retrying missing message

Attempting to repost a message that didn't come through:

Michael wrote:
>>>> Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.
>>> Exactly or just, closely?
>> Exactly.
> In that case...you'd think there would be a million scales
> around 100% equivalent to Lucy Tuning. Can you show me an
> example of one and then the Lucy Tuning equivalent?

It depends how much accuracy Charles demands in order to
consider something a LucyTuning -- I don't have a clear
sense of that. Would a fifth of 695.65217391304348 cents
be acceptable? Well, that's 69-ET, and also very close to
Wilson's metameantone, which at least does have the property
that the beat ratio of its triads is 1. That's somewhat
special, and I understand Erv has suggested it's what
Charles may be hearing in LucyTuning.

> 1) Far as academic research, yes, that falsity presents
> a huge problem.
> BUT
> 2) For someone just getting into tuning, is it really that bad?

I think misinformation is bad, yes. Though it is an
interesting question... a friend of mine was kinda miserable
for years, and then "found Christ". Now he's a healthy
weight and happy. Is that a good trade-off? I can't say.

But many Christians admit they can't justify their faith,
and in any case few of them resort to pseudoscience to do
so (though famously, some do, and that's where I think it
goes over the line).

> But at the same time let the rest of the public
> appreciate it.

LucyTuning theory could do incalculable damage to microtonal
music, if it ever got broad visibility and became associated
with microtonality in general. We're still fighting the
association with the quartertones.

-Carl

The main problem there is thinking faith requires justification. It isn't faith if it can be proven.

How can lucy tuning "hurt" microtonality?
It sounds nice. If his theories are full of bovine excrement the general public would never have a clue and academia will make its own divided mind up on the subject no matter what charles may say.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:07:09
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tuning] retrying missing message

Attempting to repost a message that didn't come through:

Michael wrote:
>>>> Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.
>>> Exactly or just, closely?
>> Exactly.
> In that case...you'd think there would be a million scales
> around 100% equivalent to Lucy Tuning. Can you show me an
> example of one and then the Lucy Tuning equivalent?

It depends how much accuracy Charles demands in order to
consider something a LucyTuning -- I don't have a clear
sense of that. Would a fifth of 695.65217391304348 cents
be acceptable? Well, that's 69-ET, and also very close to
Wilson's metameantone, which at least does have the property
that the beat ratio of its triads is 1. That's somewhat
special, and I understand Erv has suggested it's what
Charles may be hearing in LucyTuning.

> 1) Far as academic research, yes, that falsity presents
> a huge problem.
> BUT
> 2) For someone just getting into tuning, is it really that bad?

I think misinformation is bad, yes. Though it is an
interesting question... a friend of mine was kinda miserable
for years, and then "found Christ". Now he's a healthy
weight and happy. Is that a good trade-off? I can't say.

But many Christians admit they can't justify their faith,
and in any case few of them resort to pseudoscience to do
so (though famously, some do, and that's where I think it
goes over the line).

> But at the same time let the rest of the public
> appreciate it.

LucyTuning theory could do incalculable damage to microtonal
music, if it ever got broad visibility and became associated
with microtonality in general. We're still fighting the
association with the quartertones.

-Carl

---How can lucy tuning "hurt" microtonality?
Agreed!
   I think the strongest argument would be it could hurt the "good name" of micro-tonality in academia and cause less people to want to take it seriously as an avenue of research and development.

   But, to the common musician, I don't think it can hurt.  It simply presents another option...and one at least some people like the sound of.   I'd say that of tuning in general: to most musicians it's the art of making tunings that are fun to use and sound good, not a quest to see who's the most "academically original".

-Michael

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: chrisvaisvil@... <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 4:21 AM

The main problem there is thinking faith requires justification. It isn't faith if it can be proven.

How can lucy tuning "hurt" microtonality?
It sounds nice. If his theories are full of bovine excrement the general public would never have a clue and academia will make its own divided mind up on the subject no matter what charles may say. Sent via BlackBerry from T-MobileFrom: "Carl Lumma"
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:07:09 -0000
To: <tuning@yahoogroups. com>
Subject: [tuning] retrying missing message
Attempting to repost a message that didn't come through:

Michael wrote:
>>>> Going up a fifth is the same as going down a fourth.
>>> Exactly or just, closely?
>> Exactly.
> In that case...you'd think there would be a million scales
> around 100% equivalent to Lucy Tuning. Can you show me an
> example of one and then the Lucy Tuning equivalent?

It depends how much accuracy Charles demands in order to
consider something a LucyTuning -- I don't have a clear
sense of that. Would a fifth of 695.65217391304348 cents
be acceptable? Well, that's 69-ET, and also very close to
Wilson's metameantone, which at least does have the property
that the beat ratio of its triads is 1. That's somewhat
special, and I understand Erv has suggested it's what
Charles may be hearing in LucyTuning.

> 1) Far as academic research, yes, that falsity presents
> a huge problem.
> BUT
> 2) For someone just getting into tuning, is it really that bad?

I think misinformation is bad, yes. Though it is an
interesting question... a friend of mine was kinda miserable
for years, and then "found Christ". Now he's a healthy
weight and happy. Is that a good trade-off? I can't say.

But many Christians admit they can't justify their faith,
and in any case few of them resort to pseudoscience to do
so (though famously, some do, and that's where I think it
goes over the line).

> But at the same time let the rest of the public
> appreciate it.

LucyTuning theory could do incalculable damage to microtonal
music, if it ever got broad visibility and became associated
with microtonality in general. We're still fighting the
association with the quartertones.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> The main problem there is thinking faith requires justification.
> It isn't faith if it can be proven.
>
> How can lucy tuning "hurt" microtonality?
> It sounds nice. If his theories are full of bovine excrement the
> general public would never have a clue and academia will make its
> own divided mind up on the subject no matter what charles may say.

Would you agree that the quartertones movement is still
hurting microtonality? I think it is. Often when I mention
microtonality, people immediately think I'm talking about
quartertones and tell me it's all just dissonance, or that
it's been tried and it was found that it didn't add anything
new to music.

Also from a philosophical point of view, I don't think there's
any such thing as benign misinformation. Nor do I think
there's much in the way of useless truth.

-Carl

I think what hurts microtonality is lack of music that has a prayer to be popular. Popularity in most pop music senses is a mene if I have the term right - it is the equivalent of a computer virus - a thought or pattern that appeals to the listener - even agaist their will (at first). There have been studies about this. Now much what I have heard microtonally is "in your face" this is different for the sake of being different. I suggest one won't win too many more fans this way than Schoenberg did.

It is all great to explore and I myself do tons of exploration but it isn't going to appeal to the masses. If you produce something that sounds catchy - has a real hook - I think it will have a chance to fly.

In otherwords the general public does not care what tuning system you use. All that matters is that they like it. In other words the vast majority isn't going to care if I have a mustang or stratocaster. They just want something they like. Even different - even radically different - is ok if it has appeal of some type.

If you want popularity you need one or more hooks. Technique does not matter. Heck most of the time true talent isn't part of that equation. Please let's all get out of the box if popularity is the goal.

Face it. Experiments are for geeks. I'm a geek btw.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:32:41
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> The main problem there is thinking faith requires justification.
> It isn't faith if it can be proven.
>
> How can lucy tuning "hurt" microtonality?
> It sounds nice. If his theories are full of bovine excrement the
> general public would never have a clue and academia will make its
> own divided mind up on the subject no matter what charles may say.

Would you agree that the quartertones movement is still
hurting microtonality? I think it is. Often when I mention
microtonality, people immediately think I'm talking about
quartertones and tell me it's all just dissonance, or that
it's been tried and it was found that it didn't add anything
new to music.

Also from a philosophical point of view, I don't think there's
any such thing as benign misinformation. Nor do I think
there's much in the way of useless truth.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> In otherwords the general public does not care what tuning
> system you use.

I agree. But musicians have to agree to obtain and learn
the instruments. I'd love to be in a microtonal band, for
instance. And I was referring to the reactions I get from
other musicians about quartertones -- not the general public.
Even many microtonalists balk at generalized keyboards, or
don't see the point. They think the standard keyboard is
just fine!

-Carl

Carl,

One of the best ways to influence is by example.

I have had composers (peers not pros) admire my microtonal work but when I reveal the details the answer is 12 notes already is too much for them. They can't be bothered to try but it did catch some ears.

The tipping point imho will come when someone or group or groups make music that can't be done without a different tuning but is so good that others want to emulate. Music, especially popular music, propagates by listening and imitation. Fads and genres are born when someone does something different but still popular.

No amount of theoretical correctness will help popularization of different tunings. No one for the most part cares. But they do care if its a sound or vibe or groove they like. When that happens it will be emulated and variations developed

From what I know the "amen break" seems to be a good example of this imitation and variation. What was done for a beat can happen for notes.

And remember - 20th century the blues paves the way here. That genre showed everyone how to use microtonal notes in a limited fashion that can truly be called popular. This could be the place to build. Perhaps more fertile ground than xen-exotica - I don't know.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@lumma.org>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:07:13
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> In otherwords the general public does not care what tuning
> system you use.

I agree. But musicians have to agree to obtain and learn
the instruments. I'd love to be in a microtonal band, for
instance. And I was referring to the reactions I get from
other musicians about quartertones -- not the general public.
Even many microtonalists balk at generalized keyboards, or
don't see the point. They think the standard keyboard is
just fine!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> One of the best ways to influence is by example.
>
> I have had composers (peers not pros) admire my microtonal work
> but when I reveal the details the answer is 12 notes already is
> too much for them. They can't be bothered to try but it did
> catch some ears.
>
> The tipping point imho will come when someone or group or groups
> make music that can't be done without a different tuning but is
> so good that others want to emulate. Music, especially popular
> music, propagates by listening and imitation. Fads and genres
> are born when someone does something different but still popular.

I agree completely and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

> No amount of theoretical correctness will help popularization
> of different tunings. No one for the most part cares.

I don't fully agree here. The first microtonal groups playing
'regular mapping paradigm' music will have to understand regular
mapping at least a little bit. Several musicians here have been
inspired by theory and wrote music as a result (according to them).
When people hear about > 12 and shut down, it helps to have a
convincing argument to allay the fears.

> From what I know the "amen break" seems to be a good example
> of this imitation and variation. What was done for a beat can
> happen for notes.

To copy the amen break, one just has to push play. To copy
a 22-ET piece, one has to obtain a 22-ET instrument. It's a
bigger step. Not one I don't think will happen, but I think
that theory and practice can work together to make it happen.

-Carl

Carl,

The american slaves from africa who invented the popular microtonal usage we
see in practice today had no theory and I would argue would not see a need
to talk to you about it.

You seem to be on a mission to build boxes and limitations. This is what
gives you the appearance of being "the establishment". You consistantly find
problems, not solutions.

You seem to forget that instruments capable of microtonal music exist today
and are wide spread. Just visit the home page of this tuning list for an
example. I don't remember his real name but the gentleman whose signature is
A.S. posted today a wonderful guide to modern microtonal usage - the post
that referenced "The Bird" and septiminal commas (if I got that right).

Just because popular application of microtonal music does not fit *your*
desired application does not mean it doesn't exist.

If you really take a good look at western music evolution all this makes
perfect sense. Generally melodic dissonace and experimentation preceded
harmonic usage pretty consitantly. Some times by a little, often by a lot of
time. What we are seeing now is intentional addition of microtonal melodic
intervals in popular idioms. Melodic microtonal usage is also a feature of
world music - at least some - which help to give some of the music its
"localization".

These observations are not my opinion - they are verifible fact.

And the majority (all?) of this microtonal practice has developed "out in
the field" as it were - not in the halls of academia.

If you really want "popular" I suggest you actually look at what is
happening in the world today without blinders and pre-conceptions because it
is already out there. its just not in the way *you* want.

And people "score" Amen Break derivatives. Just ask any guy who tracks break
beats. That is much more diffcult than pressing "play". And they go through
the trouble to learn is because they like it. Just like a kid learning to
play the blues by listening to BB King.

Carl - lose the box.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, chrisvaisvil@...
> wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > One of the best ways to influence is by example.
> >
> > I have had composers (peers not pros) admire my microtonal work
> > but when I reveal the details the answer is 12 notes already is
> > too much for them. They can't be bothered to try but it did
> > catch some ears.
> >
> > The tipping point imho will come when someone or group or groups
> > make music that can't be done without a different tuning but is
> > so good that others want to emulate. Music, especially popular
> > music, propagates by listening and imitation. Fads and genres
> > are born when someone does something different but still popular.
>
> I agree completely and didn't mean to imply otherwise.
>
> > No amount of theoretical correctness will help popularization
> > of different tunings. No one for the most part cares.
>
> I don't fully agree here. The first microtonal groups playing
> 'regular mapping paradigm' music will have to understand regular
> mapping at least a little bit. Several musicians here have been
> inspired by theory and wrote music as a result (according to them).
> When people hear about > 12 and shut down, it helps to have a
> convincing argument to allay the fears.
>
> > From what I know the "amen break" seems to be a good example
> > of this imitation and variation. What was done for a beat can
> > happen for notes.
>
> To copy the amen break, one just has to push play. To copy
> a 22-ET piece, one has to obtain a 22-ET instrument. It's a
> bigger step. Not one I don't think will happen, but I think
> that theory and practice can work together to make it happen.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> The american slaves from africa who invented the popular
> microtonal usage we see in practice today had no theory and
> I would argue would not see a need to talk to you about it.

I don't think blues is a particularly microtonal artform.
Also African-American music is at least as European as it
is African. The slaves inherited the theory embodied in
the instruments they encountered.

> You seem to be on a mission to build boxes and limitations.

Oh?

> This is what gives you the appearance of being
> "the establishment". You consistantly find problems, not
> solutions.

I think I see a problem with your reasoning here, Chris.

> You seem to forget that instruments capable of microtonal music
> exist today and are wide spread.

You seem to think you understand what "microtonal music"
is, but I don't think you understand its potential.

> If you really want "popular" I suggest you actually look at what is
> happening in the world today without blinders and pre-conceptions
> because it is already out there.

What do you know about what music I have heard, enjoyed,
participated in, and studied?

> its just not in the way *you* want.

You're projecting, Chris. I haven't said anything about
what I want.

-Carl

No theory when you teach yourself Carl.

Have fun - find a bridge and get out of the box.

Its healthy for you.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > The american slaves from africa who invented the popular
> > microtonal usage we see in practice today had no theory and
> > I would argue would not see a need to talk to you about it.
>
> I don't think blues is a particularly microtonal artform.
> Also African-American music is at least as European as it
> is African. The slaves inherited the theory embodied in
> the instruments they encountered.
>
> > You seem to be on a mission to build boxes and limitations.
>
> Oh?
>
> > This is what gives you the appearance of being
> > "the establishment". You consistantly find problems, not
> > solutions.
>
> I think I see a problem with your reasoning here, Chris.
>
> > You seem to forget that instruments capable of microtonal music
> > exist today and are wide spread.
>
> You seem to think you understand what "microtonal music"
> is, but I don't think you understand its potential.
>
> > If you really want "popular" I suggest you actually look at what is
> > happening in the world today without blinders and pre-conceptions
> > because it is already out there.
>
> What do you know about what music I have heard, enjoyed,
> participated in, and studied?
>
> > its just not in the way *you* want.
>
> You're projecting, Chris. I haven't said anything about
> what I want.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Chris, I know what you are saying.
   While I believe Carl is well intended, I often run into the same issues with him you do. 
IE he'll start our conversation by saying something "X theory you have is impossible, just look at history...".  I figure this is what you mean by his seeming to be "the establishment".

    And don't get me wrong, I trust he knows what he's talking about.  Perhaps "too much" so.  Perhaps to the point he gives off the vibe he thinks history 100% can't be surpassed.  Even though talking to him at length he does have those sparks of being a futurist...sometimes I takes a lot of arguing before we can move on to talk about micro-tonal on that level of openness.

   The problem with that sort of attitude, for example....is that if it were the primary attitude to Cancer research we'd have given up ages ago saying "there's no method that can cure cancer" and refusing to fund research that is "wrong because it only solves a small part of the problem".   And I see conquering micro-tonal the same way...it's a VERY gradual process that demands open-minded-ness to truly open new doors.

  Don't get me wrong, it's OK to state problems...but it really helps to also name at least one or two possible solutions you have (or at least document what things in history HAVE proved to help toward solving said problems).

--Generally melodic dissonance and experimentation preceded harmonic usage pretty --consistently.
  I'll agree that has happened and history...but will also agree that being able to verify a scale through some mathematical function is key to knowing it works.  It's almost like solving for X in algebra and then plugging X back in to the original equation to check your work...both are important.

--And people "score" Amen Break derivatives. Just ask any guy who tracks
break beats. --That is much more diffcult than pressing "play".
  As a break-beat composer myself, I can attest to that.  You can even download MIDI files for Amen break-beats by people who have scored them from scratch.  And let me tell you...they use 256th+ notes, reverse reverb, ghost notes to help the drums "warp" into each other...   They are every bit as challenging as writing towering orchestral pieces, just in a different way.  And saying it's a simple as pressing play, is like saying an orchestral composer or conductor just knows how to stand around and wave his stick in funny random ways....it's just utterly ignorant.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 3:32 PM

Carl,

The american slaves from africa who invented the popular microtonal usage we see in practice today had no theory and I would argue would not see a need to talk to you about it.

You seem to be on a mission to build boxes and limitations. This is what gives you the appearance of being "the establishment". You consistantly find problems, not solutions.

You seem to forget that instruments capable of microtonal music exist today and are wide spread. Just visit the home page of this tuning list for an example. I don't remember his real name but the gentleman whose signature is A.S. posted today a wonderful guide to modern microtonal usage - the post that referenced "The Bird" and septiminal commas (if I got that right).

Just because popular application of microtonal music does not fit *your* desired application does not mean it doesn't exist.

If you really take a good look at western music evolution all this makes perfect sense. Generally melodic dissonace and experimentation preceded harmonic usage pretty consitantly. Some times by a little, often by a lot of time. What we are seeing now is intentional addition of microtonal melodic intervals in popular idioms. Melodic microtonal usage is also a feature of world music - at least some - which help to give some of the music its "localization".

These observations are not my opinion - they are verifible fact.

And the majority (all?) of this microtonal practice has developed "out in the field" as it were - not in the halls of academia.

If you really want "popular" I suggest you actually look at what is happening in the world today without blinders and pre-conceptions because it is already out there. its just not in the way *you* want.

And people "score" Amen Break derivatives. Just ask any guy who tracks break beats. That is much more diffcult than pressing "play". And they go through the trouble to learn is because they like it. Just like a kid learning to play the blues by listening to BB King.

Carl - lose the box.

Chris

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, chrisvaisvil@ ... wrote:

>

> Carl,

>

> One of the best ways to influence is by example.

>

> I have had composers (peers not pros) admire my microtonal work

> but when I reveal the details the answer is 12 notes already is

> too much for them. They can't be bothered to try but it did

> catch some ears.

>

> The tipping point imho will come when someone or group or groups

> make music that can't be done without a different tuning but is

> so good that others want to emulate. Music, especially popular

> music, propagates by listening and imitation. Fads and genres

> are born when someone does something different but still popular.

I agree completely and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

> No amount of theoretical correctness will help popularization

> of different tunings. No one for the most part cares.

I don't fully agree here. The first microtonal groups playing

'regular mapping paradigm' music will have to understand regular

mapping at least a little bit. Several musicians here have been

inspired by theory and wrote music as a result (according to them).

When people hear about > 12 and shut down, it helps to have a

convincing argument to allay the fears.

> From what I know the "amen break" seems to be a good example

> of this imitation and variation. What was done for a beat can

> happen for notes.

To copy the amen break, one just has to push play. To copy

a 22-ET piece, one has to obtain a 22-ET instrument. It's a

bigger step. Not one I don't think will happen, but I think

that theory and practice can work together to make it happen.

-Carl

---I don't think blues is a particularly micro-tonal artform.
    I will agree, it's more a compromise between the major and minor scales than intentionally micro-tonal, but that sounds like stating a problem without trying to gain foresight into what we can learn from blues.
.    And, perhaps, what we can learn from it is that the mind can apparently use quarter tones to "blur/morph" between two modes.  In the case of blues, of course...the morph is between major and minor keys...perhaps some one of can find a way to twist this around to work with other modes that have only two keys that are different (and not just using quarter tones in 12TET but also, say, between modes in micro-tonal scales such as those in MOS tunings).

-Michael

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 4:12 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ ...> wrote:

>

> Carl,

>

> The american slaves from africa who invented the popular

> microtonal usage we see in practice today had no theory and

> I would argue would not see a need to talk to you about it.

I don't think blues is a particularly microtonal artform.

Also African-American music is at least as European as it

is African. The slaves inherited the theory embodied in

the instruments they encountered.

> You seem to be on a mission to build boxes and limitations.

Oh?

> This is what gives you the appearance of being

> "the establishment" . You consistantly find problems, not

> solutions.

I think I see a problem with your reasoning here, Chris.

> You seem to forget that instruments capable of microtonal music

> exist today and are wide spread.

You seem to think you understand what "microtonal music"

is, but I don't think you understand its potential.

> If you really want "popular" I suggest you actually look at what is

> happening in the world today without blinders and pre-conceptions

> because it is already out there.

What do you know about what music I have heard, enjoyed,

participated in, and studied?

> its just not in the way *you* want.

You're projecting, Chris. I haven't said anything about

what I want.

-Carl

Ill find the website _ a microtonal website that listed "microtonalist working in 12 tet" - people like BB King and its true. Is it full blown microtonal? No. But it took over a thousand years to assimulate all 12 notes into the common harmonic language. We here are a subset and do not represent common usage.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:24:43
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message

---I don't think blues is a particularly micro-tonal artform.
    I will agree, it's more a compromise between the major and minor scales than intentionally micro-tonal, but that sounds like stating a problem without trying to gain foresight into what we can learn from blues.
.    And, perhaps, what we can learn from it is that the mind can apparently use quarter tones to "blur/morph" between two modes.  In the case of blues, of course...the morph is between major and minor keys...perhaps some one of can find a way to twist this around to work with other modes that have only two keys that are different (and not just using quarter tones in 12TET but also, say, between modes in micro-tonal scales such as those in MOS tunings).

-Michael

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 4:12 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ ...> wrote:

>

> Carl,

>

> The american slaves from africa who invented the popular

> microtonal usage we see in practice today had no theory and

> I would argue would not see a need to talk to you about it.

I don't think blues is a particularly microtonal artform.

Also African-American music is at least as European as it

is African. The slaves inherited the theory embodied in

the instruments they encountered.

> You seem to be on a mission to build boxes and limitations.

Oh?

> This is what gives you the appearance of being

> "the establishment" . You consistantly find problems, not

> solutions.

I think I see a problem with your reasoning here, Chris.

> You seem to forget that instruments capable of microtonal music

> exist today and are wide spread.

You seem to think you understand what "microtonal music"

is, but I don't think you understand its potential.

> If you really want "popular" I suggest you actually look at what is

> happening in the world today without blinders and pre-conceptions

> because it is already out there.

What do you know about what music I have heard, enjoyed,

participated in, and studied?

> its just not in the way *you* want.

You're projecting, Chris. I haven't said anything about

what I want.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> No theory when you teach yourself Carl.
>
> Have fun - find a bridge and get out of the box.
>
> Its healthy for you.

Chris, I think it is such a shame with you. Your mind is so
closed, you see only closedmindedness in me.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Chris, I know what you are saying.
>    While I believe Carl is well intended, I often run into the
> same issues with him you do.  IE he'll start our conversation by
> saying something "X theory you have is impossible, just look at
> history...".  I figure this is what you mean by his seeming to be
> "the establishment".

Here's how I see it: you and Chris have demonstrated very poor
understanding of concepts discussed here. Neither of you seem
to read things very carefully, as evidenced by the content of
your replies. Every question you've asked has been answered by
myself, Mike B., Petr, Graham, or Herman, yet you don't seem to
be making much progress. You both instead spend your time
posting about how I have some sort of problem.

