sense. The executive
summary is that traditional music theory rules ("no parallel
fifths!") can be seen as constraint systems, and Wolfram's
observations mean that you can get the full range of musical
expression from very simple music theories.

-Carl

>>it would seem that constraints in composition are very
>>different from whatever would have to be meant by "constraint
>>systems" in wolfram's text.
>
>Wolfram's text makes statements about constraint systems in
>general -- they apply any time you have a set of deterministic
>tests. PCE says that no matter what type of constraint system
>you have, from the very simple ones Wolfram studies (so he can
>brute-force them) to the most strange ones you can dream up, it
>will be the case that for some of them, there will be nothing
>faster than brute force for finding solutions. It follows that
>among these, the full range of possible *types* of solutions
>must exist, since otherwise there would be a shortcut to brute-
>forcing them.
>
>In my application, this means sometimes, we can't look at the
>constraints and say what the solutions (music) will be like.
>We have to actually make the music. It also means that some
>sets of very simple constraints must be capable of producing
>the full range of types of music
>
>>what does computational sophistication have to do with musical
>>composition?
>
>I don't require that it amounts to a measure of musical
>complexity, if that's what you're worried about. I only need
>to say the whatever range of musical complexity exists, it
>occur over the solutions to all types of constraint systems.
>
>-Carl

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > From Robert. My math skills are limited to basic algebra and
> > logarithms so perhaps I imagine relationships that don't really
> > exist. At any rate, it doesn't hurt to remind the members about
> > Wolfram's wonderful websites every now and again for the benefit
> > of newcomers. Where might I find your proposal concerning
> > constraint systems?
>
> Perhaps the text below will make some sense. The executive
> summary is that traditional music theory rules ("no parallel
> fifths!") can be seen as constraint systems, and Wolfram's
> observations mean that you can get the full range of musical
> expression from very simple music theories.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> >>it would seem that constraints in composition are very
> >>different from whatever would have to be meant by "constraint
> >>systems" in wolfram's text.
> >
> >Wolfram's text makes statements about constraint systems in
> >general -- they apply any time you have a set of deterministic
> >tests. PCE says that no matter what type of constraint system
> >you have, from the very simple ones Wolfram studies (so he can
> >brute-force them) to the most strange ones you can dream up, it
> >will be the case that for some of them, there will be nothing
> >faster than brute force for finding solutions. It follows that
> >among these, the full range of possible *types* of solutions
> >must exist, since otherwise there would be a shortcut to brute-
> >forcing them.
> >
> >In my application, this means sometimes, we can't look at the
> >constraints and say what the solutions (music) will be like.
> >We have to actually make the music. It also means that some
> >sets of very simple constraints must be capable of producing
> >the full range of types of music
> >
> >>what does computational sophistication have to do with musical
> >>composition?
> >
> >I don't require that it amounts to a measure of musical
> >complexity, if that's what you're worried about. I only need
> >to say the whatever range of musical complexity exists, it
> >occur over the solutions to all types of constraint systems.
> >
> >-Carl
>
From Robert. Thankyou Carl. You have given me something to ponder
over.

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

Dear Carl,

It appears that you cited from some other mailing discussion. Could you point me to where this quote comes from (googling for it only found your mail from today).

Thank you!

