[tuning] Orlando di Lasso in JI

I've uploaded the correct JI transcription of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina
Coelorum to my folder "marcel" in the files section.
/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-g.rtf

Also uploaded the correct JI piano rendition:
/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-JI2.mp3

And the 12tet piano rendition:
/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-ET.mp3

These are copies of the files on my website, but those files won't be there
for long as I'm switching websites soon.

Marcel

Btw I find it very typical that when I made a mistake and posted the first
version with errors, everybody was all over me in no time.Laughing, making
fun, and posting many messages.

Then when I posted the correct version an hour later there was silence.
Only one sceptical reply from Tom.
No congratulations for solving a 500 year old problem, nothing.

For the people who didn't follow it here's the thread in which it took
place:
/tuning/topicId_81089.html#81089
(long thread though)

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Btw I find it very typical that when I made a mistake and posted
the first
> version with errors, everybody was all over me in no time.Laughing,
making
> fun, and posting many messages.
>
> Then when I posted the correct version an hour later there was
silence.
> Only one sceptical reply from Tom.
> No congratulations for solving a 500 year old problem, nothing.
>
> For the people who didn't follow it here's the thread in which it
took
> place:
> /tuning/topicId_81089.html#81089
> (long thread though)
>
> Marcel
>

People are in different time zones and have all kinds of things to do.
I've downloaded the files, don't worry, I'll check them out.

Yours sounds pretty good. The Bb chord on bar 3 is a little off to my
ears, as is the Am chord on 4.2. I'm not sure how exactly to deal with
comma pumps so time for me to observe and learn.

-Mike

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> I've uploaded the correct JI transcription of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina
> Coelorum to my folder "marcel" in the files section.
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-g.rtf
>
> Also uploaded the correct JI piano rendition:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-JI2.mp3
>
> And the 12tet piano rendition:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-ET.mp3
>
> These are copies of the files on my website, but those files won't be there
> for long as I'm switching websites soon.
> Marcel
>

Hm, there are different time zones, some people sleep, some are not connected, some who are connected are lurking only, some are not interested in this thread, some still didn't listen to your examples because lack of interest, lack of time, some listened, but don't want to comment, some listened, want to comment, but have to think over, some are so surprised that they are not able to answer, some envy your success and will not answer at all...

You can't expect thousands of grateful enthusiastic messages one hour after uploading your solution of 500 years old problem. Besides maybe it could be expected your attitude disgusted some members so they are not interested to discuss with you. Who knows. There can be many reasons.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Feb 2009, at 1:56 PM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> Btw I find it very typical that when I made a mistake and posted > the first version with errors, everybody was all over me in no time.
>
> Laughing, making fun, and posting many messages.
>
> Then when I posted the correct version an hour later there was > silence.
> Only one sceptical reply from Tom.
> No congratulations for solving a 500 year old problem, nothing.
>
> For the people who didn't follow it here's the thread in which it > took place:
> /tuning/topicId_81089.html#81089
> (long thread though)
>
> Marcel

Hi Mike,

Thank you!

> The Bb chord on bar 3 is a little off to my
> ears, as is the Am chord on 4.2.
>

Yes I know what you mean.
By far more logical would be the Bb chord a comma down, but then the rest of
the piece makes no sense at all.
It's just a weird piece.
I do like the chord on 4.2 myself. The key is to listen to the high A5 which
makes the new "key".

Marcel

>
> Besides maybe
> it could be expected your attitude disgusted some members so they are
> not interested to discuss with you
>

Well I'm really sorry my attitude has been misunderstood.
My attitude has allways been passion for JI, and I'm very stubborn and come
from a different angle than some here (my angle is music is perfect).
This has led to heated discussions where I could not admit to things I
beleived to be wrong.
This goes equally for the other parties in the discussion it seems to me.

Marcel

Here again is the ASCII-reduced score, in meantone:

G----G A Bb---Bb A----A G.....A----A G----G F# E F# G
D E F----F----G----G F----F E D E D----D D.........D
B C----C D----D C----C----C-----C B----B A.........B
G C F Bb---Bb C----C----C-----C D----D D.........G

As always, choose "Use Fixed Width Font" from "Message Option" at
the right to see this as intended. Or look at it here:
http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina.png

If we want to put this in 5-limit JI, we will have to introduce
compromises into the melodic structure. There are several ways
to do this, and I'm going to outline a few.

Drift
1----1 5/9 /27--/27 5/9--5/9 1 5/9---5/9 5/81--. 5/81
3 5/3 /9---/9 1----1 /9---/9 5/3 5/27--. . 5/27
5 /3---/3 5/27~~3 /3---/3---/3---/3 25/81--. 5/9 25/81
1 /3 /9 /27--/27 /3---/3---/3---/3 5/27--. . 5/81
*

Here we let the piece end on a tonic that is one syntonic comma
below where it started. I haven't rendered it but trust me, it
isn't pleasant. The asterisk indicates that we're also taking a
harmonic purity hit -- with 32/27 standing in for 6/5. The
tildas ~~ indicate a tie that doesn't resolve to the same pitch
it started on. (The dots are shorthand for the same pitch that
a tie started on.)

