Mozart- and Palestrina-style JI challenges

... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully 'fine-tuned'
to reveal problems.

http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf

~~~T~~~

I looked at the Mozart. Problem-note is G?

Just let it be 9/8, and let the first appearance be
"out of tune", because it is an anticipation.

A shift from 10/9 to 9/8 would sound bad.

But it only anticipates for one beat, so maybe it's not
so bad.

caleb

On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Tom Dent wrote:

>
> ... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully 'fine-tuned'
> to reveal problems.
>
> http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
>
> ~~~T~~~
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
>
> ... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully 'fine-tuned'
> to reveal problems.
>
> http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
>
> ~~~T~~~
>

- And for the first one: using a rapidly decaying and/or strongly
inharmonic piano tone counts as cheating!
Mozart is probably best with string timbre in the bass clef and oboe
on the melody, or something like that, but piano will do too.
T

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:

> > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
> >
> > ~~~T~~~
>
> - And for the first one: using a rapidly decaying and/or strongly
> inharmonic piano tone counts as cheating!
> Mozart is probably best with string timbre in the bass clef and oboe
> on the melody, or something like that, but piano will do too.
> T

Is your server down?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> > > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
> > >
> > > ~~~T~~~
> >
> > - And for the first one: using a rapidly decaying and/or strongly
> > inharmonic piano tone counts as cheating!
> > Mozart is probably best with string timbre in the bass clef and oboe
> > on the melody, or something like that, but piano will do too.
> > T
>
> Is your server down?
>
> -Carl

Yes. It's a wonderful institutional-weekend-file-maintenance
roller-coaster that we ride here.

Caleb (or anyone else who got to them before the crash) might well
have copies of the files lying around - if so we would be grateful for
them to be uploaded to /tuning/files

they're only teeny pdfs.
(Nor will the contents be much news to the non-JI-fanatics.)
~~~T~~~

>
> ... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully 'fine-tuned'
> to reveal problems.
>

Just now had a look at the mozart and wrote it out in one go without seeing
a problem.
I didn't listen to the JI version yet but can't imagine it doesn't sound
good.

/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma.rtf

Will look at the palestrina later.

Marcel

Ok did the palestrina too.
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma.rtf

Though I did it quickly without listening.
I may want to double check and listen to this one before I dare to say it's
correct.
Learned in more than one way from my lasso mess :)

Marcel

Sorry, why are you even posting about something you do 'quickly
without listening' (or double checking)?

I'm not interested in theories of 'what should sound good' that result
in large numbers of text files, the point of this was the musical
results of strict JI. If need be, one could ask someone else to do the
required synthesizer work for appropriate sustained timbres.

Anyway, one generic problem of this list is people posting before
thinking and/or listening. I don't want to wade through x versions
before we get to a 'correct' one. Come back with something you can be
confident in and we can spend (rather than waste) our time with.
~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Ok did the palestrina too.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma.rtf
>
> Though I did it quickly without listening.
> I may want to double check and listen to this one before I dare to
say it's
> correct.
> Learned in more than one way from my lasso mess :)
>
> Marcel
>

>
> Sorry, why are you even posting about something you do 'quickly
> without listening' (or double checking)?
>
> I'm not interested in theories of 'what should sound good' that result
> in large numbers of text files, the point of this was the musical
> results of strict JI. If need be, one could ask someone else to do the
> required synthesizer work for appropriate sustained timbres.
>
> Anyway, one generic problem of this list is people posting before
> thinking and/or listening. I don't want to wade through x versions
> before we get to a 'correct' one. Come back with something you can be
> confident in and we can spend (rather than waste) our time with.
>

No the point was that you said that you could easily make a simple little
composition in mozart style that would show JI can't do it.
I just showed JI can do it.
Wether I misplaced a comma or not doesn't matter much as you can still say
yes this is a correct way to solve the problem.
Or you can disagree and say no you can't do this or that.
We can discuss this perfectly without either of us hearing it.
So, do you think my solution is a good one? (wether I misplaced a comma or
not you should be able to see the way in which I solved it)

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> you could easily make a simple little
> composition in mozart style that would show JI can't do it.
> I just showed JI can do it.

"Do" what, for goodness sake? Obviously JI allows you to produce a
text file that assigns a number to every note in the score. But that's
not music. What do you mean by "do it" if not "do something musically
- audibly - acceptable"? How can we tell what is or is not musically
acceptable without listening? [You certainly seem to have no problem
to reject other people's musical tunings just by listening - e.g. my
Handel.]

> Whether I misplaced a comma or not doesn't matter much as you can
still say
> yes this is a correct way to solve the problem.

Then I have no idea what you might mean by 'correct'. The placement of
commas is EXACTLY the problem to be solved.