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On Sep 13, 2008, at 2:48 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> > From Robert. My math skills are limited to basic algebra and
> > logarithms so perhaps I imagine relationships that don't really
> > exist. At any rate, it doesn't hurt to remind the members about
> > Wolfram's wonderful websites every now and again for the benefit
> > of newcomers. Where might I find your proposal concerning
> > constraint systems?
>
> Perhaps the text below will make some sense. The executive
> summary is that traditional music theory rules ("no parallel
> fifths!") can be seen as constraint systems, and Wolfram's
> observations mean that you can get the full range of musical
> expression from very simple music theories.
>
> -Carl
>
> >>it would seem that constraints in composition are very
> >>different from whatever would have to be meant by "constraint
> >>systems" in wolfram's text.
> >
> >Wolfram's text makes statements about constraint systems in
> >general -- they apply any time you have a set of deterministic
> >tests. PCE says that no matter what type of constraint system
> >you have, from the very simple ones Wolfram studies (so he can
> >brute-force them) to the most strange ones you can dream up, it
> >will be the case that for some of them, there will be nothing
> >faster than brute force for finding solutions. It follows that
> >among these, the full range of possible *types* of solutions
> >must exist, since otherwise there would be a shortcut to brute-
> >forcing them.
> >
> >In my application, this means sometimes, we can't look at the
> >constraints and say what the solutions (music) will be like.
> >We have to actually make the music. It also means that some
> >sets of very simple constraints must be capable of producing
> >the full range of types of music
> >
> >>what does computational sophistication have to do with musical
> >>composition?
> >
> >I don't require that it amounts to a measure of musical
> >complexity, if that's what you're worried about. I only need
> >to say the whatever range of musical complexity exists, it
> >occur over the solutions to all types of constraint systems.
> >
> >-Carl
>
>
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> .
> > >
> > >In my application, this means sometimes, we can't look at the
> > >constraints and say what the solutions (music) will be like.
> > >We have to actually make the music. It also means that some
> > >sets of very simple constraints must be capable of producing
> > >the full range of types of music
>
> Note that ANK'o'S, in reference to music, differentiates between
> constraints and ways of generating structures. Anyway I'd get a
kick
> out of your take on the book and the whole Wolfram thang.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
From Robert. Here is a page with some free PDF articles which might
interest. The one by A.C. Eldridge (14 pages) at the bottom seems
to be relevant or at least interesting from a cellular automata
point of view. It's called "Adaptive Music Systems: Musical
Structures from Algorithmic Process."

http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/courses/creative-
systems/publications.htm

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> > >In my application, this means sometimes, we can't look at the
> > >constraints and say what the solutions (music) will be like.
> > >We have to actually make the music. It also means that some
> > >sets of very simple constraints must be capable of producing
> > >the full range of types of music
>
> Note that ANK'o'S, in reference to music, differentiates
> between constraints and ways of generating structures.

Cite? I see only this:
http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-874b-text
which hardly says anything.

> Anyway I'd get a kick
> out of your take on the book and the whole Wolfram thang.

I read the book when it first came out. It contains many
wonderful information visualizations -- it's pretty much
unparalleled in that regard -- made all the nicer by the super
high-resolution process it's printed with. The text is
repetitive and pedantic, but the idea of empirically exploring
simple programs for scientific models is a good one. It goes
back at least to Hilbert (OK, he was looking for proofs rather
than models). Turing promoted a simple regime for animal
pigmentation, which Wolfram expounds in the book (without
attribution in the main text unfortunately). But Wolfram
does seem to have taken it farther than anyone else to date.

This lecture is a good summary for those who don't have the
luxury of reading long-winded books during a protracted period
of unemployment:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/149/
I saw him give this talk at Stanford, where the physics
professors were happy to show their disdain for any inquiry
taking place outside of their ivory tower. The MIT crowd here
seems slightly more accommodating. That said, Wolfram does
not help the situation with his grandiose self-promotion.