Next up is the way I did it in 2005, when this topic was last
discussed:

Lumma2005
1----1 5/9 /27--/27 5/9--5/9 1 5/9~~~~9 1----1 1
3 5/3 /9---/9 1----1 /9---/9 5/3 3----3 3 3
5 /3---/3 5/27~~3 /3---/3---/3---/3 5----5 9 5
1 /3 /9 /27--/27 /3---/3---/3---/3 3----3 3 1
*

Same as above, except we take another "comma shift" (the tildas)
to get the piece to resolve on 1/1. Hear it:
http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_Lumma2005.mid

Next up is Marcel's solution:

deVelde2009
1----1 5/9 3/5--3/5 5/9--5/9 1 9-----9 1----1 1
3 5/3 /9---/9 1----1 /9---/9 27 3----3 3 3
5 /3---/3 3----3 /3---/3---/3---/3 5----5 9 5
1 /3 /9 3/5--3/5 /3---/3---/3---/3 3----3 3 1
* *

This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
additional one at the end.
Marcel's mp3 has a rather brisk tempo, and for the sake of
using the same timbres as the rest of the files I'm presenting...
http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_deVelde2009.mid

To my ear, all of these versions are unacceptable. One would
never hear a choir perform any of them. So let's consider
other options.

Perhaps most obvious would be to perform it in meantone, as
suggested by the score. 12-ET is a meantone:
http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_12ET.mid

But it isn't a very accurate one. Here's the RMS-optimal
meantone mentioned earlier today:
http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_meantone.mid

Big improvement! But there is still one step better to go
(and Chris and a few others may have heard this the last time
I pointed to it):
http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_AdaptiveJI.mid

This file is the work of Joe Monzo (sorry the timbre doesn't
match the others). To my ear, we've finally got something
that sounds just right, just like how you'd sing it.
It sounds natural.

Comments?

-Carl

Does that "RMS-optimal meantone" have pure octaves?

I agree that Joe's sounds the most "sung" and "natural". As soon as
you get into that though, you must look at the possiblities of other
ethnic, local, and emotive interpretations of it as well (which would
involve timbre and timing as well of course). Good job, Joe!

Marcel's version sounds fine on the "piano", but that's avoiding the
challenges a bit, as one can hear in the monkey's-organ or whatever
that sustained sound is. When the sounds are sustained, Carl's
version is more "as one". Really only the 12-tET one makes me wince a
little, it just sounds so... fake?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Here again is the ASCII-reduced score, in meantone:
>
> G----G A Bb---Bb A----A G.....A----A G----G F# E F# G
> D E F----F----G----G F----F E D E D----D D.........D
> B C----C D----D C----C----C-----C B----B A.........B
> G C F Bb---Bb C----C----C-----C D----D D.........G
>
> As always, choose "Use Fixed Width Font" from "Message Option" at
> the right to see this as intended. Or look at it here:
> http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina.png
>
> If we want to put this in 5-limit JI, we will have to introduce
> compromises into the melodic structure. There are several ways
> to do this, and I'm going to outline a few.
>
> Drift
> 1----1 5/9 /27--/27 5/9--5/9 1 5/9---5/9 5/81--. 5/
81
> 3 5/3 /9---/9 1----1 /9---/9 5/3 5/27--. . 5/
27
> 5 /3---/3 5/27~~3 /3---/3---/3---/3 25/81--. 5/9 25/
81
> 1 /3 /9 /27--/27 /3---/3---/3---/3 5/27--. . 5/
81
> *
>
> Here we let the piece end on a tonic that is one syntonic comma
> below where it started. I haven't rendered it but trust me, it
> isn't pleasant. The asterisk indicates that we're also taking a
> harmonic purity hit -- with 32/27 standing in for 6/5. The
> tildas ~~ indicate a tie that doesn't resolve to the same pitch
> it started on. (The dots are shorthand for the same pitch that
> a tie started on.)
>
> Next up is the way I did it in 2005, when this topic was last
> discussed:
>
> Lumma2005
> 1----1 5/9 /27--/27 5/9--5/9 1 5/9~~~~9 1----1 1
> 3 5/3 /9---/9 1----1 /9---/9 5/3 3----3 3 3
> 5 /3---/3 5/27~~3 /3---/3---/3---/3 5----5 9 5
> 1 /3 /9 /27--/27 /3---/3---/3---/3 3----3 3 1
> *
>
> Same as above, except we take another "comma shift" (the tildas)
> to get the piece to resolve on 1/1. Hear it:
> http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_Lumma2005.mid
>
> Next up is Marcel's solution:
>
> deVelde2009
> 1----1 5/9 3/5--3/5 5/9--5/9 1 9-----9 1----1 1
> 3 5/3 /9---/9 1----1 /9---/9 27 3----3 3 3
> 5 /3---/3 3----3 /3---/3---/3---/3 5----5 9 5
> 1 /3 /9 3/5--3/5 /3---/3---/3---/3 3----3 3 1
> * *
>
> This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
> consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
> additional one at the end.
> Marcel's mp3 has a rather brisk tempo, and for the sake of
> using the same timbres as the rest of the files I'm presenting...
> http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_deVelde2009.mid
>
> To my ear, all of these versions are unacceptable. One would
> never hear a choir perform any of them. So let's consider
> other options.
>
> Perhaps most obvious would be to perform it in meantone, as
> suggested by the score. 12-ET is a meantone:
> http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_12ET.mid
>
> But it isn't a very accurate one. Here's the RMS-optimal
> meantone mentioned earlier today:
> http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_meantone.mid
>
> Big improvement! But there is still one step better to go
> (and Chris and a few others may have heard this the last time
> I pointed to it):
> http://lumma.org/stuff/lassus/AveRegina_AdaptiveJI.mid
>
> This file is the work of Joe Monzo (sorry the timbre doesn't
> match the others). To my ear, we've finally got something
> that sounds just right, just like how you'd sing it.
> It sounds natural.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Does that "RMS-optimal meantone" have pure octaves?