> We can discuss this perfectly without either of us hearing it.

How can we discuss the musical effect of (say) an oboe playing the
interval 80:81 melodically - which is what your ratios imply - without
hearing it?

> So, do you think my solution is a good one?

- If, and only if, 80:81 is a musically 'good' melodic progression for
(say) an oboe accompanied by string trio.

And the Palestrina can be 'good' if and only if it is musically 'good'
for a singer to shift by the same interval in the *middle* of a
sustained note.

Now how could we decide whether that is the case or not?
~~~T~~~

>
> If, and only if, 80:81 is a musically 'good' melodic progression for
> (say) an oboe accompanied by string trio.
>

81/80 isn't a stepsize inside a mode, but with a modulation it become a
completely different note so I don't see it as if there's a 81/80 stepsize.

And the Palestrina can be 'good' if and only if it is musically 'good'
> for a singer to shift by the same interval in the *middle* of a
> sustained note.
>

Yes ok I was wondering wether you would reject this outright as modifying
the composition and see this sort of thing as not allowed.
I think it is not modifying the composition for good reasons
But it seems you will see this as possibly correct as long as it sounds
right.

Now how could we decide whether that is the case or not?
>

Well ok I'll go figure out how to make scala tune a midi file.
Anybody know of a link that explains how to do this as I've never done it
before.

Marcel

>
> How can we tell what is or is not musically
> acceptable without listening?
>

Btw is this you allready admitting that it may indeed be possible?
As you have written these examples specifically to prove it can't be done in
pure JI, you would have beleived you would not even need to listen to
possible JI solutions since beforehand you "knew" allready it could not be
done.
This is why I thought we would allready get into a discussion about the way
I solved the problem without you even needing to listen to it.

Marcel

>
> Btw is this you allready admitting that it may indeed be possible?
> As you have written these examples specifically to prove it can't be done
> in pure JI, you would have beleived you would not even need to listen to
> possible JI solutions since beforehand you "knew" allready it could not be
> done.
> This is why I thought we would allready get into a discussion about the way
> I solved the problem without you even needing to listen to it.
>

Anyhow sorry I did not mean to get into a discussion on things like this.
I'm gratefull you took the time to make these examples, thank you.

I'll be happy to make the JI versions in to midi files tuned by scala as
soon as I figure out how to do this :)

Marcel

Can someone point to a reference or perferably scala files that define

3 limit
5 limit
7 limit

I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define interval ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view. If possible I'd like something more tangible.

Thanks

Chris.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

>
> Can someone point to a reference or perferably scala files that define
>
> 3 limit
> 5 limit
> 7 limit
>
> I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define interval
> ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view. If possible I'd
> like something more tangible.
>

Wrong thread I think :)

But it's easyer to understand by simple explanation than by scala example
files it seems to me.

It's prime limit that's ment here.

3-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
contain a prime higher than 3.
So for instance 256/243 or 81/64 or 32/27 is ok. These numbers are not made
up of primes higher than 3.
You can divide 256 or 64 or 32 by 2 continually and end up at 1.
You can divide 243 or 81 or 27 by 3 continually and end up at 1.

5-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
contain a prime higher than 5.
So for instance 5/4, 25/24, 135/128 (primes 3 and 5), 15/8, 27/25, these are
all 5-limit intervals.
They can be divided back to 1 by division of 2, 3 and must allways also use
5.

7-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
contain a prime higher than 7.
For instance 7/5, 35/32, 49/48, 21/16, 63/32 etc
They can be divided back to 1 by divisions of 2, 3, 5 and must allways also
use 7.

Marcel

>
> 5-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
> contain a prime higher than 5.
> So for instance 5/4, 25/24, 135/128 (primes 3 and 5), 15/8, 27/25, these
> are all 5-limit intervals.
> They can be divided back to 1 by division of 2, 3 and must allways also use
> 5.
>
> 7-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
> contain a prime higher than 7.
> For instance 7/5, 35/32, 49/48, 21/16, 63/32 etc
> They can be divided back to 1 by divisions of 2, 3, 5 and must allways also
> use 7.
>

Oh yeah, and if a composition or scale contains for isntance a lot of
3-limit intervals and only one 5-limit, the whole composition is still
called 5-limit music or the whole scale is still called a 5-limit scale.
Same reasoning for 7-limit offcourse.

Marcel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(music)

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> Can someone point to a reference or perferably scala files that
> define
>
> 3 limit
> 5 limit
> 7 limit
>
> I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define
> interval ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view.
> If possible I'd like something more tangible.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Chris.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(music)
>
or in the mathematically equivalent term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_number
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmoothNumber.html

> > that defines
> >
> > 3 limit
> > 5 limit
> > 7 limit
> >
> > I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define
> > interval ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view.

Here some more elementary introductions
that refer to musically ratios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit3/unit3.html