-Carl

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> > > >In my application, this means sometimes, we can't look at the
> > > >constraints and say what the solutions (music) will be like.
> > > >We have to actually make the music. It also means that some
> > > >sets of very simple constraints must be capable of producing
> > > >the full range of types of music
> >
> > Note that ANK'o'S, in reference to music, differentiates
> > between constraints and ways of generating structures.
>
> Cite? I see only this:
> http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-874b-text
> which hardly says anything.
>
> > Anyway I'd get a kick
> > out of your take on the book and the whole Wolfram thang.
>
> I read the book when it first came out. It contains many
> wonderful information visualizations -- it's pretty much
> unparalleled in that regard -- made all the nicer by the super
> high-resolution process it's printed with. The text is
> repetitive and pedantic, but the idea of empirically exploring
> simple programs for scientific models is a good one. It goes
> back at least to Hilbert (OK, he was looking for proofs rather
> than models). Turing promoted a simple regime for animal
> pigmentation, which Wolfram expounds in the book (without
> attribution in the main text unfortunately). But Wolfram
> does seem to have taken it farther than anyone else to date.
>
> This lecture is a good summary for those who don't have the
> luxury of reading long-winded books during a protracted period
> of unemployment:
> http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/149/
> I saw him give this talk at Stanford, where the physics
> professors were happy to show their disdain for any inquiry
> taking place outside of their ivory tower. The MIT crowd here
> seems slightly more accommodating. That said, Wolfram does
> not help the situation with his grandiose self-promotion.
>
> -Carl
>
From Robert. Thankyou. I thoroughly enjoyed this video lecture
and presentation.

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

Looks like a cite to me, but no matter.

Assuming that his ideas are consistant, and that his practical
implementations of the ideas are meant to be true to the ideas,
and that the implementations he publishes have been checked by him
and not found wanting, we can surely simply take a gander at how his
"wolframtones" are generated in order to see whether or not
he differentiates, in music, between constraints and ways of
generating structures.

http://tones.wolfram.com/about/how.html

scroll down to "making music". Let's be cool with the "turning it on
its side" bit, for that floats considering the way time is mapped in
the original process (ie., the original is "scrolling down"). That
"swath" he cuts through the CA image is technically a "constraint",
but that constraint is not written in the original CA process, and it
can be of any width. It is arbritrarily wide (or high, in its piano-
roll pose).

Now, unless you want to accept the idea that voicing is meaningless
and absolute pitch class is all as far as implications of tonality,
or are happy with the idea that implications of tonality are not part
of musical structure, it is clear that where you cut that swath is
going to change the musical structure of the piece. That's just an
example, there's rhythm and so on as well, and mapping the things in
ways other than cornball way he does could make that arbitrary swath
even more important as far as structure.

So there is a difference between the CA constraints and generating
the structure, and some of the illustrations in the book IIRC also
have these kinds of arbitrary aeshetic presentations (man that's
bitchen in a bookmatch!) I have nothing against this by the way, and
as I idley browse the book online over time I wonder if he'll ever
get to very interesting idea which these aesthetic manipulations
suggest.

By the way fancy ways of triggering a 12-tET grid is one of my pet
things to hate in computer/generative music. :-)

>
> > Anyway I'd get a kick
> > out of your take on the book and the whole Wolfram thang.
>
> I read the book when it first came out. It contains many
> wonderful information visualizations -- it's pretty much
> unparalleled in that regard -- made all the nicer by the super
> high-resolution process it's printed with. The text is
> repetitive and pedantic, but the idea of empirically exploring
> simple programs for scientific models is a good one. It goes
> back at least to Hilbert (OK, he was looking for proofs rather
> than models). Turing promoted a simple regime for animal
> pigmentation, which Wolfram expounds in the book (without
> attribution in the main text unfortunately). But Wolfram
> does seem to have taken it farther than anyone else to date.
>
> This lecture is a good summary for those who don't have the
> luxury of reading long-winded books during a protracted period
> of unemployment:
> http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/149/
> I saw him give this talk at Stanford, where the physics
> professors were happy to show their disdain for any inquiry
> taking place outside of their ivory tower. The MIT crowd here
> seems slightly more accommodating. That said, Wolfram does
> not help the situation with his grandiose self-promotion.
>
> -Carl

That's a very level-headed review. I'll have to read more of the book
to form an opinion I could consider fair, back to you in about 5
years on that one.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" wrote:
> > > Note that ANK'o'S, in reference to music, differentiates
> > > between constraints and ways of generating structures.
> >
> > Cite? I see only this:
> > http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-874b-text
> > which hardly says anything.
>
> Looks like a cite to me, but no matter.