Yes.

> I agree that Joe's sounds the most "sung" and "natural". As
> soon as you get into that though, you must look at the
> possiblities of other ethnic, local, and emotive interpretations
> of it as well (which would involve timbre and timing as well
> of course). Good job, Joe!

Joe not only made the file, he helped (along with Paul Erlich,
myself, and others) discover that Vicentino had actually
proposed a tuning solution like this in the 16th century
(though it's unclear if he understood just how universal his
proposal was). You can read more at:
http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/vicentino/vicentino.aspx

> Marcel's version sounds fine on the "piano",

Not to my ear. It's certainly more tolerable than the
slower versions, but the problems are still evident.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Does that "RMS-optimal meantone" have pure octaves?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I agree that Joe's sounds the most "sung" and "natural". As
> > soon as you get into that though, you must look at the
> > possiblities of other ethnic, local, and emotive interpretations
> > of it as well (which would involve timbre and timing as well
> > of course). Good job, Joe!
>
> Joe not only made the file, he helped (along with Paul Erlich,
> myself, and others) discover that Vicentino had actually
> proposed a tuning solution like this in the 16th century
> (though it's unclear if he understood just how universal his
> proposal was). You can read more at:
> http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/vicentino/vicentino.aspx
>
> > Marcel's version sounds fine on the "piano",
>
> Not to my ear. It's certainly more tolerable than the
> slower versions, but the problems are still evident.
>
> -Carl
>

Groovy. Is that really adaptive JI that Joe did, or a very close
approximation from some ET? The timbre he used is a bit woggly, which
is absolutely fine by me, but I guess it would obscure any difference
between an actual adaptive JI and an approxmition within a cent or
two.

A big part of why this works, and perhaps an indication that it was
already considered in the original composition, conciously or not, is
where the adaptions take place. Check it out, very "elided", vocal.
You could "break" these adaptions with clumsy writing, I'm quite sure.

>
> This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
> consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
> additional one at the end.
>

Uhh where in my file do you get 40:27???
You're not saying you're getting 40:27 in a chord do you?

Btw mine is the single only correct version.

Marcel

>
> Uhh where in my file do you get 40:27???
> You're not saying you're getting 40:27 in a chord do you?
>
> Btw mine is the single only correct version.
>

Are you sure you did mine correctly in your midi file??
The Bb chord sounds not correct in your midi.
It is correct in my transcription.

Marcel

Btw I'm getting a different timbre for the adaptive-ji version.

Marcel

Carl, you did mine wrong.I assume you didn't do this on purpose but please
investigate and remove the wrong file before more people think mine is
wrong.

Marcel

Btw there are more things wrong with the midi file.
You're hitting some notes again which you shouldn't because they're tied by
a tie.

Marcel

>
> If we want to put this in 5-limit JI, we will have to introduce
> compromises into the melodic structure.
>

And offcourse I have to strongly disagree with this.
There is not a single compromise.
Music isn't about compromises, music is perfect.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
> > consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
> > additional one at the end.
> >
>
> Uhh where in my file do you get 40:27???
> You're not saying you're getting 40:27 in a chord do you?
>
> Btw mine is the single only correct version.
>
> Marcel
>

What? My knowledge in this particular field of JI-in-common-practice
is absolutely minimal compared to others here, but even I can see
right off the bat that when you sustain the F from measure 2 into
measure three your going to ring a bell on the Bb. Check it out
carefully.