It has nothing to do with history. It has to do with thinking
things through. My advice: get over it, suck it up, and take
the time to think things through before posting on a mailing
list with over 1,000 subscribers.

>     And don't get me wrong, I trust he knows what he's talking
> about.  Perhaps "too much" so.  Perhaps to the point he gives
> off the vibe he thinks history 100% can't be surpassed.

It's clear we have a 180deg misunderstanding going on. What
have I said that gives you this impression? If we're talking
about Western common-practice music, yes history is important.
If we're talking about gamelan music, its history is important.
I try very hard to qualify the domain I am speaking about
when I post, rather than making blanket statements.

>And saying it's a simple as pressing play, is like saying an
>orchestral composer or conductor just knows how to stand around
>and wave his stick in funny random ways....it's just utterly
>ignorant.

Maybe we need to reexamine what happened here. I was trying
to say that microtonal music adoption will require more
theory than amen break adoption. You want to argue about
that? Let's go!

You want to assume I don't know about, enjoy, have composed
myself, know people who regularly compose it, written about
when I was an editor at Keyboard magazine, any of the following
genres: disco, hip-hop, techno, trance, glitch, circuit-bent,
gamelan, baka pygmy, Turkish maqam, Persian maqam, hindustani,
carnatic, bollywood, western medieval, Renaissance, baroque,
classical, romantic, modern, atonal, dixieland, ragtime,
choro, jazz, broadway, experimental, found-sound, microtonal,
and on and on and on? You're full of it. I probably know the
lyrics to more rap songs than you and Chris put together.
You're just projecting.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> ---I don't think blues is a particularly micro-tonal artform.
>     I will agree,

I mean, it depends on how you define "microtonal". If you
mean "anything other than 12-ET" (which is the definition I
think Chris probably uses and therefore the definition I
used when replying to him), blues is microtonal, but not
moreso than say, a string quartet, or a capella vocal group
playing Western classical music.

But I don't really want to argue about blues. The point
I was trying to make is that African American music is a
great example of the kind of cultural fusion that occurs
when previously isolated groups mix. To a large degree,
it inherited the instruments of Western music. Instruments
whose design and construction were based on hundreds of
years of Western music theory. The notion that the genesis
of African American music required no music theory is
untenable. Likewise, a widespread shift to microtonal
music will require new instruments, and the design of these
instruments will require theory. And such a shift would
be a larger one than the shift to African American music.

To my mind, the difference between popular and classical
forms is really immaterial. It's really just a matter
of age. For example, jazz is now a borderline (and if
it weren't for Brad Mehldau, The Bad Plus, etc, would
already be a fullblown) classical form. "Experimental
music" is popular music in this sense, even if it is
content with small audiences. Some evidence suggests
that all forms will have to be content with small
audiences in the near future -- the so-called "long tail"
hypothesis. Anyway,

-Carl

Carl,

The definition I'm using is "popular" which is what you say you want for
microtonal music.

http://www.chatham.edu/PTI/2005%20Units/Play%20It%20Again,%20Sam/Powell%20unit.pdf

If you would take the time to read the above PDF article you will read
exactly what I am talking about.

You also apparently blew by this post:

/tuning/topicId_80961.html#81171

which totally backs up my position - and I referenced it for you previously.

Melodic microtonal usage, although somewhat limited, is already popular.
What seems to be a stumbling block for you is that this usage is not
harmonic, nor is it exclusive. However, from a historic perspective - it
makes total since within western practice for this be the way 12-TET's
vocabulary is expanded.

*My* position is if you want to promote *popular* microtonal music it makes
sense to take advantage of what is out there already and build upon it. My
point of view even allows for attempting full blown microtonal usage - to do
so, as I explained, *I* think you need to write and produce something so
catchy that others will want to emulate.

I exhaustively explained all of this in previous posts. You rejected this
without consideration - that is fine of course - it is your right - however:

The reason why I think you have a closed mind is that you seem unable to
validate another person's point of view. It appears that the only valid
point of view you can accept is your own. And I see this with me, Michael
and Charles Lucy - and others on this list. And frankly the damage control
in your quoted post doesn't remove the dismissive words you previously
posted.

The whole premise of my position was that you had mentioned making
microtonal music *popular*. If you don't care about that - please do wait
around for Guitar Center and Sam Ash to sell 22 edo keyboards.

Chris

P.S.

It is great you wrote for keyboard magazine and know the lyrics to rap songs
I wouldn't waste my time listening to.
We all know you are a wealth of great microtonal information as well.
I implore you to please not let it blind you.

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael
> Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > ---I don't think blues is a particularly micro-tonal artform.
> > I will agree,
>
> I mean, it depends on how you define "microtonal". If you
> mean "anything other than 12-ET" (which is the definition I
> think Chris probably uses and therefore the definition I
> used when replying to him), blues is microtonal, but not
> moreso than say, a string quartet, or a capella vocal group
> playing Western classical music.
>
> But I don't really want to argue about blues. The point
> I was trying to make is that African American music is a
> great example of the kind of cultural fusion that occurs
> when previously isolated groups mix. To a large degree,
> it inherited the instruments of Western music. Instruments
> whose design and construction were based on hundreds of
> years of Western music theory. The notion that the genesis
> of African American music required no music theory is
> untenable. Likewise, a widespread shift to microtonal
> music will require new instruments, and the design of these
> instruments will require theory. And such a shift would
> be a larger one than the shift to African American music.
>
> To my mind, the difference between popular and classical
> forms is really immaterial. It's really just a matter
> of age. For example, jazz is now a borderline (and if
> it weren't for Brad Mehldau, The Bad Plus, etc, would
> already be a fullblown) classical form. "Experimental
> music" is popular music in this sense, even if it is
> content with small audiences. Some evidence suggests
> that all forms will have to be content with small
> audiences in the near future -- the so-called "long tail"
> hypothesis. Anyway,
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--Here's how I see it: you and Chris have demonstrated very poor
--understanding of concepts discussed here.
Which are what exactly?

      My grasp on microtonal history is not good and I'm admiteddly a lousy "academic".
        And I never claimed it was a great one.  And that's not my point anyhow; I'm just trying to create new scales that sound good.  I've learned concepts from you guys such as critical band, harmonic distortion, beating, period (in a scale), what an MOS scale is, what the limits of what can be defined as a generator for standard mean-tone is,... and, perhaps more importantly, which of these help me make better scales.

    However, my point is trying to create scales people like to hear and use.  And you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy academically".  Which is OK, because my point in the first place is to make good sounding scales rather than "academically correct"  ones.
--------------------------------------------------------

---You want to assume I don't know about, enjoy, have composed
----myself, know people who regularly compose it, written about
---when I was an editor at Keyboard magazine, any of the following
---genres: disco, hip-hop, techno, trance, glitch, circuit-bent,

    You're taking it all wrong.  I never ever said you didn't know about other genres, I said whenever you brought up something like "learning to recreate an Amen loop is as simple as finding the sample and pressing play" that it sounded quite elitist and ignorant of the actual work involved (whether you meant it that way or not).
   You also sound futurist and open at times (like several others on the list)...but it takes a lot of "I'm not trying to recreate said historical theory that approximates what I'm doing" before I find I can get a not-overly-historically-rooted answer out of you on how to improve my tunings and scales.
********************************************************************
    i've never once said you don't know X genre.  The only one thing I find us (and myself vs. a couple of others) clashing on is what my goal here is and how they can help.

  FOR THE RECORD MY GOAL HERE IS TO LEARN THINGS THAT MAY IMPROVE MY SCALES TO MY OWN AND OTHER'S EARS,  AND IT IS >>NOT<< TO ACCURATELY REPLICATE HISTORICAL TUNING METHODS WELL.

    I appreciate learning about the academics of tuning and your views or historical knowledge on it...but I'm going to simply ACCEPT things I think sound good and throw away those that don't regardless of history or math in the lieu of my goal.

   Ultimately, my ears (and the listening-based opinions of others) are the ultimate judge.  And if I'm "disobeying you" it's not b/c I'm not listening or think your wrong, but because at times I try the well-research theories you and others present and some of them SIMPLY don't work for my ears.

  BTW, far as ears' being the ultimate judge...you might say Chris has little knowledge, yet many of his pieces, both on here and Trax In Space, simply catch listener attention and genuinely sound as amusing as any compositions from the "hardcore academics" on here.  So if his goal is also ultimately "follow your ears"...I think he and well as I are meeting our goals which, simply put, seem to differ a good deal from you own if you are coming down on us for "not knowing anything".
  
-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> --Here's how I see it: you and Chris have demonstrated very poor
> --understanding of concepts discussed here.
> Which are what exactly?
>
> My grasp on microtonal history is not good and I'm admiteddly
a lousy "academic".
> And I never claimed it was a great one. And that's not my
point anyhow; I'm just trying to create new scales that sound good.
I've learned concepts from you guys such as critical band, harmonic
distortion, beating, period (in a scale), what an MOS scale is, what
the limits of what can be defined as a generator for standard
mean-tone is,... and, perhaps more importantly, which of these help me
make better scales.
>
> However, my point is trying to create scales people like to hear
and use. And you've said several of my scales sound good but are
"lousy academically". Which is OK, because my point in the first
place is to make good sounding scales rather than "academically
correct" ones.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---You want to assume I don't know about, enjoy, have composed
> ----myself, know people who regularly compose it, written about
> ---when I was an editor at Keyboard magazine, any of the following
> ---genres: disco, hip-hop, techno, trance, glitch, circuit-bent,
>
> You're taking it all wrong. I never ever said you didn't know
about other genres, I said whenever you brought up something like
"learning to recreate an Amen loop is as simple as finding the sample
and pressing play" that it sounded quite elitist and ignorant of the
actual work involved (whether you meant it that way or not).
> You also sound futurist and open at times (like several others on
the list)...but it takes a lot of "I'm not trying to recreate said
historical theory that approximates what I'm doing" before I find I
can get a not-overly-historically-rooted answer out of you on how to
improve my tunings and scales.
> ********************************************************************
> i've never once said you don't know X genre. The only one thing
I find us (and myself vs. a couple of others) clashing on is what my
goal here is and how they can help.
>
>
> FOR THE RECORD MY GOAL HERE IS TO LEARN THINGS THAT MAY IMPROVE MY
SCALES TO MY OWN AND OTHER'S EARS, AND IT IS >>NOT<< TO ACCURATELY
REPLICATE HISTORICAL TUNING METHODS WELL.
>
>
> I appreciate learning about the academics of tuning and your
views or historical knowledge on it...but I'm going to simply ACCEPT
things I think sound good and throw away those that don't regardless
of history or math in the lieu of my goal.
>
> Ultimately, my ears (and the listening-based opinions of others)
are the ultimate judge. And if I'm "disobeying you" it's not b/c I'm
not listening or think your wrong, but because at times I try the
well-research theories you and others present and some of them SIMPLY
don't work for my ears.
>
> BTW, far as ears' being the ultimate judge...you might say Chris
has little knowledge, yet many of his pieces, both on here and Trax In
Space, simply catch listener attention and genuinely sound as amusing
as any compositions from the "hardcore academics" on here. So if his
goal is also ultimately "follow your ears"...I think he and well as I
are meeting our goals which, simply put, seem to differ a good deal
from you own if you are coming down on us for "not knowing anything".
>
> -Michael
>
But it is absurd to suggest that historical tuning
methods/conventional musical nomenclature does not already encode
"what sounds good to our ears". They are not mutually exclusive. So if
you really want to improve your scales etc... I suggest that you
IMMERSE yourself in musical tradition instead of arguing about the
"right to be original".

-Rick

--But it is absurd to suggest that historical tuning
--methods/conventiona l musical nomenclature does not already encode

--"what sounds good to our ears".

    I am not saying it doesn't go toward that ideal...I'm just saying it doesn't go all the way to solving the problem.  There appear to be drastically different methods that defy the limits of historical tunings.  It's just like in the medical field where one very well researched historical method can get half way to curing a type of cancer and a radically different method can get all the way...even when BOTH of them have strong justifications and proof as to how/why they work.

  Just Intonation, for example, obviously does a very good job.  On the other hand, I still do NOT think it's good enough to make me throw my hands down and say "it's perfect and there's no need for improvement with it...and everything from now should be based on manipulating JI".
***************************************************************
   A couple of fairly well known counter examples:
A) William Sethares's research into matching timbre and temperament.  Taking advantage of mathematics and computers he came up with a way to create timbres of instruments to match tunings.  People have always thought of 10TET as "impossible to make sound consonant".  And it IS...assuming normal acoustic timbres.  Sethares skewed the timbres and got fairly close to making consonant 10TET music by doing so...making a scale that does not match JI whatsoever begin to work.
B)   MOS scales.  If I have it right many of them are NOT pure JI.  But, listen to some of Erv Wilson's 6 note scales: they are equally or more consonant than JI scales.  And, again, Wilson's work is fairly recent, and a far cry from something like Mean-tone. 
*****************************************************************************
  Another encouraging fact is nowadays we have things like Matlab and computer programming, so we can quickly generate scales and then test them against our own hearing.  In the same way things like geophysics couldn't be done in the same degree they are now due to lack of fast efficient computing in the past...we are just now seriously starting to see how computing can help (ESPECIALLY in the case of Sethares' work).
*********************************************************************************************

--They are not mutually exclusive. So if you really want to improve your scales etc... I --suggest that you IMMERSE yourself in musical tradition instead of arguing about the
--"right to be original".

  Feel free to prove me wrong.  But, to the best of my experimentation (and looking at scales such as Ptolemy's scales...it seems "historical" musical theory eventually seems to point straight at Just Intonation as the ultimate tuning.  And yet testing by my ear and others seems to say JI is not quite ideal.
---------------------------------------------------
 .  And forming straight JI scales like 6/5 7/5 8/5 9/5 10/5 11/5 12/5 seems to have a limit.  At about the 16th harmonic or so critical band becomes more of an issue than the "harmonic distortion" caused by the constant beating between JI notes can help resolve.

   I've created about 10 JI scales, doing everything from straight series like the above to "reverse harmonic" scales like 12/11 * 11/10 * 10/9 * 11/10 * 10/9 to testing them again 5-limit and 7-limit JI scales.  Note those scales DO use the same ratios many of Ptolemy's scales did, but the order in which they are used (at least) is drastically different.

  And they all seem to have the same "limit".  Carl suggestion just using the harmonic series is #1) 10/9 11/9  12/9 13/9 14/9 15/9 16/9 17/9 18/9...but I did a blind test on myself and about 8 people I knew (most of them who'd never heard anything other than 12TET)...
...and 7 of them thought #2) 9/8 * 10/9 * 11/10 * 12/11 * 10/9 * 11/10 * 12/11 sounded better with all notes played together.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   True, you could go another level and say "but #1 allows more chords" or "7-limit JI allows more chords".

  Then again, what kind of musicians exactly would we be aiming such relearning at IE how much of a chance are their common musicians will be willing to assimilate a music theory more complex than the one they already have spent so long learning (IE 12TET, a close cousin of 5-limit JI)?

>>>>   As a hopefully reasonable challenge, Rick...what's the BEST historical scale system, in your opinion, and where can I read up on how it works (so I can eventually compare it to my own research and efforts)? 
<<<<<
------------------------
   So (so far) I am still convinced there is a hole in the system and many things, now that we have so much technology around, that we can solve which tuning wizards of, say, the 18th and 19th century could not.  And, I'm well open, thanks to people like William Sethares, to the idea that radically different tuning methods from JI CAN work. 

   We have an "unfair advantage" vs. historical tuning expert with modern technology...in the same way modern scientists have an unfair advantage over even the most ingenious ancient ones, and, so far, it's my opinion so far that we can solve problems which were "impossible" before with it...and possibly find methods radically different from old ones that work as well or better.

   So far I've learned things like attempt to obey the critical-band and trying to enforce harmonic-distortion/periodicity are always important to tuning regardless of the method used.  Also universal is the order of intervals apparently always matters IE major, largest to smallest...always sounds better than minor or smallest to largest REGARDLESS of the fact the calculated dissonance is the same.  But these can all be tied back to psychoacoustics and the way the human ear is designed...on the most basic level.
---------------
    But so far as several other historical assumptions, like being stuck to whole-number ratios and/or JI....I am not 100% convinced of they are "universal rule".

    Just for kicks, you might want to try listening to my latest "PHITER" scale at, http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/...which 100% does not follow JI, and try explaining to me how it relates to historical tuning (or, if you think it doesn't work well, what historical tuning principles I'm disobeying that may improve it).
   ....So far said above tuning has had better response than virtually all my JI scales, including onces based on a simple straight harmonic series.

-Michael

--- On Sat, 2/14/09, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:

From: rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 14, 2009, 10:56 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

>

> --Here's how I see it: you and Chris have demonstrated very poor

> --understanding of concepts discussed here.

> Which are what exactly?

>

> My grasp on microtonal history is not good and I'm admiteddly

a lousy "academic".

> And I never claimed it was a great one. And that's not my

point anyhow; I'm just trying to create new scales that sound good.

I've learned concepts from you guys such as critical band, harmonic

distortion, beating, period (in a scale), what an MOS scale is, what

the limits of what can be defined as a generator for standard

mean-tone is,... and, perhaps more importantly, which of these help me

make better scales.

>

> However, my point is trying to create scales people like to hear

and use. And you've said several of my scales sound good but are

"lousy academically" . Which is OK, because my point in the first

place is to make good sounding scales rather than "academically

correct" ones.

> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

>

> ---You want to assume I don't know about, enjoy, have composed

> ----myself, know people who regularly compose it, written about

> ---when I was an editor at Keyboard magazine, any of the following

> ---genres: disco, hip-hop, techno, trance, glitch, circuit-bent,

>

> You're taking it all wrong. I never ever said you didn't know

about other genres, I said whenever you brought up something like

"learning to recreate an Amen loop is as simple as finding the sample

and pressing play" that it sounded quite elitist and ignorant of the

actual work involved (whether you meant it that way or not).

> You also sound futurist and open at times (like several others on

the list)...but it takes a lot of "I'm not trying to recreate said

historical theory that approximates what I'm doing" before I find I

can get a not-overly-historic ally-rooted answer out of you on how to

improve my tunings and scales.

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* **

> i've never once said you don't know X genre. The only one thing

I find us (and myself vs. a couple of others) clashing on is what my

goal here is and how they can help.

>

>

> FOR THE RECORD MY GOAL HERE IS TO LEARN THINGS THAT MAY IMPROVE MY

SCALES TO MY OWN AND OTHER'S EARS, AND IT IS >>NOT<< TO ACCURATELY

REPLICATE HISTORICAL TUNING METHODS WELL.

>

>

> I appreciate learning about the academics of tuning and your

views or historical knowledge on it...but I'm going to simply ACCEPT

things I think sound good and throw away those that don't regardless

of history or math in the lieu of my goal.

>

> Ultimately, my ears (and the listening-based opinions of others)

are the ultimate judge. And if I'm "disobeying you" it's not b/c I'm

not listening or think your wrong, but because at times I try the

well-research theories you and others present and some of them SIMPLY

don't work for my ears.

>

> BTW, far as ears' being the ultimate judge...you might say Chris

has little knowledge, yet many of his pieces, both on here and Trax In

Space, simply catch listener attention and genuinely sound as amusing

as any compositions from the "hardcore academics" on here. So if his

goal is also ultimately "follow your ears"...I think he and well as I

are meeting our goals which, simply put, seem to differ a good deal

from you own if you are coming down on us for "not knowing anything".

>

> -Michael

>

But it is absurd to suggest that historical tuning

methods/conventiona l musical nomenclature does not already encode

"what sounds good to our ears". They are not mutually exclusive. So if

you really want to improve your scales etc... I suggest that you

IMMERSE yourself in musical tradition instead of arguing about the

"right to be original".

-Rick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> The definition I'm using is "popular" which is what you say you
> want for microtonal music.

? The "definition" I mentioned was of the term "microtonal"
itself.

> http://www.chatham.edu/PTI/2005%20Units/Play%20It%20Again,%20Sam
>/Powell%20unit.pdf
>
> If you would take the time to read the above PDF article you
> will read exactly what I am talking about.

I don't see how this article ties into the discussion(s) here.

> You also apparently blew by this post:
>
> /tuning/topicId_80961.html#81171
>
> which totally backs up my position - and I referenced it for
> you previously.

Backs up your position on... what exactly? The point that
Andreas seems to be making (if one can infer a point from
a list of Wikipedia links) -- that blues has something to do
with the 7-limit -- is dubious, to put it mildly.

> Melodic microtonal usage, although somewhat limited, is already
> popular.

Yes. So what?

> *My* position is if you want to promote *popular* microtonal
> music it makes sense to take advantage of what is out there
> already and build upon it.

Great! Did I contradict this?

> I exhaustively explained all of this in previous posts. You
> rejected this without consideration

I neither rejected your posts nor failed to consider them.
This is entirely a fantasy of yours.

> The reason why I think you have a closed mind is that you seem
> unable to validate another person's point of view. It appears
> that the only valid point of view you can accept is your own.
> And I see this with me, Michael and Charles Lucy - and others
> on this list. And frankly the damage control in your quoted
> post doesn't remove the dismissive words you previously
> posted.

Damage control??

I have no problem agreeing with others on this list.
That's quite plain if you read my posts.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> --Here's how I see it: you and Chris have demonstrated very poor
> --understanding of concepts discussed here.
> Which are what exactly?

Well, there was that psychoacoustics thread.

Subsequently on several occasions I've said something, and
you or Chris have replied to it with a seemingly sincere
question, and I've responded with a detailed answer (usually
replete with things like "Comments?", "Questions?", "Am I
making sense?" etc), to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.

>       My grasp on microtonal history

I have very little interest in history and seldom bring
it up. I'm not sure why you seem to think I am always
talking about it. How can I assure you I have been talking
about modern concepts of extremely recent origin?

>you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
>academically".

I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
fresh maybe?

>"learning to recreate an Amen loop is as simple as finding
>the sample and pressing play" that it sounded quite elitist
>and ignorant of the actual work involved

OK, I admit that can be seen as an elitist comment. It's not
how I intended it. These days, though the Amen break is a bit
retro, if one were to do it one would likely be reperforming
it in some way (if only to avoid the copyright problems!).
But in the genesis of the thing, it really did travel from
cut to cut by pressing play. What was done over it was
certainly inventive, but compared to the kind of transformation
microtonal music is going to require... I don't think it was
the right analogy.

>AND IT IS >>NOT<< TO ACCURATELY REPLICATE HISTORICAL TUNING
>METHODS WELL.

I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
recommending you try a historical tuning.

>BTW, far as ears' being the ultimate judge...you might say
>Chris has little knowledge, yet many of his pieces, both on
>here and Trax In Space, simply catch listener attention and
>genuinely sound as amusing as any compositions from the
>"hardcore academics" on here.

I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
started posting on MMM.

I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
heard?

-Carl

--I have no problem agreeing with others on this list.
--That's quite plain if you read my posts.

I don't believe that for a second.
Despite the fact I have learned and agree with your views on
1) obeying the critical band and its relevance to tuning
2) what harmonic distortion and periodicity is and why it, and not just #1, are important to consonance
3) why a major chord sounds better than a minor despite having the same dissonance level
4) what otonality and utonality are
5) what a scale has to be to quality as an MOS scale (2 intervals)
6) why higher tunings (IE 53TET) at a point can represent virtually any irrational interval to the point of being indistinguishable to human hearing
7) why Sethares' consonance measuring method is not perfect (only considers dyads and not how many full chords are possible)
8) you liked several of my scale examples and song posts (even the ones based one theories you later said were relatively absurd)...and actually so did a good few other people
..........................and several more

    And yet in not one but SEVERAL posts you accused me of not listening and knowing virtually nothing about tuning.  Is this because I simply don't agree with certain limitations of tuning history (IE that the human ear ONLY likes fractions that translate to rational numbers)?   Or that, for example, Charles Lucy appears to have a similar "problem" with his perspective (IE using irrational numbers as generators)?
*******************************************************************************************************
   You know a lot, and historically exponentially more about tuning than someone like myself.  If there was a Trivial Pursuit/Jeopardy type game about tuning history you'd beat Chris and I hands down no question.