OK, but it's not really clear what he means. There are
constraints for structure, too (ending on the home chord,
sonata form) which can all be viewed as constraints.

> By the way fancy ways of triggering a 12-tET grid is one of
> my pet things to hate in computer/generative music. :-)

Me too! I actually wrote to Wolfram Tones (and I think
Jon Szanto may have, also) when it first launched, suggesting
they implement other tunings. I see they still haven't
taken it to heart.

-Carl

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" wrote:
> > > > Note that ANK'o'S, in reference to music, differentiates
> > > > between constraints and ways of generating structures.
> > >
> > > Cite? I see only this:
> > > http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-874b-text
> > > which hardly says anything.
> >
> > Looks like a cite to me, but no matter.
>
> OK, but it's not really clear what he means.

Nope, it's not.

>There are
> constraints for structure, too (ending on the home chord,
> sonata form) which can all be viewed as constraints.

Yes, and arbitrary definitions of those constraints- the "swath" width
on the interactive website is set by a manual slider- are going to
change structure by changing those particular constraints of course.
But these kinds of constraint is different in nature from the
constraints in the CA, which are constructive and "built in".

Show me some CA with finite "pictures" (non-trivial, not a single
black dot for example) and I'll really get into it. That's one of
things I'm looking for in algorithmic composition- processes that can
tell themselves when to shut up. Maybe I'm just projecting my own
needs, hahaha!

>
> > By the way fancy ways of triggering a 12-tET grid is one of
> > my pet things to hate in computer/generative music. :-)
>
> Me too! I actually wrote to Wolfram Tones (and I think
> Jon Szanto may have, also) when it first launched, suggesting
> they implement other tunings. I see they still haven't
> taken it to heart.

What I wrote was "Ramon Llull says "hi"". I think the first thing
anyone with common sense thinks when they see any kind of
combinatorics is "well groovy, now what exactly is it that you are
combining?" Even if it's the motion not the meat so to speak that is
what is interesting, what's being shuffled around is obviously also
going to impose constraints on the motion- you can bop around in 12-
tET until the monkeys have typed all the works of Shakespeare but the
movement of say an ascending neutral third is simply never going to
happen. As you already know of course but in case anyone might be
observing (you there, Robert? :-) )

-Cameron Bobro

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" wrote:
> > > > > Note that ANK'o'S, in reference to music, differentiates
> > > > > between constraints and ways of generating structures.
> > > >
> > > > Cite? I see only this:
> > > > http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-874b-text
> > > > which hardly says anything.
> > >
> > > Looks like a cite to me, but no matter.
> >
> > OK, but it's not really clear what he means.
>
> Nope, it's not.
>
>
> >There are
> > constraints for structure, too (ending on the home chord,
> > sonata form) which can all be viewed as constraints.
>
> Yes, and arbitrary definitions of those constraints- the "swath"
width
> on the interactive website is set by a manual slider- are going to
> change structure by changing those particular constraints of
course.
> But these kinds of constraint is different in nature from the
> constraints in the CA, which are constructive and "built in".
>
> Show me some CA with finite "pictures" (non-trivial, not a single
> black dot for example) and I'll really get into it. That's one of
> things I'm looking for in algorithmic composition- processes that
can
> tell themselves when to shut up. Maybe I'm just projecting my own
> needs, hahaha!
>
> >
> > > By the way fancy ways of triggering a 12-tET grid is one of
> > > my pet things to hate in computer/generative music. :-)
> >
> > Me too! I actually wrote to Wolfram Tones (and I think
> > Jon Szanto may have, also) when it first launched, suggesting
> > they implement other tunings. I see they still haven't
> > taken it to heart.
>
>
> What I wrote was "Ramon Llull says "hi"". I think the first thing
> anyone with common sense thinks when they see any kind of
> combinatorics is "well groovy, now what exactly is it that you are
> combining?" Even if it's the motion not the meat so to speak that
is
> what is interesting, what's being shuffled around is obviously also
> going to impose constraints on the motion- you can bop around in 12-
> tET until the monkeys have typed all the works of Shakespeare but
the
> movement of say an ascending neutral third is simply never going to
> happen. As you already know of course but in case anyone might be
> observing (you there, Robert? :-) )
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
From Robert. Yes, I'm here but I think that I will defer to Carl
for expert opinions concerning cellular automata. I have read
Wolfram's book and I am convinced that it has value for
microtonalists but this is just a "gut feeling" I have. I am not
actually capable of discussing cellular automata related music
topics. I can understand essays and articles from a generalised
point of view but many technical details elude me. Even so, doing
exactly the same thing but in a different way is an attractive
idea.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Cameron and I wrote:

