Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with comparisons

ok,

This should work
=> I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable intervals.

3 files at

http://micro.soonlabel.com/golden

golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale

goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0
flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is
effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the
keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.

golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows
what exactly this is.

Please comment.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "vaisvil" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> ok,
> This should work
> => I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
> intervals.
> 3 files at
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/golden
> golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale
> goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0
> flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is
> effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the
> keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.
> golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows
> what exactly this is.
> Please comment.

Great work, Chris, thanks for doing this. I thought golden13of31
worked best, and in fact I thought it was quite nice. The others
weren't necessarily bad, but didn't have the same fit.

-Carl

I think I have to agree - but Mike's new scale is quite an improvement over
the last from my perspective. Many more harmonically useful intervals.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "vaisvil"
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > ok,
> > This should work
> > => I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
> > intervals.
> > 3 files at
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/golden
> > golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale
> > goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0
> > flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is
> > effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the
> > keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.
> > golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows
> > what exactly this is.
> > Please comment.
>
> Great work, Chris, thanks for doing this. I thought golden13of31
> worked best, and in fact I thought it was quite nice. The others
> weren't necessarily bad, but didn't have the same fit.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

----=> I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
----> intervals.
    Aww man...we could argue for ages as to why you make your own scales instead of using the one I made for the PHI tuning (which took several hours to polish up).  Maybe the next version of the tuning I give you should be limited to the 8 or so notes of the actual scale and not the 13 or so in the tuning).

  Nonetheless...you managed to create something fairly tonal despite this.

    You have a pretty good ear...  But, I digress (and agree with Carl), your 13 out of 31(TET?) version of the tuning sounded the best for the sort of free-form piece you wrote.  If anything though, if sounds like you tried to create a 2/1 octave
feel rather than the "warped harmonic octave" feel of my original scale
within the PHI tuning.

  Anyhow, I know this stuff doesn't come easily (especially not mapping it into 3 different forms!) and good job!

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with comparisons
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:30 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, "vaisvil" <chrisvaisvil@ ...> wrote:

> ok,

> This should work

> => I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable

> intervals.

> 3 files at

> http://micro. soonlabel. com/golden

> golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale

> goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0

> flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is

> effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the

> keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.

> golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows

> what exactly this is.

> Please comment.

Great work, Chris, thanks for doing this. I thought golden13of31

worked best, and in fact I thought it was quite nice. The others

weren't necessarily bad, but didn't have the same fit.

-Carl

vaisvil wrote:

> golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows
> what exactly this is.
> > Please comment.

There's lots of possible 13 note out of 31 tunings, but one possibility is orwell, with a generator of 7 steps.

Mike,

The scale should be obvious I would think - ideally I'd find it on my own.
Though - what I was after was the harmonic usability - you already showed
what it could do melodically.

and - I didn't really make up a scale - I followed my feel for tension.

If anyone wants I'd be glad to post the midi.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Michael Sheiman
<djtrancendance@...>wrote:

> ----=> I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
> ----> intervals.
> Aww man...we could argue for ages as to why you make your own scales
> instead of using the one I made for the PHI tuning (which took several hours
> to polish up). Maybe the next version of the tuning I give you should be
> limited to the 8 or so notes of the actual scale and not the 13 or so in the
> tuning).
>
> Nonetheless...you managed to create something fairly tonal despite this.
>
> You have a pretty good ear... But, I digress (and agree with Carl),
> your 13 out of 31(TET?) version of the tuning sounded the best for the sort
> of free-form piece you wrote. If anything though, if sounds like you tried
> to create a 2/1 octave feel rather than the "warped harmonic octave" feel of
> my original scale within the PHI tuning.
>
> Anyhow, I know this stuff doesn't come easily (especially not mapping it
> into 3 different forms!) and good job!
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...g>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with comparisons
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:30 PM
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com<http://mc/compose?to=tuning%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "vaisvil" <chrisvaisvil@ ...> wrote:
> > ok,
> > This should work
> > => I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
> > intervals.
> > 3 files at
> > http://micro. soonlabel. com/golden <http://micro.soonlabel.com/golden>
> > golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale
> > goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0
> > flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is
> > effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the
> > keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.
> > golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows
> > what exactly this is.
> > Please comment.
>
> Great work, Chris, thanks for doing this. I thought golden13of31
> worked best, and in fact I thought it was quite nice. The others
> weren't necessarily bad, but didn't have the same fit.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--Though - what I was after was the harmonic usability - you already showed what it could --do melodically.
      Well, to be honest, my example let all the melodic notes drone, so, if you count how many drones I allowed at once, I was playing 5 note chords.

----and - I didn't really make up a scale - I followed my feel for tension.
I actually tried the same thing to make my scales at first...until I figured out the position of each note shifts the feeling of "center of tone" of the next note (ARGH!)   
    So if you pick "CEG" as your first three notes your best sounding two note might be  "A and A#", but if you pick CDG your best notes might be "G# and B".
  In addition, one of those two combos might leave room for 2 extra notes that sound harmonically good while the other gets "stuck" at a 5 note scale and every other note sounds bad with it!!!

    That's why it took me about 3-4 hours to find a good scale and not the 3 minute or so it would take me under most tunings...you 100% have to have all the intervals in the exact right order or nothing work.  Essentially the scale HAS to be a giant chord...that's the only way to make it work so far as I have found...and, for sure, it's not easy to find.

   I know how much you love your tunings but, I beg you, please at least take one shot with this tuning as a single scale I carefully designed that's about 8 notes per 12TET octave.  I'm sure you'll be amazed...just how much more consonance it gives than trying to find it by ear in one fell swoop (IE what you seem to have done).