    But, not just sometimes but quite often...it seems why the only reason you call me dumb is because you disagree with me IE to you subjective and objective are not different.  And I'm pretty sure people like Chris and Charles, as well as myself, are a lot more interested in finding good tunings/scales, improving our own tunings/scales and documentation....than trying to see if we can beat Carl at a game of best tuning academic.
*******************************************************************************************************   

     And although I deal with it b/c some of the advice that doesn't seem so stubborn that you give is superb...I am sure not just myself but a lot of people would learn more from you if they didn't have to filter through all your biases to find out what really matters in your responses.  I'd say I probably 1/4-1/3rd of your advice I end up following in some form or another.

   Maybe you disagree with a few of us on some issues...but that does not automatically make those few of us dumb, lazy, or pompous/unwilling to listen to your advice.   People (especially ones interested in finding new ways to do even things which are already fairly well done) just don't accept 100% of the advice they are given...that's just life.

-Michael

--to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
--hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
    I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
   But I DO ask a lot of similar questions.    Why?  Because I'm trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering exciting new emotional paths rather than "claiming originality")...and often I need to know many slightly different barriers that have been presented in the past to know where a gap may be for improvement. 

   One huge example is where I was having trouble making something closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you can't make a scale that large without beating".  Later Charles Lucy said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you some more and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it is the equivalent of "pleasant beating".  AHA, a hole!   That's why I ask such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...

---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
    When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost always go straight back to psychoacoustic history.  And, guess what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI (modifying a scale to fit timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit scale)...the fact harmonic distortion makes things under both Helmholtz (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat bypass-able in some cases.
   Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, conflict or "over-ride" each other.   Far as I know...a lot of psychoacoustic theory is like cancer research: still fairly primitive and with many new completely different ways to explain it possible.
***********************************************************************

>you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy

>academically" .

--I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
--fresh maybe?
   Sure.  Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you say scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D

---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
---started posting on MMM.
   Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely subliminal), right? :-)

--I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
--recommending you try a historical tuning.
    Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I feel like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already been done, and done more-or-less perfectly.  As we both know there are many many ways to prove JI, for example.  And about 90% of the activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin mean-tone.  To me that counts as historical.  Non-historical includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.

---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
---heard?
    Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and am pretty fond of both of their directions of research.  I've also heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the 12TET.
    Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is from relative "newbies"/non-academics like Chris.  I certainly can't draw the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords possible in something like 7-limit JI will automatically make someone a more fun composer to listen to, even if, of course, it can't hurt.
*******************************************************************************
   In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds either quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know why someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning. 

   The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6-note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and yet avoid sounding too tense.  But MOS scales (even though I am really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far too tense to seem listen-able to me.
   I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw...  Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.

-Michael

> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
> --recommending you try a historical tuning.
>     Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios".

You said you wanted to maximize consonance under certain
constraints (like the ability to ham-fist a 7-tone scale).
Then, yes, you'll do well to obey JI ratios. But now it
doesn't seem like you were after consonance at all -- the
metastable intervals you seem to like are in some sense
the _least_ consonant intervals available.

> And about 90% of the activity on here has something to do
> with JI or its close cousin mean-tone.

JI and temperaments that approximate JI, maybe. Meantone
in particular, no.

> Non-historical includes things like Wilson's MOS scales
> and Sethares' work.

Extended JI is not historical. Even 5-limit JI isn't
historical.

> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
> ---heard?
>     Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales
> and am pretty fond of both of their directions of research.

I thought we were talking about music, not scales. You've heard
some Marcus Satellite stuff. Howabout Kraig Grady, Rod Poole, or
Stephen James Taylor (other Erv students)?
I take it you've heard Sethares' album(s). Howabout Harry Partch
or Easley Blackwood?
David Doty, Jon Catler, Prent Rodgers?
Howabout Herman Miller, Paul Erlich, Gene Ward Smith,
Neil Haverstick, Aaron Johnson, Joe Monzo, or Igliashon Jones?
Dan Stearns? Dante Rosati? Jacky Ligon? James Wyness?
I mean, just to get started.

> I certainly can't draw the conclusion that, for example,
> knowing all chords possible in something like 7-limit JI will
> automatically make someone a more fun composer to listen to,
> even if, of course, it can't hurt.

It can hurt, I think. Too much theory can definitely hurt.

>    I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds,
> btw...  Especially comparing stuff you may have written using
> "futurist" tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like
> mean-tone or JI.

I haven't done much in a long time, and all of it was
originally written in 12. So in that sense, I am conventional.
I have released a few improves for 7-limit piano; nothing
serious. And I've put some cycles into retuning my 12-ET
compositions into other scales, but naturally this can only
go so far.

-Carl

Carl,

I think we have to agree to disagree. It is obvious no one wants us to argue
this point.

If it were a point of misunderstanding me then I'd suggest to move it to
PMs. However you don't want to give my point of view on popular microtonal
usage the time of day.

I'm not answering any more posts on this subject. If I'm wrong about your
position email me.

Chris

I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your thinking about scales and tuning Michael.

I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent in postings on the tuning lists.

1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available in a specific mapping system for musical pitches:

e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.

see:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html

2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which a composition may be produced

e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc

see:

http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html

and

http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

(I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient postings from the like of Carl etc.)

On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> --to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
> --hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
> I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
> But I DO ask a lot of similar questions. Why? Because I'm > trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering exciting > new emotional paths rather than "claiming originality")...and often > I need to know many slightly different barriers that have been > presented in the past to know where a gap may be for improvement.
>
> One huge example is where I was having trouble making something > closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you > can't make a scale that large without beating". Later Charles Lucy > said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you some more > and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it is the > equivalent of "pleasant beating". AHA, a hole! That's why I ask > such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...
>
> ---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
> When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost > always go straight back to psychoacoustic history. And, guess > what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; > Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI (modifying a scale to fit > timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit scale)...the > fact harmonic distortion makes things under both Helmholtz (beating) > and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat bypass-able in > some cases.
> Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently > superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, > there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, conflict > or "over-ride" each other. Far as I know...a lot of psychoacoustic > theory is like cancer research: still fairly primitive and with many > new completely different ways to explain it possible.
> ***********************************************************************
> >you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
> >academically" .
> --I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
> --fresh maybe?
> Sure. Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you say > scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about > psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D
>
> ---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
> ---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
> ---started posting on MMM.
> Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about > psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely > subliminal), right? :-)
>
>
> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
> --recommending you try a historical tuning.
> Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I feel > like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already been > done, and done more-or-less perfectly. As we both know there are > many many ways to prove JI, for example. And about 90% of the > activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin > mean-tone. To me that counts as historical. Non-historical > includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.
>
> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
> ---heard?
> Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and > am pretty fond of both of their directions of research. I've also > heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here > (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded > great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the > 12TET.
> Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is from > relative "newbies"/non-academics like Chris. I certainly can't draw > the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords possible in > something like 7-limit JI will automatically make someone a more fun > composer to listen to, even if, of course, it can't hurt.
> *******************************************************************************
> In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds either > quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know why > someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning.
>
> The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6-> note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and > yet avoid sounding too tense. But MOS scales (even though I am > really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their > issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far > too tense to seem listen-able to me.
> I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw... > Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" > tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.
>
> -Michael
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- 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

I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my first post to that effect went missing.

On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your > thinking about scales and tuning Michael.
>
>
> I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent > in postings on the tuning lists.
>
> 1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or > definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available in > a specific mapping system for musical pitches:
>
> e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>
> 2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a > tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which a > composition may be produced
>
> e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
>
> (I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient > postings from the like of Carl etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
>>
>> --to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
>> --hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
>> I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
>> But I DO ask a lot of similar questions. Why? Because I'm >> trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering >> exciting new emotional paths rather than "claiming >> originality")...and often I need to know many slightly different >> barriers that have been presented in the past to know where a gap >> may be for improvement.
>>
>> One huge example is where I was having trouble making something >> closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you >> can't make a scale that large without beating". Later Charles Lucy >> said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you some more >> and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it is the >> equivalent of "pleasant beating". AHA, a hole! That's why I ask >> such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...
>>
>> ---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
>> When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost >> always go straight back to psychoacoustic history. And, guess >> what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; >> Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI (modifying a scale to fit >> timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit scale)...the >> fact harmonic distortion makes things under both Helmholtz >> (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat bypass->> able in some cases.
>> Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently >> superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, >> there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, >> conflict or "over-ride" each other. Far as I know...a lot of >> psychoacoustic theory is like cancer research: still fairly >> primitive and with many new completely different ways to explain it >> possible.
>> ***********************************************************************
>> >you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
>> >academically" .
>> --I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
>> --fresh maybe?
>> Sure. Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you say >> scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about >> psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D
>>
>> ---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
>> ---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
>> ---started posting on MMM.
>> Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about >> psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely >> subliminal), right? :-)
>>
>>
>> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
>> --recommending you try a historical tuning.
>> Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I >> feel like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already >> been done, and done more-or-less perfectly. As we both know there >> are many many ways to prove JI, for example. And about 90% of the >> activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin >> mean-tone. To me that counts as historical. Non-historical >> includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.
>>
>> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
>> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
>> ---heard?
>> Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and >> am pretty fond of both of their directions of research. I've also >> heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here >> (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded >> great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the >> 12TET.
>> Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is >> from relative "newbies"/non-academics like Chris. I certainly >> can't draw the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords >> possible in something like 7-limit JI will automatically make >> someone a more fun composer to listen to, even if, of course, it >> can't hurt.
>> *******************************************************************************
>> In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds >> either quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know >> why someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning.
>>
>> The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6->> note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and >> yet avoid sounding too tense. But MOS scales (even though I am >> really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their >> issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far >> too tense to seem listen-able to me.
>> I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw... >> Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" >> tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - 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
>
>
>
>
>

good distinction, and I agree.

On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your > thinking about scales and tuning Michael.
>
>
> I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent > in postings on the tuning lists.
>
> 1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or > definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available in > a specific mapping system for musical pitches:
>
> e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>
> 2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a > tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which a > composition may be produced
>
> e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
>
> (I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient > postings from the like of Carl etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
>>
>> --to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
>> --hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
>> I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
>> But I DO ask a lot of similar questions. Why? Because I'm >> trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering >> exciting new emotional paths rather than "claiming >> originality")...and often I need to know many slightly different >> barriers that have been presented in the past to know where a gap >> may be for improvement.
>>
>> One huge example is where I was having trouble making something >> closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you >> can't make a scale that large without beating". Later Charles Lucy >> said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you some more >> and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it is the >> equivalent of "pleasant beating". AHA, a hole! That's why I ask >> such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...
>>
>> ---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
>> When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost >> always go straight back to psychoacoustic history. And, guess >> what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; >> Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI (modifying a scale to fit >> timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit scale)...the >> fact harmonic distortion makes things under both Helmholtz >> (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat bypass->> able in some cases.
>> Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently >> superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, >> there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, >> conflict or "over-ride" each other. Far as I know...a lot of >> psychoacoustic theory is like cancer research: still fairly >> primitive and with many new completely different ways to explain it >> possible.
>> ***********************************************************************
>> >you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
>> >academically" .
>> --I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
>> --fresh maybe?
>> Sure. Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you say >> scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about >> psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D
>>
>> ---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
>> ---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
>> ---started posting on MMM.
>> Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about >> psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely >> subliminal), right? :-)
>>
>>
>> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
>> --recommending you try a historical tuning.
>> Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I >> feel like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already >> been done, and done more-or-less perfectly. As we both know there >> are many many ways to prove JI, for example. And about 90% of the >> activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin >> mean-tone. To me that counts as historical. Non-historical >> includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.
>>
>> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
>> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
>> ---heard?
>> Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and >> am pretty fond of both of their directions of research. I've also >> heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here >> (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded >> great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the >> 12TET.
>> Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is >> from relative "newbies"/non-academics like Chris. I certainly >> can't draw the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords >> possible in something like 7-limit JI will automatically make >> someone a more fun composer to listen to, even if, of course, it >> can't hurt.
>> *******************************************************************************
>> In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds >> either quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know >> why someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning.
>>
>> The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6->> note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and >> yet avoid sounding too tense. But MOS scales (even though I am >> really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their >> issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far >> too tense to seem listen-able to me.
>> I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw... >> Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" >> tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - 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
>
>
>
>
>

Glad to see somebody else mentioned this. I wrote about it in my messages from Nov.1 and 6/2008, Jan. 31 and Feb. 1/2009. Thanks for simple and clear definitions. Even complex things could be explained simply. I have learned this as a teacher. Some people have talent to explain simple things in unnecessary complicated way.

Daniel Forro

On 16 Feb 2009, at 7:02 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your > thinking about scales and tuning Michael.
>
>
> I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent > in postings on the tuning lists.
>
> 1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or > definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available > in a specific mapping system for musical pitches:
>
> e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>
> 2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a > tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which > a composition may be produced
>
> e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
> < div>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
>
> (I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient > postings from the like of Carl etc.)
>

Dear Charles,

Thanks for this clarification. Actually, I tend to use exactly the terminology you suggest (scale vs tuning).

However, there are even more concepts (e.g., temperament families/classes like Meantone which all temper out the 81/80 comma vs. 1/4 comma meantone). Also, different terminology has been advocated by influential people/software (e.g., what you call a tuning is called a scale in the Scale software, which calls what you call a scale is a mode in Scala).

Best
Torsten

On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your > thinking about scales and tuning Michael.
>
>
> I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent > in postings on the tuning lists.
>
> 1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or > definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available > in a specific mapping system for musical pitches:
>
> e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html
>
> 2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a > tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which > a composition may be produced
>
> e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html
>
> and
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
>
> (I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient > postings from the like of Carl etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
>>
>> --to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
>> --hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
>> I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
>> But I DO ask a lot of similar questions. Why? Because I'm >> trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering >> exciting new emotional paths rather than "claiming >> originality")...and often I need to know many slightly different >> barriers that have been presented in the past to know where a gap >> may be for improvement.
>>
>> One huge example is where I was having trouble making something >> closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you >> can't make a scale that large without beating". Later Charles >> Lucy said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you >> some more and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it >> is the equivalent of "pleasant beating". AHA, a hole! That's >> why I ask such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...
>>
>> ---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
>> When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you >> almost always go straight back to psychoacoustic history. And, >> guess what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic >> history; Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI (modifying a >> scale to fit timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit >> scale)...the fact harmonic distortion makes things under both >> Helmholtz (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) >> somewhat bypass-able in some cases.
>> Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently >> superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, >> there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, >> conflict or "over-ride" each other. Far as I know...a lot of >> psychoacoustic theory is like cancer research: still fairly >> primitive and with many new completely different ways to explain >> it possible.
>> *********************************************************************>> **
>> >you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
>> >academically" .
>> --I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
>> --fresh maybe?
>> Sure. Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you >> say scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos >> about psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound >> good. :-D
>>
>> ---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
>> ---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
>> ---started posting on MMM.
>> Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about >> psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely >> subliminal), right? :-)
>>
>>
>> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
>> --recommending you try a historical tuning.
>> Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I >> feel like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already >> been done, and done more-or-less perfectly. As we both know there >> are many many ways to prove JI, for example. And about 90% of the >> activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin >> mean-tone. To me that counts as historical. Non-historical >> includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.
>>
>> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
>> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
>> ---heard?
>> Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and >> am pretty fond of both of their directions of research. I've also >> heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here >> (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded >> great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the >> 12TET.
>> Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is >> from relative "newbies"/non-academics like Chris. I certainly >> can't draw the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords >> possible in something like 7-limit JI will automatically make >> someone a more fun composer to listen to, even if, of course, it >> can't hurt.
>> *********************************************************************>> **********
>> In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds >> either quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know >> why someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning.
>>
>> The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6->> note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and >> yet avoid sounding too tense. But MOS scales (even though I am >> really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their >> issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far >> too tense to seem listen-able to me.
>> I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw... >> Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" >> tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - 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
>
>
>
>
>

Chris wrote:

> However you don't want to give my point of view on popular
> microtonal usage the time of day.

Maybe the root of the argument is over the definition of
"microtonal". It's been argued quite a bit here over the
years. If you define it as "anything other than 12-ET", then
almost all music is microtonal. Pretty much only solo
instrumental music of piano, guitar, or MIDI keyboard counts
as NOT microtonal in this view. Some people don't count
guitar (due to note bending), and others don't even count
piano (due to octave stretch). And I could see excluding
MIDI keyboards, because they are capable of prolonged
portamenti, filer sweeps, etc.

There's certainly something to be said for this POV, namely,
that 12-ET is only an abstraction and that real music gains
a lot of its power and subtlety by deviating from it.
However, I don't think we need to use such a restricted
definition of "microtonal" to make this point.

So often I use the term "microtonal" to mean something a
little bit more -- something where the abstraction isn't
12-ET at all. There's another abstraction which the real
music is deviating from! It's this usage which is really
most consistent with the main thrust of this mailing list.

As a fan of barbershop and former barbershoper myself, as
well as former choir singer and trumpet player, I very
much appreciate the deviations in popular artforms. But
I also think there are completely new artforms waiting to
be discovered. I consider it unlikely they will, though,
while our major polyphonic instruments remain 12-based.
The keyboard is a powerful visual, tactile, and mental
organizer of the musical universe.

Does this help?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my
> first post to that effect went missing.
>

Did you see this msg?

/tuning/topicId_80386.html#80402

-Carl

I did, and, after reading it over and over, I really don't understand it, at all.

I don't wish to be contentious, but I also disagree with the intent.

(I've made some original contributions to 12-tone theory, but
I have no idea what Robert Morris is talking about when he speaks technically,
speaks 'precisely'. When I translated some of my paper into technical-speak, I no longer understood it.)

Ordinary language usage trumps particular software like Scala.

In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection, not an 'ordered list
of intervals', for example.

Just an example. It just doesn't grok, for me. I feel ashamed, but there it is.

caleb

On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my
> > first post to that effect went missing.
> >
>
> Did you see this msg?
>
> /tuning/topicId_80386.html#80402
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@> wrote:

> > > I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my
> > > first post to that effect went missing.
> >
> > Did you see this msg?
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_80386.html#80402
>
> I did, and, after reading it over and over, I really don't
> understand it, at all.

Crap! I was trying to write for a general audience. Will you
help me make it more understandable? It's something we need in
our FAQ. Maybe we can go over it by paragraph? Maybe after
you understand it, you can rewrite it from scratch?

> In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,
> not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.

Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?

-Carl

--I'd be happy to try.

--But also, perhaps we need new words, or modifications of these,
if we are going to define them in a more technical way than usual.

--Part of the problem might be what I do when I think of G harmonic
minor: I visualize it as a totality, all 7 notes, on a keyboard or
guitar-neck, and sort of hear it in my head. So I tend to think of it
as a 7-note "chord", not in any order.

--but I'll give it a shot, in the next day or so.

--head hurts.

caleb

On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@> wrote:
>
> > > > I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my
> > > > first post to that effect went missing.
> > >
> > > Did you see this msg?
> > >
> > > /tuning/topicId_80386.html#80402
> >
> > I did, and, after reading it over and over, I really don't
> > understand it, at all.
>
> Crap! I was trying to write for a general audience. Will you
> help me make it more understandable? It's something we need in
> our FAQ. Maybe we can go over it by paragraph? Maybe after
> you understand it, you can rewrite it from scratch?
>
> > In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,
> > not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.
>
> Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
> like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
> a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
> stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Scale in western music theory is always ordered set of notes, usually from down to up, in a special case when scale has different notes in both directions, we use both, but again ordered (like melodic minor, melodic major). Therefore it's a scale, like scale for measuring centimeters has ordered set of numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, .... not 1, 32, 9, 15...

Daniel Forro

On 17 Feb 2009, at 6:25 AM, caleb morgan wrote:
>
> In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection, not > an 'ordered list
> of intervals', for example.
>
> Just an example. It just doesn't grok, for me. I feel ashamed, > but there it is.
>
>
> caleb

>> In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,
>> not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.
>
> Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
> like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
> a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
> stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?
>
> -Carl

This is a huge point of departure between jazz and common practice. In
jazz theory, a lot of these scales, like Dorian mode, for example, are
often mentioned in terms of the relationship of each note to the root.
For example, Dorian mode has a minor 3rd, a major 6th, a major second,
etc. This is how ear training is taught here - if it's minor, listen
for the natural 2 and natural 6 and see if it's Dorian or not. So it's
an unordered pitch-collection concept, and it applies usually to refer
to what mode or key a piece is in, as in "this was written in Dorian
mode."

But if I say "play a Dorian scale", people will assume the notes are
going to be played in the order of D-E-F-G-A-etc.

It's the difference between referring to the major scale and saying
that a piece is "in major." The reference to the major scale is
probably going to evoke imagery of an ascending C-D-E-F-G-etc pattern,
and the concept of a piece being "in major" is going to refer to an
unordered pitch collection. It doesn't matter if the major third is on
top of the fifth, just that it's there for the piece to count as being
"in major."

I understand this is different from how common-practice theory labels
modes and such, but the terminology is so widespread around here I
might as well chip in and mention it.

--You said you wanted to maximize consonance under certain
--constraints (like the ability to ham-fist a 7-tone scale).
--Then, yes, you'll do well to obey JI ratios.
   I know that...but I figured there's no point in re-inventing a wheel that rolls well and probably better than what I'd make if I tried going in the same direction "from scratch".  That's why I'm trying a different approach...

--But now it doesn't seem like you were after consonance at all -- the
--metastable intervals you seem to like are in some sense
--the _least_ consonant intervals available.
    Maybe we should just agree to disagree on this one?

    True, by the theories that underlie JI (like low numbered fractions that generate rational numbers)...something like a PHI-based scale generated by a spiral of irrational numbers should sound ridiculous (and, some combinations of notes in that tuning do).  However, on sites like traxandspace and from people online in general...responses by and large say my tuning sounds "very weird, but oddly enough very relaxed and natural"...and isn't relaxed and natural really the goal of consonance? 
--------------
    In other words, I agree, JI works great...but I'm also very convinced the general attitude that JI is the only path to consonance is far too close minded.  And, I have seen...NON-JI paths have different advantages and disadvantages (less tonal centers seems to be the consistent disadvantage, more available (and easier to find) consonant chords and tones available (8 instead of 7 vs. diatonic JI) seems to be the advantage.

--Extended JI is not historical. Even 5-limit JI isn't
--historical.
   Argh...I guess you could say, in that case, our definition of "historical" is different.
  To me "historical" means "anything built so intervals match 12TET within 20 cents or so and have similar sounding chords available" and/or based on a very long-standing ethnic scale such as Indian 22-tone or Pelog.

--You've heard some Marcus Satellite stuff. How about Kraig Grady, Rod Poole, or
--Stephen James Taylor (other Erv students)?
  I've heard a bit of Kraig's work (maybe just one piece in the past, would like to try more) but not Rod or Taylors.  Agree though, some of Marcus Satellite's stuff is great...the only hitch seems to be only his 6-note MOS scale-based compositions seem to approach the sense of consonance of Just Intonation to the point of being tolerable to my ears without a lot of concentration needed.  Put it this way, listening to a 7-note MOS scale in my car would likely make me crash.

--JI and temperaments that approximate JI, maybe. Meantone
---in particular, no.
    Hmm...then when classical musicians composed in mean tone can you explain why people think they composed in 12TET upon listening?  Just about everything I've heard in mean-tone sounds quite close to 12TET to my ears (including Lucy Tuning)...and all their notes ARE within about 20 cents of 12TET, right?
 
---It can hurt, I think. Too much theory can definitely hurt.
Hehe...that's why once I'm done making a scale nowadays I always test playing that scale AFTER listening to 5-10 minutes of music made in 12TET to see if it "shocks" my brain/ears in comparison.  And if it does, back to the drawing board.