> > There are
> > constraints for structure, too (ending on the home chord,
> > sonata form) which can all be viewed as constraints.
>
> Yes, and arbitrary definitions of those constraints- the
> "swath" width on the interactive website is set by a manual
> slider- are going to change structure by changing those
> particular constraints of course.
> But these kinds of constraint is different in nature from the
> constraints in the CA, which are constructive and "built in".

In the book, W. distinguishes between CA and constraint
systems. The CA rules are not considered "constraints".
The music theory constraints I'm talking about are indeed
analogous to those W. considers in his "constraint systems".
The point I tried to make in that specmus thread has
nothing to do with generating music from CA ala Wolfram Tones.

-Carl

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron and I wrote:
>
> > > There are
> > > constraints for structure, too (ending on the home chord,
> > > sonata form) which can all be viewed as constraints.
> >
> > Yes, and arbitrary definitions of those constraints- the
> > "swath" width on the interactive website is set by a manual
> > slider- are going to change structure by changing those
> > particular constraints of course.
> > But these kinds of constraint is different in nature from the
> > constraints in the CA, which are constructive and "built in".
>
> In the book, W. distinguishes between CA and constraint
> systems. The CA rules are not considered "constraints".
> The music theory constraints I'm talking about are indeed
> analogous to those W. considers in his "constraint systems".
> The point I tried to make in that specmus thread has
> nothing to do with generating music from CA ala Wolfram Tones.
>
> -Carl
>

Fourth attempt to post here, bizarre.

Okay, that makes sense. I did assume that whatever it is you're
doing with algorithmic music is a lot more sophisticated than what's
going on at wolfram-tones.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> you don't need a more complex music theory
> to get music of maximal complexity, or richness.

I fully agree. One may argue that for music which highly complex musically (e.g., hard to follow and remember) one only needs a random number generator.. Certainly, you can also have a highly complex theory for generating complex music.

On the other hand, to create seemingly "simple" music (e.g., folk tunes, or something like Telemann) needs a quite complex music theory. I can tell you, because I am formalising tonal music rule sets for algorithmic composition :)

Best
Torsten

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

caleb morgan wrote:
>>
>> I thought I'd invite anyone who wants to listen. This is every >> fair-to-middling piece I've ever written, and a bunch of clips that >> make me laugh. I thought of Cameron Bobro because I liked a piece of >> his I heard, and he does film-scoring, so he might get the absurdity >> of many of cues. There's a bunch of microtonal stuff--11-limit just >> with 36 per 2/1: Essentially Partch +- a few notes. Cheers
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.box.net/shared/m37jhti1og

I've only gotten to listen to a few tracks so far, but I'm having fun with these! A lot of diversity in these, and I've been needing to write, finish and share some non-classical stuff.

May I ask, what are you using in the ways of synths/virtual instruments?

~D.

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

> Thanks, Oz.
>

I'm between studios. All of this stuff was written with older gear. Tx802 (3) , Tx816, Akai s900, Synclavier, Roland D50, Korg m something, Roland Juno, Yamaha Tg77, Casio sampler, Proteus I, II, III

The sampling was done with a Synclavier--I had the NED sound libs, and lots of other stuff.