And sure you can avoid that 40/27 by chopping off the F early, I made
a joke about that earlier (Gordian knot) but that's not "correct",
that's cheating and it takes from the smooth power of the original.

>
> This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
> consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
> additional one at the end.
>

The consonance hit you talk of at the beginning is not there.
It is the result of your error in reading my transcription.

Untill you've put up a new midi file for mine I invite everybody to please
read my transcription which is linked in the first post and you'll see there
is no 40:27 in the Bb chord.

As for what you call a consonance hit at the end is not a consonance hit it
is a modulation which is essential in the piece, it has tension yes but it
is not wrong this is how it should be, it leads perfectly into the next
chord (where you wrongly hit the E5 A5 again which you shouldn't because
it's tied)

Marcel

OMG.
I'm sorry.
I missed it. I just completely missed that one.
Just now I see it.
Sorry Carl, it appears you did the midi correct.
I just didn't see it myself.

Marcel

> What? My knowledge in this particular field of JI-in-common-practice
> is absolutely minimal compared to others here, but even I can see
> right off the bat that when you sustain the F from measure 2 into
> measure three your going to ring a bell on the Bb. Check it out
> carefully.
>
> And sure you can avoid that 40/27 by chopping off the F early, I made
> a joke about that earlier (Gordian knot) but that's not "correct",
> that's cheating and it takes from the smooth power of the original.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
> > consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
> > additional one at the end.
> >
>
> The consonance hit you talk of at the beginning is not there.
> It is the result of your error in reading my transcription.
>
> Untill you've put up a new midi file for mine I invite everybody to
please
> read my transcription which is linked in the first post and you'll
see there
> is no 40:27 in the Bb chord.
>
> As for what you call a consonance hit at the end is not a
consonance hit it
> is a modulation which is essential in the piece, it has tension yes
but it
> is not wrong this is how it should be, it leads perfectly into the
next
> chord (where you wrongly hit the E5 A5 again which you shouldn't
because
> it's tied)
>
> Marcel
>

Look at the transcription you posted, and hold the notes over as the
score indicates, and figure it out.

-Okay, I see you just did, it sucks that we can't edit posts.

-- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This gets rid of the shifts at the cost of a more severe
> > > consonance hit near the beginning (40:27 vs. 32:27) and an
> > > additional one at the end.
> > >
> >
> > The consonance hit you talk of at the beginning is not there.
> > It is the result of your error in reading my transcription.
> >
> > Untill you've put up a new midi file for mine I invite everybody
to
> please
> > read my transcription which is linked in the first post and
you'll
> see there
> > is no 40:27 in the Bb chord.
> >
> > As for what you call a consonance hit at the end is not a
> consonance hit it
> > is a modulation which is essential in the piece, it has tension
yes
> but it
> > is not wrong this is how it should be, it leads perfectly into
the
> next
> > chord (where you wrongly hit the E5 A5 again which you shouldn't
> because
> > it's tied)
> >
> > Marcel
> >
>
> Look at the transcription you posted, and hold the notes over as
the
> score indicates, and figure it out.
>

>
> -Okay, I see you just did, it sucks that we can't edit posts.

Oh yes, how I wish I could edit posts now :)

hmm perhaps it should be3 Bb3 (32/27) D5 (80/27) | Bb5 (128/27)

Ah I don't know yet.
What a stupid piece.
I'll go look into it further.
But meantone or adaptive JI never.

Marcel

>
> hmm perhaps it should be3 Bb3 (32/27) D5 (80/27) | Bb5 (128/27)
>

Or the above with D5 (3/1)

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> hmm perhaps it should be3 Bb3 (32/27) D5 (80/27) | Bb5 (128/27)
>
> Ah I don't know yet.
> What a stupid piece.
> I'll go look into it further.
> But meantone or adaptive JI never.
>
> Marcel
>

It's kind of like squaring the circle. Then one day you realize that
the world around you is actually made of ellipsis and curves and you
achieve peace. :-)

If you decide not to accept temperament (more power to you), you're
going to HAVE to go either into "adaptive" or "other" music. Unless
you move somewhere where 2*2=3.

Well you'll find this out for yourself.

>
> It's kind of like squaring the circle. Then one day you realize that
> the world around you is actually made of ellipsis and curves and you
> achieve peace. :-)
>
> If you decide not to accept temperament (more power to you), you're
> going to HAVE to go either into "adaptive" or "other" music. Unless
> you move somewhere where 2*2=3.
>
> Well you'll find this out for yourself.
>

Nono it really isn't :)
It can be solved for sure, the above example would solve it allready.
Making the Bb chord pythagorean.
Just like the ending.
It's not as pretty in this place than in the ending where it seems to have
more purpose.
But it's not a very pretty piece in my opinion.