--I haven't done much in a long time, and all of it was
--originally written in 12. So in that sense, I am conventional.

   Ah, ok, so in other words your music was "re-tuned to the nearest note of another tuning" thus somewhat preserving the intervals of the chords but "rounding" them a bit?  Shoot, then comparing you works in exotic scales would be pretty tough to do as opposed to, say, a song made with completely different intervals in mind in the first place.
  95% of what I've wrote is in 12TET....mostly due to fear of finding a scale I like and dedicating myself to learning good chords in it...only to find a much better one with completely different rules.

*******************************************

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:46 AM

> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is

> --recommending you try a historical tuning.

>     Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios".

You said you wanted to maximize consonance under certain

constraints (like the ability to ham-fist a 7-tone scale).

Then, yes, you'll do well to obey JI ratios. But now it

doesn't seem like you were after consonance at all -- the

metastable intervals you seem to like are in some sense

the _least_ consonant intervals available.

> And about 90% of the activity on here has something to do

> with JI or its close cousin mean-tone.

JI and temperaments that approximate JI, maybe. Meantone

in particular, no.

> Non-historical includes things like Wilson's MOS scales

> and Sethares' work.

Extended JI is not historical. Even 5-limit JI isn't

historical.

> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of

> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you

> ---heard?

>     Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales

> and am pretty fond of both of their directions of research.

I thought we were talking about music, not scales. You've heard

some Marcus Satellite stuff. Howabout Kraig Grady, Rod Poole, or

Stephen James Taylor (other Erv students)?

I take it you've heard Sethares' album(s). Howabout Harry Partch

or Easley Blackwood?

David Doty, Jon Catler, Prent Rodgers?

Howabout Herman Miller, Paul Erlich, Gene Ward Smith,

Neil Haverstick, Aaron Johnson, Joe Monzo, or Igliashon Jones?

Dan Stearns? Dante Rosati? Jacky Ligon? James Wyness?

I mean, just to get started.

> I certainly can't draw the conclusion that, for example,

> knowing all chords possible in something like 7-limit JI will

> automatically make someone a more fun composer to listen to,

> even if, of course, it can't hurt.

It can hurt, I think. Too much theory can definitely hurt.

>    I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds,

> btw...  Especially comparing stuff you may have written using

> "futurist" tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like

> mean-tone or JI.

I haven't done much in a long time, and all of it was

originally written in 12. So in that sense, I am conventional.

I have released a few improves for 7-limit piano; nothing

serious. And I've put some cycles into retuning my 12-ET

compositions into other scales, but naturally this can only

go so far.

-Carl

I wonder if it is myself or the people commenting on my work who are confusing the two...
  I have always called 12TET a "tuning" and C major a 7-note scale under the 12TET tuning.
  And when I say PHI scale, I mean the entire spiral of notes...while when I referenced my PHITER scale I meant my selection of 11 notes out of 30+ notes in the PHI tuning.

  One thing that keeps coming up...is my giving Chris a tuning AND a scale and suggesting he use the tuning...only to have him make an example with the tuning and say he is using my "scale".

   When have you caught me calling a tuning a scale?  I have always considered scale to the subset of a generating formula, not the complete result...

  But maybe I could be clearer in some cases IE when I say mean-tone scale generating logic in a song I often mean the logic meant to generate the tuning which, in the case of the example song, is then reduced to the limited notes of a scale used in the composition.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:02 AM

I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your thinking about scales and tuning Michael.
I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent in postings on the tuning lists. 

1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available in a specific mapping system for musical pitches:
e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
see:
http://www.lucytune .com/new_ to_lt/pitch_ 01.html
2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which a composition may be produced
e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
see:
http://www.lucytune .com/new_ to_lt/pitch_ 03.html
and
http://www.lucytune .com/scales/

(I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient postings from the like of Carl etc.)

On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:

--to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
--hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
    I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
   But I DO ask a lot of similar questions.    Why?  Because I'm trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering exciting new emotional paths rather than "claiming originality" )...and often I need to know many slightly different barriers that have been presented in the past to know where a gap may be for improvement.  

   One huge example is where I was having trouble making something closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you can't make a scale that large without beating".  Later Charles Lucy said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you some more and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it is the equivalent of "pleasant beating".  AHA, a hole!   That's why I ask such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...

---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
    When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost always go straight back to psychoacoustic history.  And, guess what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI (modifying a scale to fit timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit scale)...the fact harmonic distortion makes things under both Helmholtz (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat bypass-able in some cases.
   Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, conflict or "over-ride" each other.   Far as I know...a lot of psychoacoustic theory is like cancer research: still fairly primitive and with many new completely different ways to explain it possible.
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *****
>you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
>academically" .
--I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
--fresh maybe?
   Sure.  Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you say scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D

---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
---started posting on MMM.
   Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely subliminal), right? :-)

--I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
--recommending you try a historical tuning.
    Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I feel like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already been done, and done more-or-less perfectly.  As we both know there are many many ways to prove JI, for example.  And about 90% of the activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin mean-tone.  To me that counts as historical.  Non-historical includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.

---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
---heard?
    Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and am pretty fond of both of their directions of research.  I've also heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the 12TET.
    Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is from relative "newbies"/non- academics like Chris.  I certainly can't draw the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords possible in something like 7-limit JI will automatically make someone a more fun composer to listen to, even if, of course, it can't hurt.
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****
   In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds either quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know why someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning.  

   The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6-note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and yet avoid sounding too tense.  But MOS scales (even though I am really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far too tense to seem listen-able to me.
   I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw...  Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.

-Michael

Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

I'll plead ignorance - so ignore my mis-statements. I'm only the piano
player :-)

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Michael Sheiman
<djtrancendance@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I wonder if it is myself or the people commenting on my work who are
> confusing the two...
> I have always called 12TET a "tuning" and C major a 7-note scale under
> the 12TET tuning.
> And when I say PHI scale, I mean the entire spiral of notes...while when
> I referenced my PHITER scale I meant my selection of 11 notes out of 30+
> notes in the PHI tuning.
>
> One thing that keeps coming up...is my giving Chris a tuning AND a scale
> and suggesting he use the tuning...only to have him make an example with the
> tuning and say he is using my "scale".
>
> When have you caught me calling a tuning a scale? I have always
> considered scale to the subset of a generating formula, not the complete
> result...
>
> But maybe I could be clearer in some cases IE when I say mean-tone scale
> generating logic in a song I often mean the logic meant to generate the
> tuning which, in the case of the example song, is then reduced to the
> limited notes of a scale used in the composition.
>
> -Michael
>
> --- On *Mon, 2/16/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:02 AM
>
> I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your thinking
> about scales and tuning Michael.
>
> I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent in
> postings on the tuning lists.
>
> 1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or definition) to
> generate all the cent or interval values available in a specific
> mapping system for musical pitches:
>
> e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune .com/new_ to_lt/pitch_ 01.html<http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_01.html>
>
> 2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a tuning
> which are used in a particular piece of music or from which a composition
> may be produced
>
> e.g. Ionian, Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
>
> see:
>
> http://www.lucytune .com/new_ to_lt/pitch_ 03.html<http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_03.html>
>
> and
>
> http://www.lucytune .com/scales/ <http://www.lucytune.com/scales/>
>
>
> (I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient postings
> from the like of Carl etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
>
> --to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
> --hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
> I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
> But I DO ask a lot of similar questions. Why? Because I'm trying to
> make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering exciting new emotional
> paths rather than "claiming originality" )...and often I need to know many
> slightly different barriers that have been presented in the past to know
> where a gap may be for improvement.
>
> One huge example is where I was having trouble making something closer
> than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you can't make a
> scale that large without beating". Later Charles Lucy said "beating is a
> part of musicality" and I pestered you some more and got some info about
> "harmonic distortion" and how it is the equivalent of "pleasant beating".
> AHA, a hole! That's why I ask such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...
>
> ---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
> When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost always
> go straight back to psychoacoustic history. And, guess what...there are
> lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt
> (sp.), JI (modifying a scale to fit timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying
> timbre to fit scale)...the fact harmonic distortion makes things under both
> Helmholtz (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat
> bypass-able in some cases.
> Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently superb
> theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, there are several
> theories which, in certain circumstances, conflict or "over-ride" each
> other. Far as I know...a lot of psychoacoustic theory is like cancer
> research: still fairly primitive and with many new completely different ways
> to explain it possible.
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
> *****
> >you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
> >academically" .
> --I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start
> --fresh maybe?
> Sure. Basically I meant to say I'm confused by the fact you say scale I
> make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about psychoacoustic
> research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D
>
> ---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and
> ---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
> ---started posting on MMM.
> Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about psychoacoustics on
> some level (even if it's almost completely subliminal), right? :-)
>
>
> --I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
> --recommending you try a historical tuning.
> Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I feel like
> I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already been done, and done
> more-or-less perfectly. As we both know there are many many ways to prove
> JI, for example. And about 90% of the activity on here has something to do
> with JI or its close cousin mean-tone. To me that counts as historical.
> Non-historical includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.
>
> ---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
> ---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you
> ---heard?
> Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and am
> pretty fond of both of their directions of research. I've also heard some
> of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here (one I can't remember
> the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded great, but it was obviously done in
> a tuning very-very close the 12TET.
> Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is from
> relative "newbies"/non- academics like Chris. I certainly can't draw the
> conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords possible in something like
> 7-limit JI will automatically make someone a more fun composer to listen to,
> even if, of course, it can't hurt.
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
> ********* ****
> In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds either quite
> tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know why someone bothered to
> convert it to a different tuning.
>
> The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6-note MOS
> scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and yet avoid sounding
> too tense. But MOS scales (even though I am really glad you helped me find
> them)...still seem to have their issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or
> more notes they sound far too tense to seem listen-able to me.
> I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw... Especially
> comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" tunings vs. things
> you've wrote in things like mean-tone or JI.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@lucytune. com <http://mc/compose?to=lucy@...>
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune .com <http://www.lucytune.com>
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabie s.co.uk <http://www.lullabies.co.uk>
>
>
>
>
>

My simple interpretation:

   12TET is a TUNING generated by a circle of 5ths.
C and D Major are SCALES within that tuning.

    When you see a piece of music it is usually written in a scale...however the circle of 5ths (IE the method used to generated 12TET) represents an equation that generates ALL 12 notes, not just the 7 used in a song done in C major, for example. 

   However, if I have it right, JI diatonic is both a scale and a tuning because the method used to generate it only generates the 7 notes used in songs done in JI diatonic.

   Please anyone, correct me if I am wrong, but I am purposefully trying to use "introduction-level" terms IE terms people would already know from basic knowledge of 12TET.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:00 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@> wrote:

> > > I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my

> > > first post to that effect went missing.

> >

> > Did you see this msg?

> >

> > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning/ message/80402

>

> I did, and, after reading it over and over, I really don't

> understand it, at all.

Crap! I was trying to write for a general audience. Will you

help me make it more understandable? It's something we need in

our FAQ. Maybe we can go over it by paragraph? Maybe after

you understand it, you can rewrite it from scratch?

> In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,

> not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.

Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all

like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't

a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't

stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?

-Carl

Mike,

I am curious, if Jazz considers a scale a collection of unordered pitches,
what would define a mode?
I can, of course, understand minor / major distinction, but when one shifts
for a mode the collection of pitches does not change - only the tonic you
wish to emphasize by taking advantage of melodic interval relationships.

Perhaps I'm a little confused, and perhaps I don't understand jazz well at
all.

Another point is - what makes the unordered collection of scale pitches
different from say the more liberal interpretations of 12-tone serialist
music? (besides having a much nicer pitch set).

Chris

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> >> In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,
> >> not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.
> >
> > Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
> > like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
> > a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
> > stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?
> >
> > -Carl
>
> This is a huge point of departure between jazz and common practice. In
> jazz theory, a lot of these scales, like Dorian mode, for example, are
> often mentioned in terms of the relationship of each note to the root.
> For example, Dorian mode has a minor 3rd, a major 6th, a major second,
> etc. This is how ear training is taught here - if it's minor, listen
> for the natural 2 and natural 6 and see if it's Dorian or not. So it's
> an unordered pitch-collection concept, and it applies usually to refer
> to what mode or key a piece is in, as in "this was written in Dorian
> mode."
>
> But if I say "play a Dorian scale", people will assume the notes are
> going to be played in the order of D-E-F-G-A-etc.
>
> It's the difference between referring to the major scale and saying
> that a piece is "in major." The reference to the major scale is
> probably going to evoke imagery of an ascending C-D-E-F-G-etc pattern,
> and the concept of a piece being "in major" is going to refer to an
> unordered pitch collection. It doesn't matter if the major third is on
> top of the fifth, just that it's there for the piece to count as being
> "in major."
>
> I understand this is different from how common-practice theory labels
> modes and such, but the terminology is so widespread around here I
> might as well chip in and mention it.
>
>

---One thing that keeps coming up...is my giving Chris a tuning AND a
scale and suggesting ---he use the XXXtuningXXX...only to have him make an
example with the tuning and say he is using ---my "scale".
And I'll plead mine...that last sentence should have read

One thing that keeps coming up...is my giving Chris a tuning AND a
scale and suggesting -he use the !!SCALE!! (and only the scale)...only to have him make an
example with the tuning and say he is using my "scale".

IE replace XXXtuningXXX with !!scale!! in the sentence I first posted
:-D

BTW, no problem Chris...I'm just glad there's someone here who can manage music with my" tuning-scales" :-D that work well. :-)

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 7:04 PM

I'll plead ignorance - so ignore my mis-statements. I'm only the piano player :-)

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:

I wonder if it is myself or the people commenting on my work who are confusing the two...
  I have always called 12TET a "tuning" and C major a 7-note scale under the 12TET tuning.
  And when I say PHI scale, I mean the entire spiral of notes...while when I referenced my PHITER scale I meant my selection of 11 notes out of 30+ notes in the PHI tuning.

  One thing that keeps coming up...is my giving Chris a tuning AND a scale and suggesting he use the tuning...only to have him make an example with the tuning and say he is using my "scale".

   When have you caught me calling a tuning a scale?  I have always considered scale to the subset of a generating formula, not the complete result...

  But maybe I could be clearer in some cases IE when I say mean-tone scale generating logic in a song I often mean
the logic meant to generate the tuning which, in the case of the example song, is then reduced to the limited notes of a scale used in the composition.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics. com> wrote:

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics. com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.

To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:02 AM

I believe that you may be muddling two related concepts in your thinking about scales and tuning Michael.
I have noticed that it is a common conceptual error often apparent in postings on the tuning lists. 

1) A tuning is a way (sometimes expressed as an equation, or definition) to generate all the cent or interval values available in a specific mapping system for musical pitches:

e.g. 1/4 comma meantone, 5 limit JI, Orwell, LucyTuning, etc.
see:
http://www.lucytune .com/new_ to_lt/pitch_ 01.html

2) A scale is the limited selection from the possible notes in a tuning which are used in a particular piece of music or from which a composition may be produced
e.g. Ionian,
Wholetone, every third step on 22edo etc
see:
http://www.lucytune .com/new_ to_lt/pitch_ 03.html

and
http://www.lucytune .com/scales/

(I am sure that my affirmations will generate lotsa dissentient postings from the like of Carl etc.)

On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:15, Michael Sheiman wrote:

--to which I've gotten silence. Then 48
--hours later you're back asking the same (or similar) question.
    I don't think I've ever asked the same question twice.
   But I DO ask a lot of similar questions.    Why?  Because I'm trying to make truly new scales (for the sake of uncovering exciting new emotional paths rather than "claiming originality" )...and often I need to know many slightly
different barriers that have been presented in the past to know where a gap may be for improvement.  

   One huge example is where I was having trouble making something closer than the critical band sound good and you replied "no, you can't make a scale that large without beating".  Later Charles Lucy said "beating is a part of musicality" and I pestered you some more and got some info about "harmonic distortion" and how it is the equivalent of "pleasant beating".  AHA, a hole!   That's why I ask such "annoyingly similar" questions a lot...

---I have very little interest in history and seldom bring it up.
    When you say my grasp on psychoacoustics is "wrong", you almost always go straight back to psychoacoustic history.  And, guess what...there are lots of conflicts in psychoacoustic history; Helmholtz vs. Plomp and Levelt (sp.), JI
(modifying a scale to fit timbre) vs. Sethares' method (modifying timbre to fit scale)...the fact harmonic distortion makes things under both Helmholtz (beating) and Plomp and Levelt (consonance curves) somewhat bypass-able in some cases.

   Feel free to inform me if there's just one massive consistently superb theory I've been ignoring all this time but, apparently, there are several theories which, in certain circumstances, conflict or "over-ride" each other.   Far as I know...a lot of psychoacoustic theory is like cancer research: still fairly primitive and with many new completely different ways to explain it possible.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *****
>you've said several of my scales sound good but are "lousy
>academically" .
--I think you're putting words in my mouth. Can we start

--fresh maybe?
   Sure.  Basically I meant to say I'm
confused by the fact you say scale I make "sound good" and then write me these long memos about psychoacoustic research and how they can't possibly sound good. :-D

---I like Chris' stuff a lot, as I've said both publicly and

---privately (to him) on a number of occasions, since he first
---started posting on MMM.
   Exactly...so he can't be that dumb and clueless about psychoacoustics on some level (even if it's almost completely subliminal), right? :-)

--I wonder if you can find even a single post where someone is
--recommending you try a historical tuning.
    Anytime you seem to say something like "obey JI ratios"...I feel like I'm being sucked in to doing something that has already been done, and done more-or-less perfectly.  As we both know there are many many ways to prove JI, for example.  And about 90% of the activity on here has something to do with JI or its close cousin
mean-tone.  To me that counts as historical.  Non-historical includes things like Wilson's MOS scales and Sethares' work.

---I'm not sure either of you have heard any of the music of
---the "hardcore academics on here". Which tracks have you

---heard?
    Well, I've obviously heard Erv Wilson and Sethares' scales and am pretty fond of both of their directions of research.  I've also heard some of Cameron Bobro's music and some random examples here (one I can't remember the name of using a "1984 scale" sounded great, but it was obviously done in a tuning very-very close the 12TET.

    Actually though...a lot of the best work I've heard here is from relative "newbies"/non- academics like Chris.  I certainly can't draw the conclusion that, for example, knowing all chords possible in something like 7-limit JI will automatically make someone a more fun composer to listen to, even if, of course,
it can't hurt.
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ****
   In general, though...most of the stuff I have heard sounds either quite tense or so much like 12TET I don't even quite know why someone bothered to convert it to a different tuning.  

   The stuff that really gets me excited is stuff like Wilson's 6-note MOS scales and Sethares' work because it sounds different and yet avoid sounding too tense.  But MOS scales (even though I am really glad you helped me find them)...still seem to have their issues in my mind: namely that with 7 or more notes they sound far too tense to seem listen-able to me.

   I'd be quite interested to see how your music sounds, btw...  Especially comparing stuff you may have written using "futurist" tunings vs. things you've wrote in things like mean-tone or
JI.

-Michael

Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
For LucyTuned
Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> > Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
> > like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
> > a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
> > stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?
>
> This is a huge point of departure between jazz and common
> practice. In jazz theory, a lot of these scales, like Dorian
> mode, for example, are often mentioned in terms of the
> relationship of each note to the root. For example, Dorian
> mode has a minor 3rd, a major 6th, a major second, etc.

So, exactly what I described above.

> This is how ear training is taught here - if it's minor,
> listen for the natural 2 and natural 6 and see if it's Dorian
> or not. So it's an unordered pitch-collection concept,

It's an ordered concept -- "2nd" and "6th" are telling you
the order. If it were unordered there could be no distinction
between modes.

-Carl

Michael wrote:
> --JI and temperaments that approximate JI, maybe. Meantone
> ---in particular, no.
>     Hmm...then when classical musicians composed in mean tone
> can you explain why people think they composed in 12TET upon
> listening?  Just about everything I've heard in mean-tone sounds
> quite close to 12TET to my ears (including Lucy Tuning)...and
> all their notes ARE within about 20 cents of 12TET, right?

As already explained by myself, Petr, and Charles, this is
not the case. 31-ET is a meantone temperament. You think it
sounds like 12-ET?

> --I haven't done much in a long time, and all of it was
> --originally written in 12. So in that sense, I am conventional.
>
>    Ah, ok, so in other words your music was "re-tuned to the
> nearest note of another tuning" thus somewhat preserving the
> intervals of the chords but "rounding" them a bit?  Shoot,
> then comparing you works in exotic scales would be pretty
> tough to do as opposed to, say, a song made with completely
> different intervals in mind in the first place.

I wrote most of my pieces before I knew about the possibility
of microtonality. For the past 3 years I haven't done much
with music at all. I'm a young dad and I've been busy helping
to support my family. I keep my hand in the theory goings on
and that's about it.

-Carl

As I say, the unfortunate fact is that there is no consensus
on how these terms should be used, and people use them all
different ways. So any introductory text should warn people
to be prepared to mentally swap these terms for one another
while they're reading, at least until they get to know how
each author uses them.

That said, the definitions you're getting at below basically
match the ones Gene proposed.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> My simple interpretation:
>
>    12TET is a TUNING generated by a circle of 5ths.
> C and D Major are SCALES within that tuning.
>
>     When you see a piece of music it is usually written in a
> scale...however the circle of 5ths (IE the method used to
> generated 12TET) represents an equation that generates ALL 12
> notes, not just the 7 used in a song done in C major, for example. 
>
>    However, if I have it right, JI diatonic is both a scale and
> a tuning because the method used to generate it only generates
> the 7 notes used in songs done in JI diatonic.
>
>    Please anyone, correct me if I am wrong, but I am purposefully
> trying to use "introduction-level" terms IE terms people would
> already know from basic knowledge of 12TET.
>
> -Michael
>
> --- On Mon, 2/16/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 2:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, caleb morgan
<calebmrgn@> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > I agree, and I think this distinction is important. Oddly, my
>
> > > > first post to that effect went missing.
>
> > >
>
> > > Did you see this msg?
>
> > >
>
> > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning/ message/80402
>
> >
>
> > I did, and, after reading it over and over, I really don't
>
> > understand it, at all.
>
>
>
> Crap! I was trying to write for a general audience. Will you
>
> help me make it more understandable? It's something we need in
>
> our FAQ. Maybe we can go over it by paragraph? Maybe after
>
> you understand it, you can rewrite it from scratch?
>
>
>
> > In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,
>
> > not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.
>
>
>
> Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
>
> like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
>
> a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
>
> stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?
>
>
>
> -Carl
>

Music is not written in scale. If you mean diatonic or extended diatonic tonal music for example, it's written in tonality, key. Scale is only an ordered sequence of notes for theoretical or educational purpose, key is a whole complex of relations between those tones.

Daniel Forro

On 17 Feb 2009, at 12:08 PM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

> When you see a piece of music it is usually written in a scale...

In jazz those historical modes are used mostly for melody, harmonic concept is usually not modal, it's more based on extended tonality, chromatics. Jazz harmony sometimes can't be explained only as based on classical third structure, there are also quartal chords and combination of thirdal and quartal harmony, or even bi-chordal or poly-chordal combinations.

It's important to understand another thing essential for music composition, which is work with intervals. It's applicable to any system, be it pentatonic, diatonic, chromatic, microtonal, modal, tonal, atonal, dodecaphonic, serial... And it's responsible for creating basic atmosphere of composition, much more than scale itself. If scale is subset of tuning, then series used as a melodic motif is a subset of scale and is based on work with selected intervals inside the scale. Scale is ordered, series can be considered unordered, as there are jumps, small, bigger intervals between adjacent notes, even repeated notes which all scale itself hasn't.