The Synclavier was built up in stages--the polyphonic sampling came later, and was grey-market: I knew some guy who worked at the company, and he claimed he was fishing boards out of the dumpster. Eventually we assembled a working system.

Speaking of dumpsters, that was the fate of my Synclav. The company folded, it became obsolete, and I couldn't give it away.

It wasn't a happy moment. I remember, the ailing President of NEC watched me as I heaved the big blue box into the dumpster, and my keys fell into the trash as well.

other samplers: Kurzweil k2000r, with Miraslav Vitous orchestra samples I keymapped for a microtonal scale. All that work!

Then, I used Studio Vision on a Mac. Same deal. Company went out of business.

Right now I've got nothing I can do anything with: I've got Logic Pro on a powerful Mac, but I don't know how to use it, and I basically don't like any of the sounds, nor do I like all the bells and whistles.

So, I'm between systems. In a few months, I may have some money to invest in new gear, so I'm going to go back to those emails that I somewhat rudely didn't respond to: I apologize, but I got obsessed with something else, and then I felt guilty.

Moral of the story! Don't get gear from a small company that may break, unless you want your hear broken as well, and whatever chops you develop wasted.

Boy, there's some funny stuff, but the pop parodies just don't stand up to the kind of stuff you hear now, (or then.) But, this is how I spent a fair portion of my time.

Now, I've been writing for piano--12-tone pieces. Nothing that will endear me to anyone here or anywhere else, but they're what I want to do: simple, no gimmicks, no rhythm tracks, no bells and whistles.

I think that there are maybe 10-20 good pieces in the whole lot, depending on how you define "good".

Basically, the pieces I spent a long time on, and/or have some real compositional idea, and/or some real instruments or humans somehow involved, are the best, IMO.

The microtonal jamming is just to document that I had some ear-to-hands facility with the 11-limit 36-note just scale I used. Just shedding or wanking, depending on how you look at it.

Caleb

> You have composed some splendid work Caleb! Now I'm envious.
>
> Oz.
>
>
>

> > http://www.box.net/shared/m37jhti1og
>
> I've only gotten to listen to a few tracks so far, but I'm having fun
> with these! A lot of diversity in these, and I've been needing to > write,
> finish and share some non-classical stuff.
>
> May I ask, what are you using in the ways of synths/virtual > instruments?
>
> ~D.
>
>

🔗Carlo Serafini <carlo@...>

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

caleb morgan wrote:

> I'm between studios. All of this stuff was written with older gear. > Tx802 (3) , Tx816, Akai s900, Synclavier, Roland D50, Korg m > something, Roland Juno, Yamaha Tg77, Casio sampler, Proteus I, II, III

[...]

> Right now I've got nothing I can do anything with: I've got Logic Pro > on a powerful Mac, but I don't know how to use it, and I basically > don't like any of the sounds, nor do I like all the bells and whistles.
>
> So, I'm between systems. In a few months, I may have some money to > invest in new gear, so I'm going to go back to those emails that I > somewhat rudely didn't respond to: I apologize, but I got obsessed > with something else, and then I felt guilty. Well good luck with that, and I need to get better sounds myself. I'm considering E-MU's sound software, which is much cheaper than Vienna and other virtual instruments.
>
> Now, I've been writing for piano--12-tone pieces. Nothing that will > endear me to anyone here or anywhere else, but they're what I want to > do: simple, no gimmicks, no rhythm tracks, no bells and whistles.

Nothing wrong with that; I do that myself. Of course I'll want to use some tuning other than 12-equal...
>
>
> The microtonal jamming is just to docu! ment tha t I had some > ear-to-hands facility with the 11-limit 36-note just scale I used. > Just shedding or wanking, depending on how you look at it.

You got a lot of quality work done, and I still need to hear most of it. It'll give me some ear training on 11-limit JI anyway. ~D.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I can't reveal all my dark secrets, Carl, because then I'd have to eat you with a half-gallon of milk and lots of ketchup.