Marcel

Hmm yes seems like this has to be the way.
The Bb notes should be 32/27.
Rest of my transcription stays thesame.

Marcel

Here the corrected transcription:
/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-g3.rtf

Marcel

Ok and here the final final corrected transcription :-)

/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-g4.rtf

Not pythagorean at Bb.
But the G comming in makes 20/27.
I'm going to figure out why it is so, but my ear and some subconscious logic
tells me it's so.

Here the corrected transcription:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-g3.rtf
>

Marcel

Ok and here the piano rendition of the final and correct piece.
/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-JI4.mp3

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
.
> Making the Bb chord pythagorean.

Also known as "moving the goalposts".
> Just like the ending.
> It's not as pretty in this place than in the ending where it seems
to have
> more purpose.
> But it's not a very pretty piece in my opinion.
>
> Marcel
>

But it's a very pretty piece in other people's opinions. Did you
listen to the adaptive version at all?

And here a slow rendition of the final correct version:
/tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-JI4-slow.mp3

Marcel

>
> Also known as "moving the goalposts".
>

Well whatever it takes but when the ball goes in it's goal :)

But it's a very pretty piece in other people's opinions. Did you
> listen to the adaptive version at all?
>

Yes. I'd apreciate it if Carl could still upload a version with thesame
timbre as the other files for a more fair comparison.

Please have a listen also to my new slow final version.

I know I messed up many times, but to me this is a very strange piece which
I don't understand how it's musical structure is.
So I will analyse my final version to learn from it.

Marcel

>
> The Bb chord on bar 3 is a little off to my
>> ears, as is the Am chord on 4.2.
>>
>
> Yes I know what you mean.
> By far more logical would be the Bb chord a comma down, but then the rest
> of the piece makes no sense at all.
> It's just a weird piece.
> I do like the chord on 4.2 myself. The key is to listen to the high A5
> which makes the new "key".
>

Seems also like I should have listened to my earlyer logic and ear, and to
Mike's ear :)
Final version is only different by Bb chord a comma down.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > If we want to put this in 5-limit JI, we will have to introduce
> > compromises into the melodic structure.
> >
>
> And offcourse I have to strongly disagree with this.
> There is not a single compromise.
> Music isn't about compromises, music is perfect.
>

Without entering into the previous discussion, I think that I, in
turn, have to disagree with this. There may be a thing like perfect
music - but in any case perfect music can be based on an imperfect
tuning. Great ("perfect") music can be written in any tuning (even in
no tuning), as well as bad, boring music can be written in any
tuning, even a perfect tuning, if there would be such a thing. But I
think I am qualified to say there is no perfect tuning. There are
various requirement a tuning may have to meet, and some of these
simply contradict each other, so there can be no tuning that fulfills
them all. The history of tuning is a long, long history of
compromises.
--
Hans Straub

Hello Hans,

Without entering into the previous discussion, I think that I, in
> turn, have to disagree with this. There may be a thing like perfect
> music - but in any case perfect music can be based on an imperfect
> tuning.
>

Yes agreed.
Only the performance in the imperfect tuning will be imperfect then.

> Great ("perfect") music can be written in any tuning (even in
> no tuning), as well as bad, boring music can be written in any
> tuning, even a perfect tuning, if there would be such a thing.
>

Yes agreed too.
In perfect JI (or any other tuning) one can write music which doesn't make
much musical sense and sounds ugly.

> But I
> think I am qualified to say there is no perfect tuning. There are
> various requirement a tuning may have to meet, and some of these
> simply contradict each other, so there can be no tuning that fulfills
> them all. The history of tuning is a long, long history of
> compromises.
>

To this I have to disagree offcourse :)
Perfect tuning is correct pure JI to me.
And history is history, the future may tell :)

Marcel

'Correct' in what sense? Now you have another 40/27 between D and G at
3.2, as well as the 81/64 at 4.2. They sound awful already, would be
worse with a sustaining timbre, and there's no way you're going to get
rid of them musically unless you are willing to shift a pitch upwards
by 81/80 in the middle of a note. (Which might also sound awful
melodically.)