For example inside 7-tone diatonics we can create series which are based on small intervals with rare bigger intervalic jumps (typical for vocal music), or series with bigger intervals (typical for instrumental melodies). Melodies using let's say seconds, thirds and fifths will sound differently than motifs using seconds, fourths and sevenths. Relations between notes in series can follow relations in tonality, but as well we can compose atonal diatonic melody which doesn't follow classical rules, and has no central tone, dominant etc. In extreme we can have diatonic pointilistic structure with very big intervals, yet still diatonic or even tonal (which would be maybe difficult to consider as tonal when hearing).
Opposite we can create 12-tone dodecaphonic series which sound quite modal or tonal, even diatonic (do you know Alban Berg's Violin Concerto?). Everything depends on interval selection.

Another simple example of extended 12-tone music is to combine diatonic on white keys of piano with pentatonic on black keys. Together they create 12-tone music, but not so boring like pure dodecaphony which sound often too sterile. Here every layer in music uses different principle (even more principles are hidden inside, thanks to different modes). In the extreme use With the help of a clever selected tones from both layers any music can be simulated by a clever selection of tones from both layers. In the frame of this system we can easily travel from modality to tonality to atonality, from pentatonics to chromatics. Motifs can be created as tonal or serial. Besides it's possible to jump to folklorism easily, as with traditional scales hidden here lot of traditional associations are connected.

I personally consider this very important point, and in my compositions I extensively work with this attitude. Thus is possible to create even such unusual combinations like "diatonized chromatics", "chromatized diatonics", "atonal tonality", "tonal atonality", "serial modality", "modal seriality" etc. This border field offers still a lot.

Daniel Forro

On 17 Feb 2009, at 12:11 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I am curious, if Jazz considers a scale a collection of unordered > pitches, what would define a mode?
> I can, of course, understand minor / major distinction, but when > one shifts for a mode the collection of pitches does not change - > only the tonic you wish to emphasize by taking advantage of melodic > interval relationships.
>
> Perhaps I'm a little confused, and perhaps I don't understand jazz > well at all.
>
> Another point is - what makes the unordered collection of scale > pitches different from say the more liberal interpretations of 12-> tone serialist music? (besides having a much nicer pitch set).
>
> Chris
>

On 17 Feb 2009, at 11:26 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:
> This is a huge point of departure between jazz and common practice. In
> jazz theory, a lot of these scales, like Dorian mode, for example, are
> often mentioned in terms of the relationship of each note to the root.
> For example, Dorian mode has a minor 3rd, a major 6th, a major second,
> etc. This is how ear training is taught here - if it's minor, listen
> for the natural 2 and natural 6 and see if it's Dorian or not. So it's
> an unordered pitch-collection concept, and it applies usually to refer
> to what mode or key a piece is in, as in "this was written in Dorian
> mode."
>
> But if I say "play a Dorian scale", people will assume the notes are
> going to be played in the order of D-E-F-G-A-etc.
>
>
There's no difference in this all between classical and jazz theory.
> It's the difference between referring to the major scale and saying
> that a piece is "in major."
>
More exactly we would say in such case "a piece is in C... D... major key, or tonality.
> The reference to the major scale is
> probably going to evoke imagery of an ascending C-D-E-F-G-etc pattern,
> and the concept of a piece being "in major" is going to refer to an
> unordered pitch collection. It doesn't matter if the major third is on
> top of the fifth, just that it's there for the piece to count as being
> "in major."
>
Ordered concept belongs to the scale, "unordered" to the key, tonality. But we know well that in fact it has also very strict order, based not on adjacent steps, but on functional relations inside the tonality (tonic, dominant...).

Daniel Forro

--I can, of course, understand minor / major distinction, but when one
shifts for a mode the --collection of pitches does not change - only the
tonic you wish to emphasize by taking ---advantage of melodic interval
relationships.

    I think I get what you are saying IE D# major and C aeolian have the exact same notes! 
My rough guess is which notes you pick to rest on make the difference IE more time is spent focusing you brain on, for example the 1st and 5th on each scale.  Then again, I don't know much about modes beyond which tonic notes they have and which 7 notes they use.

   Personally, when I compose in, say, "d# major" I may start on d# then g for the next pattern, then g# (as the bass line note)...thus indicating a whole possible slew of "modes" yet always the same 7 notes.  I believe in "follow your ear to find your rest note with the 7 notes", rather than adhering to a certain "mode".

---Another point is - what makes the unordered collection of scale pitches
different from say ---the more  liberal interpretations of 12-tone
serialist music? (besides having a much nicer ---pitch set).
   Meaning using the entire tuning vs. being limited to 7-note scales?
   My guess, in that case, is that it makes it more obvious which notes you can use for melodies that will match the chords well.   Also, you can modulate all you want within 12TET but if you are playing a clean-sounding chord, whether you know it or not, that chord gravitates toward the tonic of a given scale and uses only notes from said scale.  Each scale is like a gear....you simply switch gears very quickly when you use a tuning as a scale, or that's how I see it.   And, of course, of you hit a chord where most of the notes imply a scale, but another note in the chord sounds outside of the scale...is sounds odd and dissonant relative to everything else.  So even if you use a tuning, if you are doing a good job at it in my opinion, you are still using scales.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message - muddled concepts.
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 7:11 PM

Mike,

I am curious, if Jazz considers a scale a collection of unordered pitches, what would define a mode?
I can, of course, understand minor / major distinction, but when one shifts for a mode the collection of pitches does not change - only the tonic you wish to emphasize by taking advantage of melodic interval relationships.

Perhaps I'm a little confused, and perhaps I don't understand jazz well at all.

Another point is - what makes the unordered collection of scale pitches different from say the more  liberal interpretations of 12-tone serialist music? (besides having a much nicer pitch set).

Chris

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ gmail.com> wrote:

>> In most music theory, a scale is an unordered pitch-collection,

>> not an 'ordered list of intervals', for example.

>

> Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all

> like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't

> a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't

> stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?

>

> -Carl

This is a huge point of departure between jazz and common practice. In

jazz theory, a lot of these scales, like Dorian mode, for example, are

often mentioned in terms of the relationship of each note to the root.

For example, Dorian mode has a minor 3rd, a major 6th, a major second,

etc. This is how ear training is taught here - if it's minor, listen

for the natural 2 and natural 6 and see if it's Dorian or not. So it's

an unordered pitch-collection concept, and it applies usually to refer

to what mode or key a piece is in, as in "this was written in Dorian

mode."

But if I say "play a Dorian scale", people will assume the notes are

going to be played in the order of D-E-F-G-A-etc.

It's the difference between referring to the major scale and saying

that a piece is "in major." The reference to the major scale is

probably going to evoke imagery of an ascending C-D-E-F-G-etc pattern,

and the concept of a piece being "in major" is going to refer to an

unordered pitch collection. It doesn't matter if the major third is on

top of the fifth, just that it's there for the piece to count as being

"in major."

I understand this is different from how common-practice theory labels

modes and such, but the terminology is so widespread around here I

might as well chip in and mention it.

--As already explained by myself, Petr, and Charles, this is
--not the case.
Hmm...well I didn't get much of a hint why beside Charles hinting that other non-simple harmonic relationships are possible in such tunings that are not possible in 12TET.

---31-ET is a mean-tone temperament. You think it
---sounds like 12-ET?
   Ugh...now it sound like we are purely talking tunings and not scales (before I was assuming you were talking "scale under mean-tone", not entire tunings).

   And, of course 31-ET sounds different using all the tones "at random".
    But from what I have heard in mean-tone scales under 31ET IE "practical use of 31-ET"...virtually all of them seem seem to be near-matches to 12-ET.  Certainly historic musicians didn't use the whole tuning at once doing "continuous modulation" (or if they did, I'd be quite eager to hear how).

  And, again, with comments like Charles' I wonder it the slight difference in intervals somehow enables things like completely new chords, for example...

---For the past 3 years I haven't done much with music at all. I'm a young dad and I've been ---busy helping to support my family. I keep my hand in the theory goings on
---and that's about it.
    Ah, got it.  Running a family and doing a good job at it is a very tough think to do.  To me, at least at work...you get to control your destiny with a more firm hand...when you are at home you are often at the mercy of randomness. :-D  But, good luck with all that...I'll likely be able to talk about that sort of thing more intelligently in 1-2 years when I have kids.

-michael

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: retrying missing message
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 7:45 PM

Michael wrote:

> --JI and temperaments that approximate JI, maybe. Meantone

> ---in particular, no.

>     Hmm...then when classical musicians composed in mean tone

> can you explain why people think they composed in 12TET upon

> listening?  Just about everything I've heard in mean-tone sounds

> quite close to 12TET to my ears (including Lucy Tuning)...and

> all their notes ARE within about 20 cents of 12TET, right?

As already explained by myself, Petr, and Charles, this is

not the case. 31-ET is a meantone temperament. You think it

sounds like 12-ET?

> --I haven't done much in a long time, and all of it was

> --originally written in 12. So in that sense, I am conventional.

>

>    Ah, ok, so in other words your music was "re-tuned to the

> nearest note of another tuning" thus somewhat preserving the

> intervals of the chords but "rounding" them a bit?  Shoot,

> then comparing you works in exotic scales would be pretty

> tough to do as opposed to, say, a song made with completely

> different intervals in mind in the first place.

I wrote most of my pieces before I knew about the possibility

of microtonality. For the past 3 years I haven't done much

with music at all. I'm a young dad and I've been busy helping

to support my family. I keep my hand in the theory goings on

and that's about it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> --As already explained by myself, Petr, and Charles, this is
> --not the case.
> Hmm...well I didn't get much of a hint why beside Charles hinting
> that other non-simple harmonic relationships are possible in such
> tunings that are not possible in 12TET.

We all said the same thing, which is that once the chain is
extended beyond 12, completely new universes appear.

> ---31-ET is a mean-tone temperament. You think it
> ---sounds like 12-ET?
>    Ugh...now it sound like we are purely talking tunings and
> not scales (before I was assuming you were talking "scale under
> mean-tone", not entire tunings).

Read this:
/tuning/topicId_81055.html#81385
"[newbies should] be prepared to mentally swap these terms for
one another while they're reading, at least until they get to
know how each author uses them"

-Carl

- Usually when writing about major keys, we use capital letters, liike D# major.

- D# major doesn't exist in classical music theory, so we can't meet it in scores, probably very rarely and only just as a transition key when modulating. It had 9 sharps, that means two double sharps. Using of enharmonic Eb major with 3 flats is more easy in musical practice.

- Note "g" doesn't exist in D# major, it must spell as double sharp f, fisis.

Daniel

On 17 Feb 2009, at 3:24 PM, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
> Personally, when I compose in, say, "d# major" I may start on d# > then g for the next pattern, then g# (as the bass line note)...thus > indicating a whole possible slew of "modes" yet always the same 7 > notes. I believe in "follow your ear to find your rest note with > the 7 notes", rather than adhering to a certain "mode".

On the subject of "ordered" or "unordered".
Also, "absolute" or "relative".
"Pitch" or "interval".

But let's take A Locrian b4 as an example. (A Altered)
Pretty common.

A,Bb,C,Db,Eb,F,G

I think of this as an *unordered collection* of *pitches*,
because

Db,A,C,Eb,F,G,Bb is *also* the "scale" of A Locrian b4.

So, order doesn't matter, for this definition.

Also, they are pitches, at first glance, not intervals.

They *can* be thought of as intervals, but not necessarily.

Locrian b4 is relative, but as soon as you say A, it becomes
absolute.

Ordered/Unordered usage here is like set theory.

To be needlessly philosophical, I sometimes question the word
"interval", because it refers to the gap, or space between things,
whereas I tend to think of the *relationship* or *sounding-together*
of things, but never mind that one, for now.

Probably all of us are capable of thinking in *all* these different ways.

The one that I'm sort of insisting on is "unordered".

Why?

Because C,Db,D,Eb,E,F,F#,G,G#,A,A#,B is just unordered chromatic scale.

Db,Gb,A,F,Eb,C,G,Ab,E,Bb,D,B is "ordered" chromatic scale--a 12-tone row, as
absolute pitches.

As an ordered collection of intervals, it's 5,3,8,10,9,7,1,8,6,4,9,2 (2 is wraparound)

Now, we're not doing 12-tone theory here, but if common terms seem poorly defined,
we should invent new ones, not have special definitions for the old ones.

It's 2 a.m. here, and I just woke up. (Paul Simon--I Don't expect to be treated like a
fool no more, I don't expect to sleep through the night.)

Caleb

On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > > Well, I dunno. When I hear musicians use the term, it's all
> > > like, "harmonic minor scale". The harmonic minor scale isn't
> > > a list of pitches (things measured in Hz.) right? Isn't
> > > stuff like "M2 m3 P4 P5 m6 M7" more typical?
> >
> > This is a huge point of departure between jazz and common
> > practice. In jazz theory, a lot of these scales, like Dorian
> > mode, for example, are often mentioned in terms of the
> > relationship of each note to the root. For example, Dorian
> > mode has a minor 3rd, a major 6th, a major second, etc.
>
> So, exactly what I described above.
>
> > This is how ear training is taught here - if it's minor,
> > listen for the natural 2 and natural 6 and see if it's Dorian
> > or not. So it's an unordered pitch-collection concept,
>
> It's an ordered concept -- "2nd" and "6th" are telling you
> the order. If it were unordered there could be no distinction
> between modes.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> On the subject of "ordered" or "unordered".
> Also, "absolute" or "relative".
> "Pitch" or "interval".
>
> But let's take A Locrian b4 as an example. (A Altered)
> Pretty common.
>
> A,Bb,C,Db,Eb,F,G
>
> I think of this as an *unordered collection* of *pitches*,
> because

Scales retain their identity regardless of which pitch they
are rooted on. Therefore, we do not want to include absolute
pitch in the definition of scales.

Besides, different microtonal scales imply different pitch
systems. You can't use letters A - G for all scales you
might want to define.

> Also, they are pitches, at first glance, not intervals.

The scale is fully encoded by the string h w h w w w w,
is it not?

> The one that I'm sort of insisting on is "unordered".
>
> Why?
>
> Because C,Db,D,Eb,E,F,F#,G,G#,A,A#,B is just unordered
> chromatic scale.

Once you ditch pitches in favor of intervals, they must
be ordered, since I can rearrange h w h w w w w to
w w h w w w h, which isn't the same scale.

-Carl

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I am curious, if Jazz considers a scale a collection of unordered pitches,
> what would define a mode?
> I can, of course, understand minor / major distinction, but when one shifts
> for a mode the collection of pitches does not change - only the tonic you
> wish to emphasize by taking advantage of melodic interval relationships.

Er, that's backwards from what I meant - a scale is usually referred
to as a collection of ordered pitches, modality has them as unordered.

-Mike

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> In jazz those historical modes are used mostly for melody, harmonic
> concept is usually not modal, it's more based on extended tonality,
> chromatics. Jazz harmony sometimes can't be explained only as based
> on classical third structure, there are also quartal chords and
> combination of thirdal and quartal harmony, or even bi-chordal or
> poly-chordal combinations.

Often, in jazz, tonality is extended by exploring functional harmonic
relationships that exist within tonalities/modalities other than
major/minor (such as Dorian). Also, sometimes legitimate "modal"
harmonies are used, especially in Wayne Shorter and Herbie
Hancock-esque Post Bop, where the harmony is often modal, in the
historical sense of the word - a sense of harmonic progression is
caused by changes in the mode being used. Often modes other than those
from the major scale are used as well.

-Mike

I see our problem here is again terminology. When I say "extended tonality", I mean music which use additional chromatic notes, extra tonal leading notes, enharmonics, rich chords and modulations. It's reflected also in chromatic chord progressions. We can find some elements of this even in Bach, Mozart, Beethoven... but mainly this is typical for wagnerian romantism and late romantism until let's say 1950.

Modality was preserved in European music mainly in the church music, mainstream didn't used it until 19th century. There are only rare examples of modality in common Baroque + Classicism music. It started to spread again when composers started to be inspired by folklore. This tendency is not typical for main stream Italian/German music, but more for Slavonic, English, French, Spanish, Hungarian, Scandinavian composers. And this music has different character than that wagnerian chromaticism.

So in my understanding tonality is something different than modality.

And in harmonization of melody we have many possibilities. Even simple pentatonic modal melody can be harmonized with extended chromatic late romantic harmony, or opposite extended tonal melody with lot of chromatic inflections can be harmonized with modal approach.

It would be necessary to analyze concrete examples, what's modal harmony in historical and modern or jazz sense. I'm afraid there's no time from my side to do this. Besides it's not about tuning.

Daniel Forro

On 17 Feb 2009, at 5:29 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> > wrote:
> > In jazz those historical modes are used mostly for melody, harmonic
> > concept is usually not modal, it's more based on extended tonality,
> > chromatics. Jazz harmony sometimes can't be explained only as based
> > on classical third structure, there are also quartal chords and
> > combination of thirdal and quartal harmony, or even bi-chordal or
> > poly-chordal combinations.
>
> Often, in jazz, tonality is extended by exploring functional harmonic
> relationships that exist within tonalities/modalities other than
> major/minor (such as Dorian). Also, sometimes legitimate "modal"
> harmonies are used, especially in Wayne Shorter and Herbie
> Hancock-esque Post Bop, where the harmony is often modal, in the
> historical sense of the word - a sense of harmonic progression is
> caused by changes in the mode being used. Often modes other than those
> from the major scale are used as well.
>
> -Mike

> Once you ditch pitches in favor of intervals, they must
> be ordered, since I can rearrange h w h w w w w to
> w w h w w w h, which isn't the same scale.
>
> -Carl

Indeed, but I think the point that caleb is making is the same one I
made earlier: these scales, when put in a harmonic or "modal" context
vs. a melodic or "scalar" context, make more sense when each note in
them is defined by their relationship to the root, rather than to the
note immediately preceding it. And even though these terms have names
like "second, third, fourth," that doesn't necessarily define their
position in the scale. Those are rather just common interval names
that have evolved. For example, take the 12-tet half-whole diminished
scale:

h-w-h-w-h-w-h-w
or
C Db D# E F# G A Bb C

Note that I put a "D" in there twice. This is because when put in a
harmonic context, the same scale is often defined in these terms:

root, b2, #2, maj3, #4, P5, maj6, m7, octave

Although the b2 and #2 are usually referred to as b9's and #9's and
the #4 is usually referred to as a #11. This is just to demonstrate
that even though the Bb is the 8th note of that scale, it would still
likely be referred to as a minor 7th, and so on.

Since we want to avoid names like C and Db, maybe you could define it
as 1/1 17/16 19/16 5/4 11/8 3/2 13/8 7/4 2/1, or however you'd like to
map it to JI - I think that makes more sense than putting the ratio of
each frequency to the note previous in the scale.

One more thing I've been thinking about with regards to this:
What about comma shifts? 12-tet scales (or meantone in general I
guess) can imply a bunch of comma-shifted intervals with the same
notes. For example, a chord like C E G will imply a different JI
version of "E" than C G D A E, I think. Or a chord like D F A C E G
might imply a different "G" than D G B. And yet, the 12-tet ionian
mode encompasses both 5/4 and 81/64, so to say that it's 1/1 9/8 5/4
etc and leave 81/64 out isn't quite accurate either... Maybe a
sensible way to deal with this is to specify a mode in terms of JI
pitches that comprise the scale, and then acceptable commas that the
notes can drift by. So the full picture of "classic" 5-limit ionian
would be as follows:

1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
while allowing any of the pitches to drift by 81/80 in any direction
as needed to suit a particular chord.

(Is this what the original intended use for the concept of a
"unison-vector" was?)

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Once you ditch pitches in favor of intervals, they must
> > be ordered, since I can rearrange h w h w w w w to
> > w w h w w w h, which isn't the same scale.
>
> Indeed, but I think the point that caleb is making is the same
> one I made earlier: these scales, when put in a harmonic or
> "modal" context vs. a melodic or "scalar" context, make more
> sense when each note in them is defined by their relationship
> to the root, rather than to the note immediately preceding it.

Great! That's actually the way Scala does it.

> And even though these terms have names like "second, third,
> fourth," that doesn't necessarily define their position in the
> scale.

Sure they do.

> Those are rather just common interval names that have evolved.
> For example, take the 12-tet half-whole diminished scale:
>
> h-w-h-w-h-w-h-w
> or
> C Db D# E F# G A Bb C
>
> Note that I put a "D" in there twice. This is because when put in
> a harmonic context, the same scale is often defined in these
> terms:
>
> root, b2, #2, maj3, #4, P5, maj6, m7, octave
>
> Although the b2 and #2 are usually referred to as b9's and #9's
> and the #4 is usually referred to as a #11. This is just to
> demonstrate that even though the Bb is the 8th note of that
> scale, it would still likely be referred to as a minor 7th,
> and so on.

It's technically incorrect to use heptaonic names for degrees
of an octatonic scale.

> One more thing I've been thinking about with regards to this:
> What about comma shifts? 12-tet scales (or meantone in general I
> guess) can imply a bunch of comma-shifted intervals with the same
> notes. For example, a chord like C E G will imply a different JI
> version of "E" than C G D A E, I think. Or a chord like
> D F A C E G might imply a different "G" than D G B. And yet, the
> 12-tet ionian mode encompasses both 5/4 and 81/64, so to say that
> it's 1/1 9/8 5/4 etc and leave 81/64 out isn't quite accurate
> either... Maybe a sensible way to deal with this is to specify a
> mode in terms of JI pitches that comprise the scale, and then
> acceptable commas that the notes can drift by.

Er... you're thinking too hard. If you're talking about a
tempered scale, the intervals aren't JI rationals at all.
Typically, they're irrational numbers.

> (Is this what the original intended use for the concept of a
> "unison-vector" was?)

Unclear. See:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerpb.html

-Carl

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>> And even though these terms have names like "second, third,
>> fourth," that doesn't necessarily define their position in the
>> scale.
>
> Sure they do.
//
> It's technically incorrect to use heptaonic names for degrees
> of an octatonic scale.

Perhaps according to common practice terminology, but that's how it's
commonly used in jazz theory. If you hear a dominant 7 chord with a
b9, a #9, a #11, and a natural 13, you know that that chord is derived
from the half-whole diminished scale. Or put another way, if I hear a
C major pentatonic scale - C D E G A - I'm going to think of it as
having a major second, a major third, a perfect fifth, and a major
sixth in it.

That names like "second" and "third" have a meaning beyond their
position in a certain scale is also shown by that they have simply
taken on a life of their own as naming conventions - how many times do
we see 5/4 referred to as a major third around here even if it's in
reference to no scale in particular?

>
>> One more thing I've been thinking about with regards to this:
>> What about comma shifts? 12-tet scales (or meantone in general I
>> guess) can imply a bunch of comma-shifted intervals with the same
>> notes. For example, a chord like C E G will imply a different JI
>> version of "E" than C G D A E, I think. Or a chord like
>> D F A C E G might imply a different "G" than D G B. And yet, the
>> 12-tet ionian mode encompasses both 5/4 and 81/64, so to say that
>> it's 1/1 9/8 5/4 etc and leave 81/64 out isn't quite accurate
>> either... Maybe a sensible way to deal with this is to specify a
>> mode in terms of JI pitches that comprise the scale, and then
>> acceptable commas that the notes can drift by.
>
> Er... you're thinking too hard. If you're talking about a
> tempered scale, the intervals aren't JI rationals at all.
> Typically, they're irrational numbers.

Yes, but 12-tet C-E-G implies a mistuning of 4:5:6, does it not?
Likewise I would assume C-G-D-A-E will imply a mistuning of stacked
fifths.

And I think that D-F-A-C-E-G will definitely be heard as a bunch of
stacked 6/5 and 5/4 thirds, which would mean that that outer D-G dyad
won't add up to 8/3.

-Mike

Carl:
>> It's technically incorrect to use heptaonic names for degrees
>> of an octatonic scale.

Mike B:
> Perhaps according to common practice terminology, but that's how it's
> commonly used in jazz theory. If you hear a dominant 7 chord with a
> b9, a #9, a #11, and a natural 13, you know that that chord is derived
> from the half-whole diminished scale. Or put another way, if I hear a
> C major pentatonic scale - C D E G A - I'm going to think of it as
> having a major second, a major third, a perfect fifth, and a major
> sixth in it.

It's commonly used but technically incorrect. Technically, the numbers refer to scale degrees.