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with comparisons
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 7:49 PM

Mike,

The scale should be obvious I would think - ideally I'd find it on my own.
Though - what I was after was the harmonic usability - you already showed what it could do melodically.

and - I didn't really make up a scale - I followed my feel for tension.

If anyone wants I'd be glad to post the midi.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:

----=> I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
----> intervals.
    Aww man...we could argue for ages as to why you make your own scales instead of using the one I made for the PHI tuning (which took several hours to polish up).  Maybe the next version of the tuning I give you should be limited to the 8 or so notes of the actual scale and not the 13 or so in the tuning).

  Nonetheless. ..you managed to create something fairly tonal despite this.

    You have a pretty good ear...  But, I digress (and agree with Carl), your 13 out of 31(TET?) version of the tuning sounded the best for the sort of free-form piece you wrote.  If anything though, if sounds like you tried to create a 2/1 octave
feel rather than the "warped harmonic octave" feel of my original scale
within the PHI tuning.

  Anyhow, I know this stuff doesn't come easily (especially not mapping it into 3 different forms!) and good job!

-Michael

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with comparisons

To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:30 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, "vaisvil" <chrisvaisvil@ ...> wrote:

> ok,

> This should work

> => I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable

> intervals.

> 3 files at

> http://micro. soonlabel. com/golden

> golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale

> goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0

> flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is

> effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the

> keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.

> golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows

> what exactly this is.

> Please comment.

Great work, Chris, thanks for doing this. I thought golden13of31

worked best, and in fact I thought it was quite nice. The others

weren't necessarily bad, but didn't have the same fit.

-Carl

ok, but it will have to be tomorrow

PS - I've posted some stuff under Charlie and myself you might find
interesting
12 tet though. but with that guitar synth I bought - it rocks!

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Michael Sheiman
<djtrancendance@...>wrote:

> --Though - what I was after was the harmonic usability - you already
> showed what it could --do melodically.
> Well, to be honest, my example let all the melodic notes drone, so,
> if you count how many drones I allowed at once, I was playing 5 note chords.
>
> ----and - I didn't really make up a scale - I followed my feel for tension.
> I actually tried the same thing to make my scales at first...until I
> figured out the position of each note shifts the feeling of "center of tone"
> of the next note (ARGH!)
> So if you pick "CEG" as your first three notes your best sounding two
> note might be "A and A#", but if you pick CDG your best notes might be "G#
> and B".
> In addition, one of those two combos might leave room for 2 extra notes
> that sound harmonically good while the other gets "stuck" at a 5 note scale
> and every other note sounds bad with it!!!
>
> That's why it took me about 3-4 hours to find a good scale and not the
> 3 minute or so it would take me under most tunings...you 100% have to have
> all the intervals in the exact right order or nothing work. Essentially the
> scale HAS to be a giant chord...that's the only way to make it work so far
> as I have found...and, for sure, it's not easy to find.
>
> I know how much you love your tunings but, I beg you, please at least
> take one shot with this tuning as a single scale I carefully designed that's
> about 8 notes per 12TET octave. I'm sure you'll be amazed...just how much
> more consonance it gives than trying to find it by ear in one fell swoop (IE
> what you seem to have done).
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with
> comparisons
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 7:49 PM
>
>
> Mike,
>
> The scale should be obvious I would think - ideally I'd find it on my own.
> Though - what I was after was the harmonic usability - you already showed
> what it could do melodically.
>
> and - I didn't really make up a scale - I followed my feel for tension.
>
> If anyone wants I'd be glad to post the midi.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@
> yahoo.com <http://mc/compose?to=djtrancendance@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> ----=> I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
>> ----> intervals.
>> Aww man...we could argue for ages as to why you make your own scales
>> instead of using the one I made for the PHI tuning (which took several hours
>> to polish up). Maybe the next version of the tuning I give you should be
>> limited to the 8 or so notes of the actual scale and not the 13 or so in the
>> tuning).
>>
>> Nonetheless. ..you managed to create something fairly tonal despite
>> this.
>>
>> You have a pretty good ear... But, I digress (and agree with Carl),
>> your 13 out of 31(TET?) version of the tuning sounded the best for the sort
>> of free-form piece you wrote. If anything though, if sounds like you tried
>> to create a 2/1 octave feel rather than the "warped harmonic octave" feel of
>> my original scale within the PHI tuning.
>>
>> Anyhow, I know this stuff doesn't come easily (especially not mapping it
>> into 3 different forms!) and good job!
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> --- On *Thu, 2/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...<http://mc/compose?to=carl@...>
>> >* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Carl Lumma <carl@... <http://mc/compose?to=carl@lumma.org>>
>> Subject: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio ver 2 - improvisation with comparisons
>> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com <http://mc/compose?to=tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 6:30 PM
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com<http://mc/compose?to=tuning%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "vaisvil" <chrisvaisvil@ ...> wrote:
>> > ok,
>> > This should work
>> > => I improvised on Mike's tuning after finding some usable
>> > intervals.
>> > 3 files at
>> > http://micro. soonlabel. com/golden <http://micro.soonlabel.com/golden>
>> > golden2.mp3 is Mike's new golden ratio scale
>> > goldenlucy.mp3 is the same improvisation run through Lucy tuning 0
>> > flat 5 sharp => this is a bit unfair because Mike's tuning is
>> > effectively an 13 note tuning and therefore the minor 9th on the
>> > keyboard is the octave for Mike - but a minor 9th for Lucy.
>> > golden13of31 => so I found a 13 note tuning. I'm sure someone knows
>> > what exactly this is.
>> > Please comment.
>>
>> Great work, Chris, thanks for doing this. I thought golden13of31
>> worked best, and in fact I thought it was quite nice. The others
>> weren't necessarily bad, but didn't have the same fit.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>
>