It's clear to everyone here, has been from the very beginning, that
you don't know in the least what you are talking about, because you
don't understand, despite numerous pedagogical efforts, what role the
syntonic comma plays in perfectly normal triadic harmonies. In other
words, why meantone was invented. You continue to 'correct' yourself
in the vain hope of suddenly achieving what has been known to be
impossible since the 16th century. It is perhaps a tribute to the
indomitable spirit of the Dutch that you are able to continue so
energetically (well over ten messages a day?) in the wrong direction,
in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

If Lassus is not to your taste (and I can see it may well not be), I
can write a little piece in the blandest, most ordinary style of
Mozart which will provide an even more impossible, cacophonous task
for your JI. But not unless you promise to THINK before writing.
~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Ok and here the piano rendition of the final and correct piece.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/lasso-JI4.mp3
>
> Marcel
>

>
> 'Correct' in what sense? Now you have another 40/27 between D and G at
> 3.2, as well as the 81/64 at 4.2. They sound awful already, would be
> worse with a sustaining timbre, and there's no way you're going to get
> rid of them musically unless you are willing to shift a pitch upwards
> by 81/80 in the middle of a note. (Which might also sound awful
> melodically.)
>

I agree partly it doesn't sound as great as music can sound.
But this music was written this way and this is what was written and how it
sounds.
I do now hear the sense in it.
The 40/27 is not wrong and the 81/64 also not.

It's clear to everyone here, has been from the very beginning, that
> you don't know in the least what you are talking about, because you
> don't understand, despite numerous pedagogical efforts, what role the
> syntonic comma plays in perfectly normal triadic harmonies. In other
> words, why meantone was invented. You continue to 'correct' yourself
> in the vain hope of suddenly achieving what has been known to be
> impossible since the 16th century. It is perhaps a tribute to the
> indomitable spirit of the Dutch that you are able to continue so
> energetically (well over ten messages a day?) in the wrong direction,
> in the face of such overwhelming evidence.
>

Haha I like the indomitable spirit of the Dutch :)
Yes this would describe me, I will continue as long as I live.
And in history there have been so many mistakes, I don't care what other
people thought on the subject.
The whole music theory taught in conservatoria is largely a big historical
mess as far as I'm concerned.
But my direction is the right direction, I'm perfectly convinced.
I think music has a fundamental mathematical perfect JI base, it's how we
percieve the meaning in music.

> If Lassus is not to your taste (and I can see it may well not be), I
> can write a little piece in the blandest, most ordinary style of
> Mozart which will provide an even more impossible, cacophonous task
> for your JI. But not unless you promise to THINK before writing.
>

Oh yes I'm very much up for that challenge, if you enjoy it aswell! :)
But it has to be a "musical" little piece, but ordinary mozart does seem to
guarantee that yes.
It's the problem I had with this Lasso, it didn't make musical sense to me
right from the start before even thinking about how it would be in JI.

Marcel

>
> I do now hear the sense in it.
> The 40/27 is not wrong and the 81/64 also not.
>

I don't know if there's a word for it, but they're "tension" tones that
carry/lead to the next chord.
Oh and I'd be very happy if Carl would put them in a midi file again with
sustained sound like the others, but I'm ashmed to ask again :)

> for your JI. But not unless you promise to THINK before writing.
>>
>
> Oh yes I'm very much up for that challenge, if you enjoy it aswell! :)
> But it has to be a "musical" little piece, but ordinary mozart does seem to
> guarantee that yes.
> It's the problem I had with this Lasso, it didn't make musical sense to me
> right from the start before even thinking about how it would be in JI.
>

Oh yes, and I promice I will then think and check and double double check
before posting.
I've learned my lesson here. Don't want to be caught with a wrong retuning
again.

Marcel

On 19 Feb 2009, at 12:12 AM, Tom Dent wrote:
> If Lassus is not to your taste (and I can see it may well not be), I
> can write a little piece in the blandest, most ordinary style of
> Mozart which will provide an even more impossible, cacophonous task
> for your JI. But not unless you promise to THINK before writing.
> ~~~T~~~
>
Or something more chromatic, like Solage's Fumeaux fume, or few bars from Gesualdo?

Daniel Forro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > Without entering into the previous discussion, I think that I, in
> > turn, have to disagree with this. There may be a thing like
> > perfect music - but in any case perfect music can be based on an
> > imperfect tuning.
> >
>
> Yes agreed.
> Only the performance in the imperfect tuning will be imperfect then.
>

Not necessarily, if it is music that was written for the imperfect
tuning and perfectly exploits its properties.

>
> > But I
> > think I am qualified to say there is no perfect tuning. There are
> > various requirement a tuning may have to meet, and some of these
> > simply contradict each other, so there can be no tuning that
> > fulfills them all. The history of tuning is a long, long history
> > of compromises.
> >
>
> To this I have to disagree offcourse :)
> Perfect tuning is correct pure JI to me.

It depends on the music you want to make!

I can think of a number of properties that, depending on the musical
style, could qualify pure JI as "imperfect":

Pure JI has a potential unlimited set of pitches, which makes it
harrassing to play on a piano or a church organ.

Pure JI does not have things like a fully symmetric whole-tone scale,
which can make make it imperfect for certain pieces by Claude Debussy.