> That names like "second" and "third" have a meaning beyond their
> position in a certain scale is also shown by that they have simply
> taken on a life of their own as naming conventions - how many times do
> we see 5/4 referred to as a major third around here even if it's in
> reference to no scale in particular?

That's right, I do it all the time. But I know it's technically incorrect.

Graham

> It's commonly used but technically incorrect. Technically,
> the numbers refer to scale degrees.
//
> That's right, I do it all the time. But I know it's
> technically incorrect.
>
> Graham

The naming practice is so ubiquitous in jazz terminology that it's
extremely weird for me to think of the 8th degree of the half-whole
diminished scale as not being considered a "minor 7th" when played
over the root. Plus, if a C half-whole diminished scale is playing in
the background on some keyboard instrument, and another instrument
hits a C-Bb dyad, would that dyad suddenly no longer be considered a
minor 7th? If the keyboard instrument then changes to a C mixolydian
scale, does it become a minor 7th once again?

Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not, what I
was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an ordered
collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality" need not be,
assuming octave equivalence. That is, a piece in which the root chord
is D F A C E' G' B' is "in Dorian mode" just as well as a piece in
which the root chord is a huge cluster of D E F G A B C D.
Confusingly, a "mode" is also used to mean what it means in common
practice theory, which is just a scale that starts on a certain degree
of a parent scale.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> >> And even though these terms have names like "second, third,
> >> fourth," that doesn't necessarily define their position in the
> >> scale.
> >
> > Sure they do.
> //
> > It's technically incorrect to use heptaonic names for degrees
> > of an octatonic scale.
>
> Perhaps according to common practice terminology, but that's
> how it's commonly used in jazz theory.

It's often done that way in classical theory too. What's
happening is the heptatonic names are being used to identify
absolute interval sizes, which is something of a bastardization
of their original meanings.

But that people use these terms this way (or whether they're
original or not) is irrelevant. There has to be something
that is an ordered lists of intervals, and the closest term,
by far is "scale", all things considered.

> > Er... you're thinking too hard. If you're talking about a
> > tempered scale, the intervals aren't JI rationals at all.
> > Typically, they're irrational numbers.
>
> Yes, but 12-tet C-E-G implies a mistuning of 4:5:6, does it not?

Depends.

> Likewise I would assume C-G-D-A-E will imply a mistuning of
> stacked fifths.

We're getting pretty far afield here.

> And I think that D-F-A-C-E-G will definitely be heard as a
> bunch of stacked 6/5 and 5/4 thirds, which would mean that
> that outer D-G dyad won't add up to 8/3.

Depends what you mean by "D-F-A-C-E-G".

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> > how many times do
> > we see 5/4 referred to as a major third around here even if it's in
> > reference to no scale in particular?
>
> That's right, I do it all the time. But I know it's
> technically incorrect.

And because he knows that, he doesn't get confused. If one
doesn't keep it in mind, one can confuse oneself right quick.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> The naming practice is so ubiquitous in jazz terminology that it's
> extremely weird for me to think of the 8th degree of the half-whole
> diminished scale as not being considered a "minor 7th" when played
> over the root.

If you want to make an omelette...

> Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not,
> what I was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an
> ordered collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality"
> need not be, assuming octave equivalence.

It depends how you define these things. But both scales and
modes basically have to be ordered.

-Carl

>> Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not,
>> what I was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an
>> ordered collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality"
>> need not be, assuming octave equivalence.
>
> It depends how you define these things. But both scales and
> modes basically have to be ordered.

Maybe I don't understand what ordering means in this sense.

I'm still hung up on why this is supposedly flawed:

>> One more thing I've been thinking about with regards to this:
>> What about comma shifts? 12-tet scales (or meantone in general I
>> guess) can imply a bunch of comma-shifted intervals with the same
>> notes. For example, a chord like C E G will imply a different JI
>> version of "E" than C G D A E, I think. Or a chord like
>> D F A C E G might imply a different "G" than D G B. And yet, the
>> 12-tet ionian mode encompasses both 5/4 and 81/64, so to say that
>> it's 1/1 9/8 5/4 etc and leave 81/64 out isn't quite accurate
>> either... Maybe a sensible way to deal with this is to specify a
>> mode in terms of JI pitches that comprise the scale, and then
>> acceptable commas that the notes can drift by.
>
> Er... you're thinking too hard. If you're talking about a
> tempered scale, the intervals aren't JI rationals at all.
> Typically, they're irrational numbers.

What I meant by that is that the meantone major scale can imply
multiple ratios with the same notes depending on musical context. So
saying that the JI version of the major scale is:

1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1

isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in meantone
certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI "major" scale to
just those ratios posted above, that makes it more limiting than the
12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift by 81/80 as needed,
and still say that it's part of the major scale? In fact, why not let
any of the notes drift by 81/80 as needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9
would be suitable for a second scale degree.

Tom basically just demonstrated this in his GSTQ harpsichord demo,
where one of the notes in the melody is comma-shifted sharp in a lower
voice in an adjacent chord, but you hardly notice since it's in a
different voice. I would certainly not say that that technique means
that the piece is no longer in major or that it doesn't use the major
scale.

I think a reasonable definition for a 5-limit extension of a meantone
major scale is something like {1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 |
81/80}, where 81/80 is the comma that any of the intervals can drift
by as needed.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> What I meant by that is that the meantone major scale can imply
> multiple ratios with the same notes depending on musical context. So
> saying that the JI version of the major scale is:
>
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
>
> isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
> can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
> with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in
> meantone certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI
> "major" scale to just those ratios posted above, that makes it more
> limiting than the 12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift
> by 81/80 as needed, and still say that it's part of the major
> scale? In fact, why not let any of the notes drift by 81/80 as
> needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9 would be suitable for a second scale
> degree.

Because that requires functionality not normally considered to
be part of what is called a "scale". What you are describing,
however, is a periodicity block.

-Carl

well said mike, but surely some notes shouldn't drift
by 81/80, that would be a little queasy? like 1/1?

3/2?

On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > What I meant by that is that the meantone major scale can imply
> > multiple ratios with the same notes depending on musical context. So
> > saying that the JI version of the major scale is:
> >
> > 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
> >
> > isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
> > can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
> > with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in
> > meantone certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI
> > "major" scale to just those ratios posted above, that makes it more
> > limiting than the 12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift
> > by 81/80 as needed, and still say that it's part of the major
> > scale? In fact, why not let any of the notes drift by 81/80 as
> > needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9 would be suitable for a second scale
> > degree.
>
> Because that requires functionality not normally considered to
> be part of what is called a "scale". What you are describing,
> however, is a periodicity block.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

I thought a periodicity block was there to describe patterns that form
in a JI lattice when various intervals are tempered to unison.

I guess I wasn't getting at incorporating that into the definition of
a scale as much as into the definition of a mode, or of modality or of
tonality or something like that. A piece that's in major, even if it
uses no chromatic alterations the whole way through, will still likely
use commatic alterations, and I certainly wouldn't class that under
some kind of extended harmony.

-Mike

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
>> What I meant by that is that the meantone major scale can imply
>> multiple ratios with the same notes depending on musical context. So
>> saying that the JI version of the major scale is:
>>
>> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
>>
>> isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
>> can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
>> with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in
>> meantone certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI
>> "major" scale to just those ratios posted above, that makes it more
>> limiting than the 12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift
>> by 81/80 as needed, and still say that it's part of the major
>> scale? In fact, why not let any of the notes drift by 81/80 as
>> needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9 would be suitable for a second scale
>> degree.
>
> Because that requires functionality not normally considered to
> be part of what is called a "scale". What you are describing,
> however, is a periodicity block.
>
> -Carl
>
>

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:01 PM, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> well said mike, but surely some notes shouldn't drift
> by 81/80, that would be a little queasy? like 1/1?
> 3/2?

Imagine a bunch of stacked 6/5 and 5/4 thirds:

D F+ A C+ E G+ B D+

Both the G and the D will be 81/80 sharp of 4/3 and 2/1, respectively,
and the chord sounds great :)

-Mike

Daniel,

Thank you so much for the reply. I have read it several times over the hours
since receiving it.
There is an tremendous amount of good information here. I have printed it
out to ponder. If I learn nothing else on this list - this point of view
towards organization makes it worth it. I have been tending to work in
intervals but not as fluid as your writing describes - this is a path
forwards for me.

If I can sum - the object is the conceptualized organization - and then
execution of that organization in a fashion that translates into the
communication of the composer's intent. Kinda sounds stupid I think but that
is what this is saying to me.

I had not heard Berg's violin concerto before - the tone row is *brilliant*

For those not familiar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_Concerto_(Berg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xtiBEc4RUc

I had remembered mostly Wozzeck and I didn't really care for that. The
Concerto is brilliant though - blindingly brilliant!!

Would you mind if I re-post your letter on a couple forums I frequent for
others to discuss as well?

Chris

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> In jazz those historical modes are used mostly for melody, harmonic
> concept is usually not modal, it's more based on extended tonality,
> chromatics. Jazz harmony sometimes can't be explained only as based
> on classical third structure, there are also quartal chords and
> combination of thirdal and quartal harmony, or even bi-chordal or
> poly-chordal combinations.
>
> It's important to understand another thing essential for music
> composition, which is work with intervals. It's applicable to any
> system, be it pentatonic, diatonic, chromatic, microtonal, modal,
> tonal, atonal, dodecaphonic, serial... And it's responsible for
> creating basic atmosphere of composition, much more than scale
> itself. If scale is subset of tuning, then series used as a melodic
> motif is a subset of scale and is based on work with selected
> intervals inside the scale. Scale is ordered, series can be
> considered unordered, as there are jumps, small, bigger intervals
> between adjacent notes, even repeated notes which all scale itself
> hasn't.
>
> For example inside 7-tone diatonics we can create series which are
> based on small intervals with rare bigger intervalic jumps (typical
> for vocal music), or series with bigger intervals (typical for
> instrumental melodies). Melodies using let's say seconds, thirds and
> fifths will sound differently than motifs using seconds, fourths and
> sevenths. Relations between notes in series can follow relations in
> tonality, but as well we can compose atonal diatonic melody which
> doesn't follow classical rules, and has no central tone, dominant
> etc. In extreme we can have diatonic pointilistic structure with very
> big intervals, yet still diatonic or even tonal (which would be maybe
> difficult to consider as tonal when hearing).
> Opposite we can create 12-tone dodecaphonic series which sound quite
> modal or tonal, even diatonic (do you know Alban Berg's Violin
> Concerto?). Everything depends on interval selection.
>
> Another simple example of extended 12-tone music is to combine
> diatonic on white keys of piano with pentatonic on black keys.
> Together they create 12-tone music, but not so boring like pure
> dodecaphony which sound often too sterile. Here every layer in music
> uses different principle (even more principles are hidden inside,
> thanks to different modes). In the extreme use With the help of a
> clever selected tones from both layers any music can be simulated by
> a clever selection of tones from both layers. In the frame of this
> system we can easily travel from modality to tonality to atonality,
> from pentatonics to chromatics. Motifs can be created as tonal or
> serial. Besides it's possible to jump to folklorism easily, as with
> traditional scales hidden here lot of traditional associations are
> connected.
>
> I personally consider this very important point, and in my
> compositions I extensively work with this attitude. Thus is possible
> to create even such unusual combinations like "diatonized
> chromatics", "chromatized diatonics", "atonal tonality", "tonal
> atonality", "serial modality", "modal seriality" etc. This border
> field offers still a lot.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2009, at 12:11 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> >
> > I am curious, if Jazz considers a scale a collection of unordered
> > pitches, what would define a mode?
> > I can, of course, understand minor / major distinction, but when
> > one shifts for a mode the collection of pitches does not change -
> > only the tonic you wish to emphasize by taking advantage of melodic
> > interval relationships.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm a little confused, and perhaps I don't understand jazz
> > well at all.
> >
> > Another point is - what makes the unordered collection of scale
> > pitches different from say the more liberal interpretations of 12-
> > tone serialist music? (besides having a much nicer pitch set).
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I thought a periodicity block was there to describe patterns
> that form in a JI lattice when various intervals are tempered to
> unison.

Periodicity blocks are untempered. In epimorphic periodicity
blocks (I think the requirement would be), note classes are
established by ignoring the comma(s) of the block. That's
what you're after here with 81/80.

> I guess I wasn't getting at incorporating that into the definition
> of a scale as much as into the definition of a mode, or of
> modality or of tonality or something like that.

If superintelligent aliens came down and gave us the perfect
set of definitions for terms like scale, mode etc., which
somehow managed to jive with the all the different meanings
given them by every author in history, all while providing a
logical framework for their use in microtonal music, how
useful would that be?

Probably not terribly useful. And none of us are
superintelligent aliens. So why don't we spend our time
debating more fruitful problems, and just use (or at least
be aware of) the definitions I presented, which have already
been subject to waaay too much debate here.

I'm a big fan of making words our servants (not our masters).
If there's confusion in a particular thread, I trust the
participants in the thread have the ability to flesh it out
in an appropriate way.

-Carl

IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third, respectively?

On 17 Feb 2009, at 22:35, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> >> Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not,
> >> what I was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an
> >> ordered collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality"
> >> need not be, assuming octave equivalence.
> >
> > It depends how you define these things. But both scales and
> > modes basically have to be ordered.
>
> >Maybe I don't understand what ordering means in this sense.
>
> <some more cut>
> isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
> can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
> with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in meantone
> certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI "major" scale to
> just those ratios posted above, that makes it more limiting than the
> 12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift by 81/80 as needed,
> and still say that it's part of the major scale? In fact, why not let
> any of the notes drift by 81/80 as needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9
> would be suitable for a second scale degree.
>
> Tom basically just demonstrated this in his GSTQ harpsichord demo,
> where one of the notes in the melody is comma-shifted sharp in a lower
> voice in an adjacent chord, but you hardly notice since it's in a
> different voice. I would certainly not say that that technique means
> that the piece is no longer in major or that it doesn't use the major
> scale.
>
> >I think a reasonable definition for a 5-limit extension of a meantone
> >major scale is something like {1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 |
> >81/80}, where 81/80 is the comma that any of the intervals can drift
> >by as needed.
>
> >Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
>
>
>

lucy@...

- 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

Chris,

I'm glad it had some sense for you, thanks for feedback. You are welcome. Please use my message as you like, here down I just repaired small mistakes, so use this version.

In my opinion Berg was the most interesting personality in "2nd Vienna School" despite the fact Schoenberg is the best known and Webern the most influential on the next avantguarde generation of serialists. You mentioned Wozzeck - every scene in opera is composed as a different music form.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 8:33 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> Thank you so much for the reply. I have read it several times over > the hours since receiving it.
> There is an tremendous amount of good information here. I have > printed it out to ponder. If I learn nothing else on this list - > this point of view towards organization makes it worth it. I have > been tending to work in intervals but not as fluid as your writing > describes - this is a path forwards for me.
>
> If I can sum - the object is the conceptualized organization - and > then execution of that organization in a fashion that translates > into the communication of the composer's intent. Kinda sounds > stupid I think but that is what this is saying to me.
>
> I had not heard Berg's violin concerto before - the tone row is > *brilliant*
>
> For those not familiar
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_Concerto_(Berg)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xtiBEc4RUc
>
> I had remembered mostly Wozzeck and I didn't really care for that. > The Concerto is brilliant though - blindingly brilliant!!
>
> Would you mind if I re-post your letter on a couple forums I > frequent for others to discuss as well?
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> > wrote:
> In jazz those historical modes are used mostly for melody, harmonic
> concept is usually not modal, it's more based on extended tonality,
> chromatics. Jazz harmony sometimes can't be explained only as based
> on classical thirdal structure, there are also quartal chords and
> combination of thirdal and quartal harmony, or even bi-chordal or
> poly-chordal combinations.
>
> It's important to understand another thing essential for music
> composition, which is work with intervals. It's applicable to any
> system, be it pentatonic, diatonic, chromatic, microtonal, modal,
> tonal, atonal, dodecaphonic, serial... And it's responsible for
> creating basic atmosphere of composition, much more than scale
> itself. If scale is subset of tuning, then series used as a melodic
> motif is a subset of scale and is based on work with selected
> intervals inside the scale. Scale is ordered, series can be
> considered unordered, as there are jumps, smaller or bigger intervals
> between adjacent notes, even repeated notes - which all scale itself
> hasn't. Scale is abstract theoretical term (but of course used in > passages in some music styles - Classicism, Romantism...), series > made from scale notes represent music itself.
>
>
> For example inside 7-tone diatonics we can create series which are
> based on small intervals with rare bigger intervallic jumps (typical
> for vocal music), or series with bigger intervals (typical for
> instrumental melodies). Melodies using let's say seconds, thirds and
> fifths will sound differently than motifs using seconds, fourths and
> sevenths. Relations between notes in series can follow relations in
> tonality, but as well we can compose atonal diatonic melody which
> doesn't follow classical rules, and has no central tone, dominant
> etc. In extreme we can have diatonic pointilistic structure with very
> big intervals, yet still diatonic or even tonal (which would be maybe
> difficult to consider as tonal when hearing).
> On the other side we can create 12-tone dodecaphonic series which > sound quite
> modal or tonal, even diatonic (do you know Alban Berg's Violin
> Concerto?). Everything depends on interval selection.
>
> Another simple example of extended 12-tone music is to combine
> diatonics on white keys of piano with pentatonics on black keys.
> Together they create 12-tone music, but not so boring like pure
> dodecaphony which sound often too sterile. Here every layer in music
> uses different principle (even more principles are hidden inside,
> thanks to different modes). In the extreme use any music can be > simulated by
> a clever selection of tones from both layers. In the frame of this
> system we can easily travel from modality to tonality to atonality,
> from pentatonics to chromatics. Motifs can be created as modal, > tonal or
> serial. Besides it's possible to jump to folklorism easily, as with
> traditional scales hidden here lot of traditional associations are
> connected.
>
> I personally consider this very important point, and in my
> compositions I extensively work with this attitude. Thus is possible
> to create even such unusual combinations like "diatonized
> chromatics", "chromatized diatonics", "atonal tonality", "tonal
> atonality", "serial modality", "modal seriality" etc. This border
> field offers still a lot.
>
> Daniel Forro

---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third, respectively?

    I guess this is where I differ from most people.
   What you've said counts to me as the historically correct definition of "minor".

   But I don't like that definition; it seems far too narrow minded and doesn't answer my questions "why do minor scales FEEL different, on an emotional level?" and "how can that apply not just to minor but a formula that can help catagorize any series of frequencies as having a major or minor feel"?

**********************************************

However I like to think of it as "a way organize intervals which, despite having the same mathematical consonance of a major scale and consisting of the exact same notes (but starting with a different tonic)...sounds much more sad/intense sounding".

   I think it all comes down to how the mind processes the ordering of intervals and likes intervals to show a general pattern of moving from larger to smaller as it moves up in frequency starting from the tonic.

  This makes obvious logical sense to me...because the critical band is more closely spaced relative to the each "exponential" octave as you move from about 200 to 18000hz.  It also explains why noisy instruments, like cymbals, often sound better at higher frequencies and more noisy at lower ones.

-Michael

--- On Tue, 2/17/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
Subject: [tuning] What makes a scale Major or minor????? - muddled concepts?
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 4:34 PM

IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third, respectively?

On 17 Feb 2009, at 22:35, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>> Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not,
>> what I was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an
>> ordered collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality"
>> need not be, assuming octave equivalence.
>
> It depends how you define these things. But both scales and
> modes basically have to be ordered.

>Maybe I don't understand what ordering means in this sense.

<some more cut>
isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in meantone
certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI "major" scale to
just those ratios posted above, that makes it more limiting than the
12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift by 81/80 as needed,
and still say that it's part of the major scale? In fact, why not let
any of the notes drift by 81/80 as needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9
would be suitable for a second scale degree.

Tom basically just demonstrated this in his GSTQ harpsichord demo,
where one of the notes in the melody is comma-shifted sharp in a lower
voice in an adjacent chord, but you hardly notice since it's in a
different voice. I would certainly not say that that technique means
that the piece is no longer in major or that it doesn't use the major
scale.

>I think a reasonable definition for a 5-limit extension of a meantone
>major scale is something like {1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 |
>81/80}, where 81/80 is the comma that any of the intervals can drift
>by as needed.

>Is there a flaw in my reasoning?

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.lullabie s.co.uk

Charles, then account for other modes with that definition.

Its using (almost) the full scale otherwise it is ambiguous - that's my stab
at it.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

>
> IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third, respectively?
>
> On 17 Feb 2009, at 22:35, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not,
> >> what I was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an
> >> ordered collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality"
> >> need not be, assuming octave equivalence.
> >
> > It depends how you define these things. But both scales and
> > modes basically have to be ordered.
>
> >Maybe I don't understand what ordering means in this sense.
>
> <some more cut>
> isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
> can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
> with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in meantone
> certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI "major" scale to
> just those ratios posted above, that makes it more limiting than the
> 12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift by 81/80 as needed,
> and still say that it's part of the major scale? In fact, why not let
> any of the notes drift by 81/80 as needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9
> would be suitable for a second scale degree.
>
> Tom basically just demonstrated this in his GSTQ harpsichord demo,
> where one of the notes in the melody is comma-shifted sharp in a lower
> voice in an adjacent chord, but you hardly notice since it's in a
> different voice. I would certainly not say that that technique means
> that the piece is no longer in major or that it doesn't use the major
> scale.
>
> >I think a reasonable definition for a 5-limit extension of a meantone
> >major scale is something like {1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 |
> >81/80}, where 81/80 is the comma that any of the intervals can drift
> >by as needed.
>
> >Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
>
>
> lucy@...
>
> - 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
>
>
>
>
>

Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.

Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have different conventions.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third, > respectively?
>
> I guess this is where I differ from most people.
> What you've said counts to me as the historically correct > definition of "minor".
>
> But I don't like that definition; it seems far too narrow minded > and doesn't answer my questions "why do minor scales FEEL > different, on an emotional level?" and "how can that apply not just > to minor but a formula that can help catagorize any series of > frequencies as having a major or minor feel"?
>
> **********************************************
>
> However I like to think of it as "a way organize intervals which, > despite having the same mathematical consonance of a major scale > and consisting of the exact same notes (but starting with a > different tonic)...sounds much more sad/int ense sounding".
>
> I think it all comes down to how the mind processes the ordering > of intervals and likes intervals to show a general pattern of > moving from larger to smaller as it moves up in frequency starting > from the tonic.
>
> This makes obvious logical sense to me...because the critical > band is more closely spaced relative to the each "exponential" > octave as you move from about 200 to 18000hz. It also explains why > noisy instruments, like cymbals, often sound better at higher > frequencies and more noisy at lower ones.
>
> -Michael

But won't the final cadence in key and mode ruin the opposing mood?
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Forro <dan.for@tiscali.cz>

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:47:42
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] What makes a scale Major or minor????? - muddled concepts?

Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on
conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily
possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.

Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from
music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or
harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have
different conventions.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,
> respectively?
>
> I guess this is where I differ from most people.
> What you've said counts to me as the historically correct
> definition of "minor".
>
> But I don't like that definition; it seems far too narrow minded
> and doesn't answer my questions "why do minor scales FEEL
> different, on an emotional level?" and "how can that apply not just
> to minor but a formula that can help catagorize any series of
> frequencies as having a major or minor feel"?
>
> **********************************************
>
> However I like to think of it as "a way organize intervals which,
> despite having the same mathematical consonance of a major scale
> and consisting of the exact same notes (but starting with a
> different tonic)...sounds much more sad/int ense sounding".
>
> I think it all comes down to how the mind processes the ordering
> of intervals and likes intervals to show a general pattern of
> moving from larger to smaller as it moves up in frequency starting
> from the tonic.
>
> This makes obvious logical sense to me...because the critical
> band is more closely spaced relative to the each "exponential"
> octave as you move from about 200 to 18000hz. It also explains why
> noisy instruments, like cymbals, often sound better at higher
> frequencies and more noisy at lower ones.
>
> -Michael

I've always disagreed with this. Even though major music can sound
sad, and minor can sound happy, I think that there's more to it than
just social brainwashing through one's whole life.