The microtonal pieces:

microtonal study in 7

36 just 11 limit scale delineated in: microtonal primer

microtonal indulgences in:

More micro! glaven

LikeMudda4Chocolate (hybrid)

Piano Teacher (super hybrid--collage, serial, uses Just scale)

typical baked micro practice--has slightly more "in the cracks" sound

overtone groove

serialmicro bandanna on a stick

are some of 'em

thanks for your interest. I have a lot to learn from you guys when I can get a stretch of time.

that's why I'm mostly lurking, here.

it's either under my radar or over my head--what with the miracles, the Orwells, the stretches, the entropies, the glaven-maven.

caleb

On Oct 29, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Holy samolians, there's eight pages of files here!
>
> Would you be willing to recommend a few? Say which
> are microtonal?
>
> Why the link to the Silence of the Lambs spoof video?
> Did you do the music for it?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

btw, thanx, o wise moderator pixy for your superior judgement.

Carl, I forgot to mention The Aswang. A favorite in several ways. Based on a recording of Lynda Barry reading a story.

It's both--to this listener-- a funny piece & well-crafted. uses 11-limit just, except:

at the words "but, at night" it goes to 1/13 fundamental

then, there are some changes--if you will--at the words "my golly she is flying"

p.s. what's been keeping me so busy is that I had some research to wrap up on a paper that's scheduled to be published in Perspectives of New Music on 12-tone multiple-order function. Also, just compiling this stuff, lately, has caused my life to pass before my eyes. And finishing up 16 piano pieces based on 12-tone theory has kept me busy.

Definitely not lack of interest.

And, no one has listened to my music for quite some time. Ecce Homo. Time to embrace the poor flogged horse.

Caleb

On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:14 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Caleb wrote:
>
> > The microtonal pieces:
> >
> > microtonal study in 7
> > 36 just 11 limit scale delineated in: microtonal primer
> >
> > microtonal indulgences in:
> > More micro! glaven
> > LikeMudda4Chocolate (hybrid)
> > Piano Teacher (super hybrid--collage, serial, uses Just scale)
>
> Do you have a favorite among your nonmicrotonal pieces?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

Oh, one other thought.

As a noob, I'm not quite on your wavelength yet. (you = people on the list who are old hands)

This could have one advantage. My relatively naive impressions could be some kind of independant confirmation of what you already know.

I could write something about what extended Just Intonation *seemed* like to me--my subjective impressions.

For example, when people speak of 12t ET as being like black and white, and extended Just as being like color, I know what they mean.

Or like the difference between checkers and 3-dimensional chess.

Or like the difference between a lawn in the suburbs and a forest in the wild.

Lawns are ok.

More technically, I could sketch my sense of the theory of roots, consonance/dissonance, other issues of extended just.

Between that and the pieces here, you could get a sense of everything I know.

One strongly held opinion: Experience trumps theory. The theoretical problems of extended-JI that seem vexing to some are actually quite solvable in practice with various kludges, workarounds, fudges, sleights-of-hand that are possible with computers but impractical for humans.

In my limited reading and limited discussion with some people around Boston, it was quite clear that some simply don't even understand the basic Partch scale-concept. This surprised me.

Tuning, for me, is *not* about what can be taught to students to sing by ear.

Extended Just (like Partch) isn't that arbitrary or radical. Many roads converge there. It doesn't matter if there are minor differences: you've got a 13/12, I've got a 15/14, say. No problem.

Then, there are issues around accuracy--how accurate does intonation need to be to get certain results? In textures with rapidly moving notes, how accurate does tuning need to be? (Less so.)

---------

One other thing: What kinds of theoretical models will help if I feel that I already understand something about harmonic space vs. "adjacency" space--"adjacency" space meaning simply what notes are next to each other--the continuum?

-----------

it's early. sorry for incoherence.

>
>