Pure JI does not have the property that four perfect fifths minus two
octaves gives a major third, whick may make it imperfect for music
that was written for meantone tuning.

But for musical styles like Orlando di Lasso, the case is different,
of course.
--
Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Groovy. Is that really adaptive JI that Joe did, or a very close
> approximation from some ET?

Adaptive JI. Ultimately I suppose it's approximated in the ET
of MIDI pitch bend units.

> The timbre he used is a bit woggly,

Since it's a midi file, the timbre depends on your synth.
It's rock solid on mine. You may want to change the timbre
to something you prefer.

> A big part of why this works, and perhaps an indication that it
> was already considered in the original composition, conciously
> or not, is where the adaptions take place.

Exactly. Unconsciously. And the vast majority of Western
music, from di Lasso's day to our own, has the same structure.

> Check it out, very "elided", vocal. You could "break" these
> adaptions with clumsy writing, I'm quite sure.

Any composition that uses the diatonic scale will likely
require the same adaption, since the diatonic scale is a
fundementally 'adaptive' entity.

-Carl

> Btw mine is the single only correct version.
>
> Marcel

From now on I'm ignoring all posts containing statements
like this from you, Marcel. Let's be frank: you have
basically zero credibility here to stand on. Learn to
converse like an adult and we can talk.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Are you sure you did mine correctly in your midi file??
> The Bb chord sounds not correct in your midi.
> It is correct in my transcription.
>
> Marcel

It is conceivable I made an error at 3am. Let's check.
From your text file, I have the Bb chord as 6/5 3/1 32/9 24/5.
This is also how I transcribed it in my horizontal ASCII
score, and, yes, it should be performed this way in the midi
file. Note that this chord contains a 27/20.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Btw I'm getting a different timbre for the adaptive-ji version.
>
> Marcel

As mentioned in my post. Please read posts to which you reply.
Also, please refrain from posting multiple one-sentence posts in
rapid succession.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Carl, you did mine wrong.I assume you didn't do this on purpose
> but please investigate and remove the wrong file before more
> people think mine is wrong.
>
> Marcel

Tell me where the error is and I'd be happy to correct it. -C.

>
> Not necessarily, if it is music that was written for the imperfect
> tuning and perfectly exploits its properties.
>

Well in this case I still belevie the underlying musical structure to be
pure JI.
An imperfect tuning can't give any extra properties to music.
It can only give extra properties to an instrument in the form of
enharmonically equal notes.

> It depends on the music you want to make!
>
> I can think of a number of properties that, depending on the musical
> style, could qualify pure JI as "imperfect":
>
> Pure JI has a potential unlimited set of pitches, which makes it
> harrassing to play on a piano or a church organ.
>

Practicality I don't see as a property of music.

Pure JI does not have things like a fully symmetric whole-tone scale,
> which can make make it imperfect for certain pieces by Claude Debussy.
>

Debussy's music doesn't have the structure of fully symmetric whole-tone
scales I think.
It's built up of 9/8 and 10/9 etc.
Debussy should be perfectly playable in JI.
Maybe not on piano but that's the fault of the instrument not of JI.

Pure JI does not have the property that four perfect fifths minus two
> octaves gives a major third, whick may make it imperfect for music
> that was written for meantone tuning.
>
> But for musical styles like Orlando di Lasso, the case is different,
> of course.
>

:)
I will write a new message about tuning the Lasso piece in a minute.

Marcel

Lol Carl, please skip a few messages don't reaply to every one in
succession.I don't want to relive that moment again :)

Marcel

> I know I messed up many times, but to me this is a very strange
> piece which I don't understand how it's musical structure is.
> So I will analyse my final version to learn from it.

It isn't strange. It's a very simple and normal kind of
chord progression. Until you allow yourself to question your
assumptions (about strict just intonation for instance), you
are not doing objective thinking. -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@...> wrote:

> Without entering into the previous discussion, I think that I, in
> turn, have to disagree with this. There may be a thing like perfect
> music - but in any case perfect music can be based on an imperfect
> tuning.

There is nothing imperfect about meantone temperament (whether
realized harmonically as in conventional temperament, or
melodically as in adaptive JI). It is a fact of nature that
81/80 is a very special comma.

-Carl

>
> There is nothing imperfect about meantone temperament (whether
> realized harmonically as in conventional temperament, or
> melodically as in adaptive JI). It is a fact of nature that
> 81/80 is a very special comma.
>

I thought meantone temperament tempers and makes things not pure JI
intervals?
If so then surely it is imperfect.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is nothing imperfect about meantone temperament (whether
> > realized harmonically as in conventional temperament, or
> > melodically as in adaptive JI). It is a fact of nature that
> > 81/80 is a very special comma.
> >
>
> I thought meantone temperament tempers and makes things not
> pure JI intervals?
> If so then surely it is imperfect.
>
> Marcel

The Adaptive JI solution I posted contains only perfect JI
harmony. The melodic intervals are tempered. But why do you
assume JI is perfect?