-Mike

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on
> conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily
> possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.
>
> Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from
> music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or
> harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have
> different conventions.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 18 Feb 2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>
>>
>> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,
>> respectively?
>>
>> I guess this is where I differ from most people.
>> What you've said counts to me as the historically correct
>> definition of "minor".
>>
>> But I don't like that definition; it seems far too narrow minded
>> and doesn't answer my questions "why do minor scales FEEL
>> different, on an emotional level?" and "how can that apply not just
>> to minor but a formula that can help catagorize any series of
>> frequencies as having a major or minor feel"?
>>
>> **********************************************
>>
>> However I like to think of it as "a way organize intervals which,
>> despite having the same mathematical consonance of a major scale
>> and consisting of the exact same notes (but starting with a
>> different tonic)...sounds much more sad/int ense sounding".
>>
>> I think it all comes down to how the mind processes the ordering
>> of intervals and likes intervals to show a general pattern of
>> moving from larger to smaller as it moves up in frequency starting
>> from the tonic.
>>
>> This makes obvious logical sense to me...because the critical
>> band is more closely spaced relative to the each "exponential"
>> octave as you move from about 200 to 18000hz. It also explains why
>> noisy instruments, like cymbals, often sound better at higher
>> frequencies and more noisy at lower ones.
>>
>> -Michael
>
>

I'll paste all the base JI modes below.
Major and minor are different.
Although they often get mixed up.
Below mode 1 is major, mode 2 is minor.
But often for instance mode 1.3 (scale degree 3, from 1 to 7) is seen as
minor, etc.

Base Modes:

mode 1
1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
9/8 : 10/9 32/27 4/3 40/27 5/3 16/9 2/1
5/4 : 16/15 6/5 4/3 3/2 8/5 9/5 2/1
4/3 : 9/8 5/4 45/32 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
3/2 : 10/9 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 16/9 2/1
5/3 : 9/8 6/5 27/20 3/2 8/5 9/5 2/1
15/8: 16/15 6/5 4/3 64/45 8/5 16/9 2/1

mode 2
1/1 9/8 6/5 4/3 3/2 8/5 9/5 2/1
9/8: 16/15 32/27 4/3 64/45 8/5 16/9 2/1
6/5: 10/9 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
4/3: 9/8 6/5 27/20 3/2 27/16 9/5 2/1
3/2: 16/15 6/5 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
8/5: 9/8 5/4 45/32 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
9/5: 10/9 5/4 4/3 40/27 5/3 16/9 2/1

mode 3
1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1
9/8: 10/9 32/27 4/3 40/27 8/5 16/9 2/1
5/4: 16/15 6/5 4/3 36/25 8/5 9/5 2/1
4/3: 9/8 5/4 27/20 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
3/2: 10/9 6/5 4/3 3/2 5/3 16/9 2/1
5/3: 27/25 6/5 27/20 3/2 8/5 9/5 2/1
9/5: 10/9 5/4 25/18 40/27 5/3 50/27 2/1

mode 4
1/1 9/8 6/5 4/3 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1
9/8: 16/15 32/27 4/3 40/27 8/5 16/9 2/1
6/5: 10/9 5/4 25/18 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
4/3: 9/8 5/4 27/20 3/2 27/16 9/5 2/1
3/2: 10/9 6/5 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
5/3: 27/25 6/5 27/20 36/25 8/5 9/5 2/1
9/5: 10/9 5/4 4/3 40/27 5/3 50/27 2/1

mode 5
1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 15/8 2/1
9/8 : 10/9 32/27 4/3 64/45 5/3 16/9 2/1
5/4 : 16/15 6/5 32/25 3/2 8/5 9/5 2/1
4/3 : 9/8 6/5 45/32 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
3/2 : 16/15 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 16/9 2/1
8/5 : 75/64 5/4 45/32 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
15/8: 16/15 6/5 4/3 64/45 8/5 128/75 2/1

mode 6
1/1 9/8 6/5 4/3 3/2 8/5 15/8 2/1
9/8 : 16/15 32/27 4/3 64/45 5/3 16/9 2/1
6/5 : 10/9 5/4 4/3 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
4/3 : 9/8 6/5 45/32 3/2 27/16 9/5 2/1
3/2 : 16/15 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
8/5 : 75/64 5/4 45/32 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
15/8: 16/15 6/5 32/25 64/45 8/5 128/75 2/1

mode 7
1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 9/5 2/1
9/8: 10/9 32/27 4/3 64/45 8/5 16/9 2/1
5/4: 16/15 6/5 32/25 36/25 8/5 9/5 2/1
4/3: 9/8 6/5 27/20 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
3/2: 16/15 6/5 4/3 3/2 5/3 16/9 2/1
8/5: 9/8 5/4 45/32 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
9/5: 10/9 5/4 25/18 40/27 5/3 16/9 2/1

mode 8
1/1 9/8 6/5 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
9/8 : 16/15 32/27 4/3 40/27 5/3 16/9 2/1
6/5 : 10/9 5/4 25/18 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
4/3 : 9/8 5/4 45/32 3/2 27/16 9/5 2/1
3/2 : 10/9 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
5/3 : 9/8 6/5 27/20 36/25 8/5 9/5 2/1
15/8: 16/15 6/5 32/25 64/45 8/5 16/9 2/1

Marcel

--Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on
--conventions and traditional understanding of roles.
  I agree that's one obvious way to make a scale with a "minor key feel"
 
   However compare the very simple harmonic series-based scales
#1    6/6 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 11/6 12/6 (octave)
and
 #2  12/6 11/6 10/6 9/6 8/6 7/6 6/6 (octave)
  --------------------------------------------------------------
  I don't know if there is a historical equivalent that explains why playing all the notes in #1 gives a more "major" vibe while #2 gives a more "minor"/sad vibe...but the pattern which becomes obvious to me mathematically is that #2 is more minor because the intervals become closer as they go up rather than further.
********************************************************
---But it's easily possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.

   True enough...then again a lot of it, far as I can tell, has to do with things like rhythm, speed, the timbre of the actual instruments used, and the most prominent notes in the bass-line. 
   And whether major, minor, diminished chords are more often used with the key(s) the song is played in.  If the composer puts more stress/length/sustain into minor chords within a major scale, surely the overall sound will begin to sound more minor, right?
*****************************************************
---for listeners from music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or
---harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it.
   That makes some sense to me as I am betting certain cultures have trained their minds more toward focusing on (and ignoring) certain types of chords more...thus they may sub-consciously "decide" against looking at major vs. minor intervals (in the same way many of us "Westerners" have trouble listening to Arab music as our minds try to force the quarter-tones in harmony).

-Michael

--- On Tue, 2/17/09, Daniel Forro <dan.for@tiscali.cz> wrote:

From: Daniel Forro <dan.for@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] What makes a scale Major or minor????? - muddled concepts?
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 7:47 PM

Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on

conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily

possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.

Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from

music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or

harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have

different conventions.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>

> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,

> respectively?

>

> I guess this is where I differ from most people.

> What you've said counts to me as the historically correct

> definition of "minor".

>

> But I don't like that definition; it seems far too narrow minded

> and doesn't answer my questions "why do minor scales FEEL

> different, on an emotional level?" and "how can that apply not just

> to minor but a formula that can help catagorize any series of

> frequencies as having a major or minor feel"?

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* *******

>

> However I like to think of it as "a way organize intervals which,

> despite having the same mathematical consonance of a major scale

> and consisting of the exact same notes (but starting with a

> different tonic)...sounds much more sad/int ense sounding".

>

> I think it all comes down to how the mind processes the ordering

> of intervals and likes intervals to show a general pattern of

> moving from larger to smaller as it moves up in frequency starting

> from the tonic.

>

> This makes obvious logical sense to me...because the critical

> band is more closely spaced relative to the each "exponential"

> octave as you move from about 200 to 18000hz. It also explains why

> noisy instruments, like cymbals, often sound better at higher

> frequencies and more noisy at lower ones.

>

> -Michael

Maybe, but how to measure feelings exactly?

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 1:09 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> I've always disagreed with this. Even though major music can sound
> sad, and minor can sound happy, I think that there's more to it than
> just social brainwashing through one's whole life.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> > wrote:
> > Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on
> > conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily
> > possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in > major.
> >
> > Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from
> > music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or
> > harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have
> > different conventions.
> >
> > Daniel Forro

Closing patterns in Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian were more distinguished one from the other, and in fact more rich in emotions.

When process of scale simplification started and Dorian and Phrygian became Aeolian, and Lydian and Mixolydian became Ionian (which was caused only by using of Bb and F#), and modal harmony slowly changed to functional harmony, only major dominant chord was used in authentic cadence in major and minor, and mainly minor subdominant in plagal cadence in major and minor - both are more "near" to tonic, as there's half tone step between dominant third and tonic root, and subdominant third and tonic fifth. Thus tonic centre is more emphasized and closing is better "grounded". Sometimes even minor compositions use major tonic as a final chord, to emphasize ending even more. But in the same time doing this all tonal music lost richness in closings.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:58 PM, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:

> But won't the final cadence in key and mode ruin the opposing mood?

On 18 Feb 2009, at 1:17 PM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

> ********************************************************
> ---But it's easily possible to write merry music in minor tonality > and very sad in major.
>
> True enough...then again a lot of it, far as I can tell, has to > do with things like rhythm, speed, the timbre of the actual > instruments used, and the most prominent notes in the bass-line.
> And whether major, minor, diminished chords are more often used > with the key(s) the song is played in. If the composer puts more > stress/length/sustain into minor chords within a major scale, > surely the overall sound will begin to sound more minor, right?

I think so.

>
> *****************************************************
> ---for listeners from music cultures which don't use major/minor > (be it melodically or
> ---harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it.

>
> That makes some sense to me as I am betting cer tain cultures > have trained their minds more toward focusing on (and ignoring) > certain types of chords more...thus they may sub-consciously > "decide" against looking at major vs. minor intervals (in the same > way many of us "Westerners" have trouble listening to Arab music as > our minds try to force the quarter-tones in harmony).
>
> -Michael

Many cultures don't use chords and harmony at all, only melody and rhythm, and maybe some drone.

Daniel Forro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>    However compare the very simple harmonic series-based scales
> #1    6/6 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 11/6 12/6 (octave)
> and
>  #2  12/6 11/6 10/6 9/6 8/6 7/6 6/6 (octave)
>   --------------------------------------------------------------
>   I don't know if there is a historical equivalent that explains
> why playing all the notes in #1 gives a more "major" vibe while
> #2 gives a more "minor"/sad vibe...but the pattern which becomes
> obvious to me mathematically is that #2 is more minor because the
> intervals become closer as they go up rather than further.

Uh, these two scales are identical. -Carl

Since I've contemplated this question myself for years, I'll offer an
opinion:

With all the Greek/ecclesiastical modes, Arabic and
Turkish-Azeri-Central Asian maqams, Persian dastgahs, Indian
thaats/melas, the scales in guitar books and the crazy modes I've come
up with myself, I've come to treat "major" and "minor" as proper nouns -
names of several specific scales of Western common-practice music. And
minor has natural, harmonic and melodic variants, of course.

I did attempt to come up with a concept of "majorness" and "minorness".
Take a mode, and starting with a base score of zero, add one for each
major and augmented interval, subtract one for minor and diminshed, no
change for perfect and neutral.

As far as mood goes, I'm pretty much with everyone that agrees that it's
up to one's cultural and individual interpretation. Tempo, rhythm,
timbre of instruments, dynamics and many other things can set the mood
of a piece as much as its scales and chords. The only way pitch
influences mood is probably in higher pitches being "happier" than lower
ones, or in consonance and dissonance. And mood isn't a purely dualistic
thing: you also have pride, fear, anger, apathy...

Partch, on p. 155 of "Genesis", has a "one-footed bride", a diagram of
43 ratios within an octave and how they may set moods and other
aesthetics in music. The ratios related to emotion are those between 7/6
and 21/16, and also their octave complements (32/21 and 12/7) - the
thirds and sixths vaguely. He calls ratios from 81/80 and 8/7 and 7/4 to
160/81 "approach", 27/40 to 40/27 "suspense" and 1/1, 4/3, 3/2 and 2/1
"power".

So maybe majorness and minorness are determined by the third and sixth
of a scale. But Dorian mode (1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7 8) and maqam Hijaz Kar (1
b2 3 4 5 b6 7 8), for example, give me quite different feelings, despite
having the same score in my system I tried to come up with.

~D.

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 18:32 -0800, Michael Sheiman wrote:
> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,
> respectively?
>
> I guess this is where I differ from most people.
> What you've said counts to me as the historically correct
> definition of "minor".
>
> But I don't like that definition; it seems far too narrow minded
> and doesn't answer my questions "why do minor scales FEEL different,
> on an emotional level?" and "how can that apply not just to minor but
> a formula that can help catagorize any series of frequencies as having
> a major or minor feel"?
>

That was a VERY GOOD AND CONCISE explanation Daniel!!

Claudio

http://harps.braybaroque.ie/

DANIEL FORRO wrote:
Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on
conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily
possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.

Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from
music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or
harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have
different conventions.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Sheiman wrote:

>
> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,
> respectively?
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
Charles's perception:
> ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,
respectively?
>
Michael's view:
> I guess this is where I differ from most people.
> What you've said counts to me as the historically correct
definition of "minor".
>
> But I don't like that definition;
> it seems far too narrow minded...
> **********************************************

In order to broaden your's "mind" into general misbeliefes,
just study the English wiki-entry of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale

--that pretends to know exactly about M's usage--
"...notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic
composition,..."---

against its corresponding German counterpart:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moll_(Musik)

"...starting from 'major' 4:5:6 triad
the corresponding deductive method
when considering the harmonic series 10:12:15 triad,
There is no coherent valid reasoning for the more difficult 'minor'
problematics in many aspects..."

Some drawbacks:

The triad 10:12:15 is interrupted
by intermediate partials (11th, 13th, 14th)
lacking in the 'minor'-triad.
That results in some more complex oscillation ratios
than the more simple 4:5:6 without the gaps.

Lack of an unique common fundamental,
due to mismatch of the fundamental=C
against the E-minor E-G-B chord.

Hugo Riemann
reassembled that artificially in his theory
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktionstheorie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function
by superimposing

C-major (8:10:15) and G-major (12:15:18)

using
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitonalit%C3%A4t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimodality

But that construction was critizised as an 'dissonant-sound' by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Hauptmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_von_Oettingen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigfrid_Karg-Elert

Paul Hindemith tryed to escape from that insustainable view
by explaining 'minor' as an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alteration
of an chroma (25/24) downwards:

4 : 4.8 : 6 == 4 : 4+(4/5) : 6 == 4 : 5*(24/25) : 6

not to mention the 'esotheric' misconstruction
by the none-existent reciprocal mathematical-construct
of the so called "under-tone"-series: 1/(4:5:6),
indded nicely labeled as 'Dualism',
but physically inexistent, because absent in the spectre.

Later
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otakar_Hostinsk%C3%BD
http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otakar_Hostinsk%C3%BD
proposed for the 'minor' triad: 6:7:9
beaten by the even worser 11-limit miscarriage: 9:11:13½ = 18:22:27
Soundfile:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Neutrales_d%2C_dissonantes_h-moll.ogg

Summary conclusion about all that wild, but obsol 'speculations':
"...Das „Mollproblem" bleibt damit zwar eines der ungelösten Schismen
der Musiktheorie,..."
'...Hence the "minor"-problem remains an unsolved schism in
music-theory,...'

IMHO: Where doubts continue to exist further on.

bye
A.S.

I forgot about the picardy third. Let me try to work this out. Good point that pitch alone does not define the "mood". Rhythm, register, pitch set in a particular scale contribute.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Forro <dan.for@tiscali.cz>

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:35:54
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] What makes a scale Major or minor????? - muddled concepts?

Closing patterns in Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian and Mixolydian were more
distinguished one from the other, and in fact more rich in emotions.

When process of scale simplification started and Dorian and Phrygian
became Aeolian, and Lydian and Mixolydian became Ionian (which was
caused only by using of Bb and F#), and modal harmony slowly changed
to functional harmony, only major dominant chord was used in
authentic cadence in major and minor, and mainly minor subdominant in
plagal cadence in major and minor - both are more "near" to tonic, as
there's half tone step between dominant third and tonic root, and
subdominant third and tonic fifth. Thus tonic centre is more
emphasized and closing is better "grounded". Sometimes even minor
compositions use major tonic as a final chord, to emphasize ending
even more. But in the same time doing this all tonal music lost
richness in closings.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:58 PM, chrisvaisvil@gmail.com wrote:

> But won't the final cadence in key and mode ruin the opposing mood?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> I forgot about the picardy third.
I also forgot to mention that in:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moll_(Musik)#Das_.E2.80.9EMollproblem.E2.80.9C

"Allerdings mag das Nebeneinander der drei verschiedenen
Moll-Tonleitern und die künstlich erhöhte Picardische Terz am Ende
eines Musikstücks in der weniger stark ausgeprägten
Grundton-Empfindung der Moll-Harmonik seinen Ursprung haben."

tr:
'But the side by side coexistence of 3 different 'minor'-scales
and the arificially arised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picardy_third

at the end of an composition
results maybe from an an less distinct clear
perception of the fundamental tonic root-keynote.'

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picardische_Terz

A.S.

A.S.

Very interesting, it seems that we have stumbled upon "'nother can o'
worms".
How about the scale contains an interval of Large + small in meantonereasoning i.e. (L+s)
i.e. a flat third anywhere in its as/descending sequence ??

On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:10, Andreas Sparschuh wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>
> wrote:
> >
> Charles's perception:
> > ---IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third,
> respectively?
> >
> Michael's view:
> > I guess this is where I differ from most people.
> > What you've said counts to me as the historically correct
> definition of "minor".
> >
> > But I don't like that definition;
> > it seems far too narrow minded...
> > **********************************************
>
> In order to broaden your's "mind" into general misbeliefes,
> just study the English wiki-entry of
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
>
> --that pretends to know exactly about M's usage--
> "...notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic
> composition,..."---
>
> against its corresponding German counterpart:
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moll_(Musik)
>
> "...starting from 'major' 4:5:6 triad
> the corresponding deductive method
> when considering the harmonic series 10:12:15 triad,
> There is no coherent valid reasoning for the more difficult 'minor'
> problematics in many aspects..."
>
> Some drawbacks:
>
> The triad 10:12:15 is interrupted
> by intermediate partials (11th, 13th, 14th)
> lacking in the 'minor'-triad.
> That results in some more complex oscillation ratios
> than the more simple 4:5:6 without the gaps.
>
> Lack of an unique common fundamental,
> due to mismatch of the fundamental=C
> against the E-minor E-G-B chord.
>
> Hugo Riemann
> reassembled that artificially in his theory
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funktionstheorie
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_function
> by superimposing
>
> C-major (8:10:15) and G-major (12:15:18)
>
> using
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitonalit%C3%A4t
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytonality
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimodality
>
> But that construction was critizised as an 'dissonant-sound' by
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Hauptmann
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_von_Oettingen
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigfrid_Karg-Elert
>
> Paul Hindemith tryed to escape from that insustainable view
> by explaining 'minor' as an
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alteration
> of an chroma (25/24) downwards:
>
> 4 : 4.8 : 6 == 4 : 4+(4/5) : 6 == 4 : 5*(24/25) : 6
>
> not to mention the 'esotheric' misconstruction
> by the none-existent reciprocal mathematical-construct
> of the so called "under-tone"-series: 1/(4:5:6),
> indded nicely labeled as 'Dualism',
> but physically inexistent, because absent in the spectre.
>
> Later
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otakar_Hostinsk%C3%BD
> http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otakar_Hostinsk%C3%BD
> proposed for the 'minor' triad: 6:7:9
> beaten by the even worser 11-limit miscarriage: 9:11:13½ = 18:22:27
> Soundfile:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Neutrales_d%2C_dissonantes_h-moll.ogg
>
> Summary conclusion about all that wild, but obsol 'speculations':
> "...Das „Mollproblem" bleibt damit zwar eines der ungelösten Schismen
> der Musiktheorie,..."
> '...Hence the "minor"-problem remains an unsolved schism in
> music-theory,...'
>
> IMHO: Where doubts continue to exist further on.
>
> bye
> A.S.
>
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...m

- 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

On 18 Feb 2009, at 7:16 PM, Danny Wier wrote:

> And
> minor has natural, harmonic and melodic variants, of course.
>

Also harmonic and melodic major exists.

> I did attempt to come up with a concept of "majorness" and > "minorness".
> Take a mode, and starting with a base score of zero, add one for each
> major and augmented interval, subtract one for minor and diminshed, no
> change for perfect and neutral.
>

So do you count intervals always in relation to root note?

>
> So maybe majorness and minorness are determined by the third and sixth
> of a scale. But Dorian mode (1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7 8) and maqam Hijaz Kar (1
> b2 3 4 5 b6 7 8), for example, give me quite different feelings, > despite
> having the same score in my system I tried to come up with.
>
> ~D.
>

Of course, as not only interval relations of every step to root note are important, but much bigger impact on total scale atmosphere have intervals between adjacent steps.

Dorian has 2122212 (2x1, 4x2), Hijjaz 1312131 (4x1, 1x2, 2x3), that means totally different internal structure.

And the last important thing responsible for total atmosphere is which scale subsets or intervals inside the scale are selected by composer for melodic motifs or chords.

Examples for subsets:
I can emphasize in Dorian hidden pentatonics subsets to get non-Dorian atmosphere, for example D-F-G-A-C, D-E-G-A-C, E-G-A-B-D, F-G-A-C-D, G-A-B-D-E, A-C-D-E-G, C-D-E-G-A or Japanese hirajoshi pentatonics E-F-A-B-C, A-B-C-E-F. Or just change root note for melody and use Lydian on F (or other modes), and keep Dorian harmonic progressions in accompaniment.

In Hijjaz I see latent Japanese hirajoshi D-Eb-G-A-Bb, or G-A-Bb-D-Eb, or Moravian/Okinawan/Indonesian pentatonics D-F#-G-A-C#. Or there's a short Lydian element Eb-G-A-Bb, and part of minor African pentatonics Eb-Gb-Bb-Db, and part of major pentatonic F#-A#-C#-D#.

Examples for intervallic work:
Composer can emphasize for example thirds in Dorian, and create melodies based on this interval. Or fourths. It will be always Dorian, but with different atmosphere. Combinations of two or three intervals are of course possible.

In Hijjaz we can work with that Indian/Arabian/Middle East/Turkey/Balcan/Spain augmented second, which is the most typical feature of this scale, or intentionally avoid it and use for example melodies based on thirds, like D-F#, Eb-G, F#-A#, A-C#, Bb-D, or Eb-Gb, F#-A, G-Bb, Bb-Db. Or emphasize tritones Eb-A, G-C#. Or chords based on whole tone scale - Eb-G-A-C#, D-F#-Bb. Or to make it jazzy with 9+ chord Eb-G-Bb-Db-F# or F#-A#-C#-Gx, or 13/11+/9- chord A-C#-G-Bb-D#-F#.

I work extensively with such tricks in my compositions and improvisations, be it in more traditional modes, or in artificially created ones (last years I prefer symmetric modes). It's interesting way of shaping of modal or serial music material, alienation effect (Verfremdungseffekt in German) in certain sense, always surprising. From the view of composition technique it's quite pure, and minimalistic method, as we try to find as many hidden features in the same scale as possible, and use them in composition. Without necessity to transpose, modulate, or use different scale.

Daniel Forro

Eh, you're right, I went for a short hand without double-checking and the scales were misstated, It should be
 
> #1  6/6 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 11/6 12/6 (octave)
> and
>  #2  6/6 *12/11 * 11/10 * 10/9 * 9/8 * 8/7 * 7/6 =
          6/6  12/11   12/10   12/9  12/8  12/7   12/6 (octave)
 
The idea is that the order of the interval gaps are reversed.
         
     
 
 (octave)

--- On Tue, 2/17/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: What makes a scale Major or minor????? - muddled concepts?
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 10:48 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
>    However compare the very simple harmonic series-based scales
> #1    6/6 7/6 8/6 9/6 10/6 11/6 12/6 (octave)
> and
>  #2  12/6 11/6 10/6 9/6 8/6 7/6 6/6 (octave)
>   ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
>   I don't know if there is a historical equivalent that explains
> why playing all the notes in #1 gives a more "major" vibe while
> #2 gives a more "minor"/sad vibe...but the pattern which becomes
> obvious to me mathematically is that #2 is more minor because the
> intervals become closer as they go up rather than further.

Uh, these two scales are identical. -Carl

On 19 Feb 2009, at 12:28 AM, Daniel Forro wrote:

Sorry for mistake, should be:
> Dorian has 2122212 (2x1, 5x2),
>
Daniel Forro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> .... It's interesting
> way of shaping of modal or serial music material, alienation effect
> (Verfremdungseffekt in German) in certain sense, always surprising.

overtaken from:
http://www.soa.uncc.edu/ddc/content/view/29/63/
"... investigation has focused on two issues; interactivity and the
position of the computer in the narrative. Interactivity has always
been one of the characteristics of the theatre performance; computers
offer a way to extend the reach and character of this interactivity,
and the potential to destabilize and expand the theatre setting.
Computers can force the audience to be aware that it watching a play,
and create critical distance from the action; Bertholt Brecht
describes this as 'Verfemdungseffekt', or "estrangement effect"...

When following B.Brecht's definition,
then 5/4, 6/5 or even the 'blue-3rds 7/6 & 8/7
represent the narrative-position of computed ratios
for expressing 'major' or 'minor'?

bye
A.S.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
>
> IMHO simple rule = Use of a natural or a flattened third, respectively?
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2009, at 22:35, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Either way, whether you call it a seventh or an eighth or not,
> > >> what I was getting at is that in jazz theory, a "scale" is an
> > >> ordered collection, but a "mode" or a "key" or a "tonality"
> > >> need not be, assuming octave equivalence.
> > >
> > > It depends how you define these things. But both scales and
> > > modes basically have to be ordered.
> >
> > >Maybe I don't understand what ordering means in this sense.
> >
> > <some more cut>
> > isn't quite the whole truth, since those aren't the only ratios that
> > can be implied by the meantone major scale. The ii chord is unusable
> > with the ratios posted above, but what we'd call "major" in meantone
> > certainly incorporates a ii chord. If we limit the JI "major" scale to
> > just those ratios posted above, that makes it more limiting than the
> > 12-et major scale. So why not let that 5/3 drift by 81/80 as needed,
> > and still say that it's part of the major scale? In fact, why not let
> > any of the notes drift by 81/80 as needed? Perhaps sometimes 10/9
> > would be suitable for a second scale degree.
> >
> > Tom basically just demonstrated this in his GSTQ harpsichord demo,
> > where one of the notes in the melody is comma-shifted sharp in a lower
> > voice in an adjacent chord, but you hardly notice since it's in a
> > different voice. I would certainly not say that that technique means
> > that the piece is no longer in major or that it doesn't use the major
> > scale.
> >
> > >I think a reasonable definition for a 5-limit extension of a meantone
> > >major scale is something like {1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 |
> > >81/80}, where 81/80 is the comma that any of the intervals can drift
> > >by as needed.
> >
> > >Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
> >
> >
> >
>
> lucy@...
>
> - 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
>
Hi Charles,

How's London? I don't know if you remember but my very first question
in this tuning group was something like this: if 5:6 is minor, then
why is the "5" the tonic when tonality requires 1,2,4,8,...in general
2 to the power of N (= 1,2,3,...)? My theoretical solution was that if
we wish to represent our tempered minor as a ratio then 16:19 was a
far better option. Tempered = 2 power of 1/4 = 1.1892..., 6/5 = 1.2,
but 19/16 = 1.1875. The respective differences b/w tempered and
rational is -0.01079...and 0.001707...which shows that 19/16 is much
closer. I also asked everyone to check it aurally and everybody agreed
it was closer. Note also that 16:19 is 2 power N: prime, just like
major third 4:5 and fifth 2:3.

-Rick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@> wrote:
>
> > .... It's interesting
> > way of shaping of modal or serial music material, alienation effect
> > (Verfremdungseffekt in German) in certain sense, always surprising.
>
> overtaken from:
> http://www.soa.uncc.edu/ddc/content/view/29/63/
> "... investigation has focused on two issues; interactivity and the
> position of the computer in the narrative. Interactivity has always
> been one of the characteristics of the theatre performance; computers
> offer a way to extend the reach and character of this interactivity,
> and the potential to destabilize and expand the theatre setting.
> Computers can force the audience to be aware that it watching a play,
> and create critical distance from the action; Bertholt Brecht
> describes this as 'Verfemdungseffekt', or "estrangement effect"...
>
>
> When following B.Brecht's definition,
> then 5/4, 6/5 or even the 'blue-3rds 7/6 & 8/7
> represent the narrative-position of computed ratios
> for expressing 'major' or 'minor'?
>
> bye
> A.S.
>
But Brecht didn't write the music. It was Kurt Weill who was a Jazz
musician. The blue notes are just playing minor 3, flat 5 and flat
(dominant) 7 over a major chord. Of course there are in theory an
infinite amount of intervals b/w the maj and min 3 etc...But it is
hardly 'Verfemdungseffekt', which sounds like typical poetic flourish
to me. And what do computers have to do with Brecht?

-Rick

Hi Rick;

I don't understand the significance of this in relation to current discussion.
(But then it is late and I've had a busy day;-)

On 18 Feb 2009, at 22:23, rick_ballan wrote:
>
>
> >Hi Charles,
>
> >How's London? Warmer and busy today;-)
>

> >I don't know if you remember but my very first question
> >in this tuning group was something like this: if 5:6 is minor, then
> >why is the "5" the tonic when tonality requires 1,2,4,8,...in general
> >2 to the power of N (= 1,2,3,...)? My theoretical solution was that > if
>
>

> >we wish to represent our tempered minor as a ratio then 16:19 was a
>
>
> >far better option. Tempered = 2 power of 1/4 = 1.1892..., 6/5 = 1.2,
> >but 19/16 = 1.1875. The respective differences b/w tempered and
> >rational is -0.01079...and 0.001707...which shows that 19/16 is much
> >closer. I also asked everyone to check it aurally and everybody > agreed
> >it was closer. Note also that 16:19 is 2 power N: prime, just like
> >major third 4:5 and fifth 2:3.
>
> -Rick
>
>
>

>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- 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

No idea, I'm not theatre scientist :-) I can't judge from this short excerption why and how computers could help to alienating effect on the stage.

I didn't use that term in Brecht's sense. But talking about theatre, maybe I can compare different features hidden in the scale or mode to different personages on the stage. Every of them is characterized by different subset or by selection of intervals inside the mode. In this sense it is more near to Wagner's characteristic motifs.

My target was to find in common material (=scale) some uncommon features, as much as possible. To reveal as much as possible hidden features and use them in the composition for contrast, in the frame of one scale only. To change atmosphere so much that it looks like a new scale even when it's the same one.

Daniel Forro

On 19 Feb 2009, at 1:06 AM, Andreas Sparschuh wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> > .... It's interesting
> > way of shaping of modal or serial music material, alienation effect
> > (Verfremdungseffekt in German) in certain sense, always surprising.
>
> overtaken from:
> http://www.soa.uncc.edu/ddc/content/view/29/63/
> "... investigation has focused on two issues; interactivity and the
> position of the computer in the narrative. Interactivity has always
> been one of the characteristics of the theatre performance; computers
> offer a way to extend the reach and character of this interactivity,
> and the potential to destabilize and expand the theatre setting.
> Computers can force the audience to be aware that it watching a play,
> and create critical distance from the action; Bertholt Brecht
> describes this as 'Verfemdungseffekt', or "estrangement effect"...
>
> When following B.Brecht's definition,
> then 5/4, 6/5 or even the 'blue-3rds 7/6 & 8/7
> represent the narrative-position of computed ratios
> for expressing 'major' or 'minor'?
>
> bye
> A.S.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rick_ballan" <rick_ballan@...>
wrote/asked:

>... what do computers have to do with Brecht?
very probably nothing to do squat,
ecxept the index about him;
http://www.bci2000.de/brecht003.htm
not to mention BB's commercially doubleganger
http://www.berthold-brecht.de/3.html

bye
A.B.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> maybe I can compare different features hidden in the scale or mode
> to different personages on the stage.
> Every of them is characterized by
> different subset or by selection of intervals inside the mode. In
> this sense it is more near to Wagner's characteristic motifs....
>
Musicological term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitmotif
"It is Richard Wagner, however, who is the composer most often
associated with leitmotifs....
Since Wagner, the use of leitmotifs has been taken up by many other
composers...."

Overtaken from the foreign-language word
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitmotiv

alike vice-versa in the other direction
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Gag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_gag

bye
A.S.

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 00:28 +0900, Daniel Forro wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2009, at 7:16 PM, Danny Wier wrote:
>
> > I did attempt to come up with a concept of "majorness" and
> > "minorness".
> > Take a mode, and starting with a base score of zero, add one for each
> > major and augmented interval, subtract one for minor and diminshed, no
> > change for perfect and neutral.
>
> So do you count intervals always in relation to root note?

I did, though it would be better to also consider intervals in relation
to the dominant(s). And as we both explain below, the system wouldn't
work, since though Dorian and Hijaz Kar both have two each major and
minor intervals in relation to the root/finalis, their feel is very
different.

I forgot to mention that I also considered using Partch's idea of
otonality being related to major and utonality to minor. That would make
the subminor triad 6:7:9 a type of extended major, more like a
root-augmented second-fifth.

It still begs the question: are the Hijaz-type modes "major", "minor",
both or neither?

> > So maybe majorness and minorness are determined by the third and sixth
> > of a scale. But Dorian mode (1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7 8) and maqam Hijaz Kar (1
> > b2 3 4 5 b6 7 8), for example, give me quite different feelings,
> > despite
> > having the same score in my system I tried to come up with.
>
> Of course, as not only interval relations of every step to root note
> are important, but much bigger impact on total scale atmosphere have
> intervals between adjacent steps.
>
> Dorian has 2122212 (2x1, 4x2), Hijjaz 1312131 (4x1, 1x2, 2x3), that
> means totally different internal structure.
>
> And the last important thing responsible for total atmosphere is
> which scale subsets or intervals inside the scale are selected by
> composer for melodic motifs or chords.

The augmented second adds an emotion not found in the "church modes",
including natural minor, but found in harmonic minor. It seems to evoke
a feeling of sadness, but a different kind than straight minor. I sense
more uncertainty and apprehension, while a natural minor conveys an
attitude of disappointment, but acceptance and peace. To me, at least.

I need to write something on how all the intervals could be interpreted
emotionally (I use 31 pitch classes per octave). Everything being
subjective and relative, of course.

> Examples for subsets:
> I can emphasize in Dorian hidden pentatonics subsets to get non-
> Dorian atmosphere, for example D-F-G-A-C, D-E-G-A-C, E-G-A-B-D, F-G-A-
> C-D, G-A-B-D-E, A-C-D-E-G, C-D-E-G-A or Japanese hirajoshi
> pentatonics E-F-A-B-C, A-B-C-E-F. Or just change root note for melody
> and use Lydian on F (or other modes), and keep Dorian harmonic
> progressions in accompaniment.

...

> I work extensively with such tricks in my compositions and
> improvisations, be it in more traditional modes, or in artificially
> created ones (last years I prefer symmetric modes). It's interesting
> way of shaping of modal or serial music material, alienation effect
> (Verfremdungseffekt in German) in certain sense, always surprising.
> From the view of composition technique it's quite pure, and
> minimalistic method, as we try to find as many hidden features in the
> same scale as possible, and use them in composition. Without
> necessity to transpose, modulate, or use different scale.

I'm interested in your work then, especially since I've been borrowing
so much from "Eastern" music theory and theories as well as
experimenting with things generally. Except I'm much more of a
postmodern eclecticist than a serialist or a minimalist (I have had an
off-and-on interest in both genres though).

This is a whole other topic, but I'm finding myself referring to
whatever scales I use as "maqams" rather than "modes" or "scales", since
to me, a melody is much more than a set of pitches in order--it includes
a hierarchy of tonics, dominants and subsets, like the pentatonic scale
within a heptatonic scale, and a heptatonic scale within a dodecatonic
scale and so on.

~D.

On 20 Feb 2009, at 10:49 PM, Danny Wier wrote:
> I did, though it would be better to also consider intervals in
> relation
> to the dominant(s). And as we both explain below, the system wouldn't
> work, since though Dorian and Hijaz Kar both have two each major and
> minor intervals in relation to the root/finalis, their feel is very
> different.
>
Difficult to say what's more important. For me intervals between
neighboring notes, because this way you count also musical context,
how music is developed in time. Note only abstractly when we see all
notes written on paper and can them analyse together on one sight,
but how music works in real time, that means sequentially note by
note (now I'm talking only about one voice melody).
> It still begs the question: are the Hijaz-type modes "major", "minor",
> both or neither?
>
Doesn't it depend on third? Then it's easy to say.
> The augmented second adds an emotion not found in the "church modes",
> including natural minor, but found in harmonic minor. It seems to
> evoke
> a feeling of sadness, but a different kind than straight minor. I
> sense
> more uncertainty and apprehension, while a natural minor conveys an
> attitude of disappointment, but acceptance and peace. To me, at least.
>
Yes, it's a lament type of sadness, and tension. And it's also
interesting where we can meet such scales: from Spanish flamenco
(probably Arabian or Jewish influence) thru other music of European
Gipsies (such intonations can be heard in Hungary and Romania), then
everywhere in Jewish culture (including yiddish and sephardic
diaspora), but also in islamic culture (Turkey and countries which
were under Otoman rule - that means Albania, former Yugoslavia,
Balcan, Greece...), Middle East, Arabic countries, then along Silk
Road to China, and also in Indian ragas. Probably this type started
in India (that's the reason why we can hear it in Gipsy music)?
> I need to write something on how all the intervals could be
> interpreted
> emotionally (I use 31 pitch classes per octave). Everything being
> subjective and relative, of course.
>
This is questionable. I don't think melodic interval itself has some
emotional impact. I would say intervals start to work like this in
relation, comparison, context with the others. Then we can feel: here
are small steps, here big and so on... Small intervals create
tension, bigger give us feeling of space and freedom... And some
intervals can be considered more consonant, others more dissonant,
but this is not so significant for horizontal lines (melodies), more
for vertical (chords). Also directions are important - up or down,
and how far. Melodies can be shaped like mountains, or teeth, or
steps, or in spiral... Well balanced melodies concerning intervals
and their directions seems to be neutral. This is what we can hear
easily, this is part of musical semantics.

With chords it's different, more straight to recognize which interval
is consonant, which dissonant. But it's interesting when we combine
more dissonant intervals in certain order, result can be heard as
pleasant and even consonant. Same with consonant intervals - certain
order of more consonant intervals can give dissonant result. So it's
not a matter of a simple mathematical operation, addition - more
combined consonances doesn't mean the result will be more
consonant... maybe they fight against and result is dissonant. And
more dissonances somehow can subtract and soften dissonance.
> I'm interested in your work then, especially since I've been borrowing
> so much from "Eastern" music theory and theories as well as
> experimenting with things generally. Except I'm much more of a
> postmodern eclecticist than a serialist or a minimalist (I have had an
> off-and-on interest in both genres though).
>
I try to combine everything possible or until now impossible :-) I
haven't C-major-chord-phobia nor alergic reaction from microtonal out-
of-tuneness.
> This is a whole other topic, but I'm finding myself referring to
> whatever scales I use as "maqams" rather than "modes" or "scales",
> since
> to me, a melody is much more than a set of pitches in order--it
> includes
> a hierarchy of tonics, dominants and subsets, like the pentatonic
> scale
> within a heptatonic scale, and a heptatonic scale within a dodecatonic
> scale and so on.
>
> ~D.
>
There can be some hierarchy, or not. It depends on composer's
intention. But it's difficult if not impossible to compose music
without hierarchy, as even in such music can be found some hierarchy.
Just because some note has longer duration, or accent, or sharper
instrumentation... Therefore Schönberg's idea of atonality and
dodecaphony (where's no central tone, tonality, and all tones are
equal) is only abstract idea, it's not quite possible. Or Haba's
athematic composition technique... Any group or sequence of notes
start to work in the context as a motif, or theme, musical object...
and will go into the interaction with the others which follow.

Daniel Forro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2009, at 10:49 PM, Danny Wier wrote:
> > I did, though it would be better to also consider intervals in
> > relation
> > to the dominant(s). And as we both explain below, the system wouldn't
> > work, since though Dorian and Hijaz Kar both have two each major and
> > minor intervals in relation to the root/finalis, their feel is very
> > different.
> >
> Difficult to say what's more important. For me intervals between
> neighboring notes, because this way you count also musical context,
> how music is developed in time. Note only abstractly when we see all
> notes written on paper and can them analyse together on one sight,
> but how music works in real time, that means sequentially note by
> note (now I'm talking only about one voice melody).
> > It still begs the question: are the Hijaz-type modes "major", "minor",
> > both or neither?
> >
> Doesn't it depend on third? Then it's easy to say.
> > The augmented second adds an emotion not found in the "church modes",
> > including natural minor, but found in harmonic minor. It seems to
> > evoke
> > a feeling of sadness, but a different kind than straight minor. I
> > sense
> > more uncertainty and apprehension, while a natural minor conveys an
> > attitude of disappointment, but acceptance and peace. To me, at least.
> >
> Yes, it's a lament type of sadness, and tension. And it's also
> interesting where we can meet such scales: from Spanish flamenco
> (probably Arabian or Jewish influence) thru other music of European
> Gipsies (such intonations can be heard in Hungary and Romania), then
> everywhere in Jewish culture (including yiddish and sephardic
> diaspora), but also in islamic culture (Turkey and countries which
> were under Otoman rule - that means Albania, former Yugoslavia,
> Balcan, Greece...), Middle East, Arabic countries, then along Silk
> Road to China, and also in Indian ragas. Probably this type started
> in India (that's the reason why we can hear it in Gipsy music)?
> > I need to write something on how all the intervals could be
> > interpreted
> > emotionally (I use 31 pitch classes per octave). Everything being
> > subjective and relative, of course.
> >
> This is questionable. I don't think melodic interval itself has some
> emotional impact. I would say intervals start to work like this in
> relation, comparison, context with the others. Then we can feel: here
> are small steps, here big and so on... Small intervals create
> tension, bigger give us feeling of space and freedom... And some
> intervals can be considered more consonant, others more dissonant,
> but this is not so significant for horizontal lines (melodies), more
> for vertical (chords). Also directions are important - up or down,
> and how far. Melodies can be shaped like mountains, or teeth, or
> steps, or in spiral... Well balanced melodies concerning intervals
> and their directions seems to be neutral. This is what we can hear
> easily, this is part of musical semantics.
>
> With chords it's different, more straight to recognize which interval
> is consonant, which dissonant. But it's interesting when we combine
> more dissonant intervals in certain order, result can be heard as
> pleasant and even consonant. Same with consonant intervals - certain
> order of more consonant intervals can give dissonant result. So it's
> not a matter of a simple mathematical operation, addition - more
> combined consonances doesn't mean the result will be more
> consonant... maybe they fight against and result is dissonant. And
> more dissonances somehow can subtract and soften dissonance.
> > I'm interested in your work then, especially since I've been borrowing
> > so much from "Eastern" music theory and theories as well as
> > experimenting with things generally. Except I'm much more of a
> > postmodern eclecticist than a serialist or a minimalist (I have had an
> > off-and-on interest in both genres though).
> >
> I try to combine everything possible or until now impossible :-) I
> haven't C-major-chord-phobia nor alergic reaction from microtonal out-
> of-tuneness.
> > This is a whole other topic, but I'm finding myself referring to
> > whatever scales I use as "maqams" rather than "modes" or "scales",
> > since
> > to me, a melody is much more than a set of pitches in order--it
> > includes
> > a hierarchy of tonics, dominants and subsets, like the pentatonic
> > scale
> > within a heptatonic scale, and a heptatonic scale within a dodecatonic
> > scale and so on.
> >
> > ~D.
> >
> There can be some hierarchy, or not. It depends on composer's
> intention. But it's difficult if not impossible to compose music
> without hierarchy, as even in such music can be found some hierarchy.
> Just because some note has longer duration, or accent, or sharper
> instrumentation... Therefore Schönberg's idea of atonality and
> dodecaphony (where's no central tone, tonality, and all tones are
> equal) is only abstract idea, it's not quite possible. Or Haba's
> athematic composition technique... Any group or sequence of notes
> start to work in the context as a motif, or theme, musical object...
> and will go into the interaction with the others which follow.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
Hi, if it's any help, I've always found it easier to think of minor
scales as 1 2 b3 4 5 with optional min or maj 6ths and 7ths in every
combination. The 4 combos give all the most important minor scales.
This way I can also choose the sound I want when improvising and even
change midstream. Modes on the other hand are too "set-in-stone" if
you know what I mean. Rick.

You know, this is a good point.

Perhaps the emotional evaluation should be dropped and just say sounds like
minor or major.

There are a lot of replies, I think I read most if not all.

Has the point been made that there is really two aspects here that should
not be mixed

You can define mode by melody - or to a degree by harmony.

One can harmonize a very minor mode melody with a very major mode set of
chords.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:

> Contrast major/minor and its emotional impact is based mainly on
> conventions and traditional understanding of roles. But it's easily
> possible to write merry music in minor tonality and very sad in major.
>
> Besides it's also dependent on cultural context, for listeners from
> music cultures which don't use major/minor (be it melodically or
> harmonically) there will be no emotional difference in it. They have
> different conventions.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 18 Feb 2009, at 11:32 AM, Michael Sheiman wrote:
>

On 21 Feb 2009, at 9:37 AM, rick_ballan wrote:
> Hi, if it's any help, I've always found it easier to think of minor
> scales as 1 2 b3 4 5 with optional min or maj 6ths and 7ths in every
> combination. The 4 combos give all the most important minor scales.
> This way I can also choose the sound I want when improvising and even
> change midstream. Modes on the other hand are too "set-in-stone" if
> you know what I mean. Rick.
>
Don't forget about 1 2 b3 4# 5 (Gipsy minor), and Phrygian character in 1 b2 b3 4 5 and 1 b2 b3 #4 5.

6th and 7th grade have totally 6 combinations when we include double flat and double sharp.

And because 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade have 20 possible combinations when we include double flats and sharps, it's possible to create 120 different 7-tone modes with same 1st and 5th grade (tonic, dominant).

Some of these modes have in fact both major and minor third (enharmonically), some will have minor.

Minor character have also different variants of blues mode with more tones then 7, like 1 2 b3 4 #4 5 #6 7...

How scales are connected to the sound? (Maybe you wanted to say "atmosphere"?)
No, I don't know what you mean by "set-in-stone".

Daniel Forro

Definitely yes, and not only in contemporary music. And melody doesn't need to be in 7tone diatonics, it can be in minor pentatonics. This is typical for blues, where in fact minor and major gender are mixed. That's where 9+ chord was born, despite the fact we write it in western theory as 9+, not 10- (which would be more near to its real structure).

To accompany major melody with minor chords is more rare, I can't recall any example now... Yes, that one of last Scriabin short piano pieces, but it's atonal, so there is not possible to talk about major and minor at all.

Daniel Forro

On 21 Feb 2009, at 10:06 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> You know, this is a good point.
>
> Perhaps the emotional evaluation should be dropped and just say > sounds like minor or major.
>
> There are a lot of replies, I think I read most if not all.
>
> Has the point been made that there is really two aspects here that > should not be mixed
>
> You can define mode by melody - or to a degree by harmony.
>
> One can harmonize a very minor mode melody with a very major mode > set of chords.
>