-Carl

>
> The Adaptive JI solution I posted contains only perfect JI
> harmony. The melodic intervals are tempered.
>

Ok then that means Adaptive JI is not perfect and the adaptive JI version is
out of tune.

> But why do you
> assume JI is perfect?
>

I have a very strong suspicion based on many fact, hints, and thinking about
it.
Too much to mention. Too much to even remember.
Amongst other things I have discovered / created a huge theory /
mathematical framework which is so beautifull and perfect I still can't
beleive it.
It is the most beautifull and perfect thing I've ever seen in my life. And
it looks like music. Can't fully explain it yet, too much research to still
do, I will post it later.
On top of this (which is allready enough to make me more than 95% sure) I
have based my beleif in it.
The beleif comes from the beauty I see.
I'm not a man who beleifs in much if anything, don't beleif in god or the
paranormal etc.
Only 2 things I beleif in, 1 to exist is "good" (in the broader sense and a
bit longer than this but won't bother people here), 2 music (musical
structure) is perfect (JI) math) :)

Marcel

Btw I can no longer say the last version posted is correct according to the
most likely intentions of the composition.Please see my new thread on
retuning sounding notes.
I do however think my version is the best possible (re-)interpretation of
this piece when playing it according to the score (so no extra notes or
rests) without bending sounding notes.

I'll revisit this piece (much) later to see if i can interpret it including
retuning sounding notes to see it's most likely structure and see if it
differs from the interpretation I've done now (most likely it will)

Marcel

An interesting aside

I looked up the compser on wikipedia and found fairly long sound examples. (3 min+). My distinct impression was difficulty in following the music harmonically. In fact it was muddy. Perhaps it is the quality of the examples or perhaps something to do with the way people currently listen to music some 400 years later. It makes me wonder how we can reconstruct this. I don't feel as lost with Palestrina though but I'm sure tempo has an effect.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

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

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:15:11
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Orlando di Lasso in JI

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is nothing imperfect about meantone temperament (whether
> > realized harmonically as in conventional temperament, or
> > melodically as in adaptive JI). It is a fact of nature that
> > 81/80 is a very special comma.
> >
>
> I thought meantone temperament tempers and makes things not
> pure JI intervals?
> If so then surely it is imperfect.
>
> Marcel

The Adaptive JI solution I posted contains only perfect JI
harmony. The melodic intervals are tempered. But why do you
assume JI is perfect?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Amongst other things I have discovered / created a huge theory /
> mathematical framework which is so beautifull and perfect I still
> can't beleive it.
> It is the most beautifull and perfect thing I've ever seen in my
> life. And it looks like music. Can't fully explain it yet, too much
> research to still do, I will post it later.

Please do post about this. But be prepared for critisism :-)
--
Hans Straub

>
> Please do post about this. But be prepared for critisism :-)

Ok posted a little bit allready in a new thread now :)

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There is nothing imperfect about meantone temperament (whether
> > > realized harmonically as in conventional temperament, or
> > > melodically as in adaptive JI). It is a fact of nature that
> > > 81/80 is a very special comma.
> > >
> >
> > I thought meantone temperament tempers and makes things not
> > pure JI intervals?
> > If so then surely it is imperfect.
> >
> > Marcel
>
> The Adaptive JI solution I posted contains only perfect JI
> harmony. The melodic intervals are tempered. But why do you
> assume JI is perfect?
>
> -Carl
>

Marcel does NOT assume that JI is perfect, otherwise he would
acknowledge the excellence of the adaptive version of Lasso. What
is happening is that he is expecting the mechanical properties of
12-tET in a world (JI) where they simply cannot exist.

But he will realize this soon, I think.

Hi Cameron,

Marcel does NOT assume that JI is perfect, otherwise he would
> acknowledge the excellence of the adaptive version of Lasso. What
> is happening is that he is expecting the mechanical properties of
> 12-tET in a world (JI) where they simply cannot exist.
>

No you must have misunderstood me in several ways.
I do think JI is perfect.
And the adaprive "JI" Carl used is not JI.
Only the harmonies are tuned in JI but the harmonies move by tempered
intervals, not JI intervals.

I also do not expect the enharmonic properties of 12tet to work in JI.
I made a few stupid thinking errors with this Lasso piece but talked about
those allready, please see my thread on retuning sounding notes.
Basically I was not thinking about the Lasso piece having written just one
note 2 notes / a note stat shifts 81/80, but this is offcourse perfectly
fine.
So I was trying not to modify the composition, but in doing so wrongly saw
every held note as 1 note.
I'll get back to this somewhere in the future.

Marcel