for those that consider the the naked
interval-ratios alone, as to dry stuff,
alike the makers of:
http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstruments.html

bye
A.S.

Thank you Carl.

The section talking about the relation to the harmonic series makes perfect
sense to me.
The part about prime limit and odd limit does not.

Are the two concepts that elude me systems in their own right or related to
the harmonic series version?

Thanks again,

Chris

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(music)
>
> -Carl
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, chrisvaisvil@...
> wrote:
> >
> > Can someone point to a reference or perferably scala files that
> > define
> >
> > 3 limit
> > 5 limit
> > 7 limit
> >
> > I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define
> > interval ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view.
> > If possible I'd like something more tangible.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Chris.
> >
>
>
>

Marcel, thank you - but all the ratios drive me bonkers at this point.

Hopefully I will come to have a "feel" for them.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

> Can someone point to a reference or perferably scala files that define
>>
>> 3 limit
>> 5 limit
>> 7 limit
>>
>> I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define interval
>> ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view. If possible I'd
>> like something more tangible.
>>
>
> Wrong thread I think :)
>
> But it's easyer to understand by simple explanation than by scala example
> files it seems to me.
>
> It's prime limit that's ment here.
>
> 3-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
> contain a prime higher than 3.
> So for instance 256/243 or 81/64 or 32/27 is ok. These numbers are not made
> up of primes higher than 3.
> You can divide 256 or 64 or 32 by 2 continually and end up at 1.
> You can divide 243 or 81 or 27 by 3 continually and end up at 1.
>
> 5-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
> contain a prime higher than 5.
> So for instance 5/4, 25/24, 135/128 (primes 3 and 5), 15/8, 27/25, these
> are all 5-limit intervals.
> They can be divided back to 1 by division of 2, 3 and must allways also use
> 5.
>
> 7-limit means you can use any interval ratio as long as the ratio doesn't
> contain a prime higher than 7.
> For instance 7/5, 35/32, 49/48, 21/16, 63/32 etc
> They can be divided back to 1 by divisions of 2, 3, 5 and must allways also
> use 7.
>
> Marcel
>
>

Thank you Andres - let me read up on the links.

Chris

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "Carl Lumma"
> <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(music)
> >
> or in the mathematically equivalent term
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_number
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmoothNumber.html
>
> > > that defines
> > >
> > > 3 limit
> > > 5 limit
> > > 7 limit
> > >
> > > I know these define the complexity of fraction used to define
> > > interval ratios but it is all very abstract from my point of view.
>
> Here some more elementary introductions
> that refer to musically ratios:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_number
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatonic_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_music
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_tuning
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.geometry/unit3/unit3.html<http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Ematc/math5.geometry/unit3/unit3.html>
>
> for those that consider the the naked
> interval-ratios alone, as to dry stuff,
> alike the makers of:
> http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstruments.html
>
> bye
> A.S.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(music)
> >
> or in the mathematically equivalent term
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_number
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SmoothNumber.html

Equivalent to prime limit only.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Carl.
>
> The section talking about the relation to the harmonic series
> makes perfect sense to me. The part about prime limit and odd
> limit does not.
>
> Are the two concepts that elude me systems in their own right
> or related to the harmonic series version?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Chris

I'd be happy to walk through with it paragraph by paragraph
if you like, either here or offlist... where does stop working?
Maybe the Examples section will help?

For a ratio n/d in lowest terms, to find the prime limit,
take the product n*d and prime-factor it. Then just report
the largest prime you used in the factorization.

To find the odd limit, simply divide n by 2 until you can
no longer divide it without a remainder, and then do the same
thing for d. Then take the larger of the numbers left over.

To find the prime limit or odd limit of a list of ratios,
simply calculate it for each of them individually, and then
take the maximum.

To find the prime or odd limit of a chord, one must first
compute its table of dyads, e.g. for major triad C-E-G the
dyads are C-E, E-G, and C-G. Then apply the procedure
(above) for a list of ratios.

-Carl

Carl,

Let me digest this, and Andreas' post and I will contact you off list.

Thank you so much for the offer.

Chris

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Carl.
> >
> > The section talking about the relation to the harmonic series
> > makes perfect sense to me. The part about prime limit and odd
> > limit does not.
> >
> > Are the two concepts that elude me systems in their own right
> > or related to the harmonic series version?
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > Chris
>
> I'd be happy to walk through with it paragraph by paragraph
> if you like, either here or offlist... where does stop working?
> Maybe the Examples section will help?
>
> For a ratio n/d in lowest terms, to find the prime limit,
> take the product n*d and prime-factor it. Then just report
> the largest prime you used in the factorization.
>
> To find the odd limit, simply divide n by 2 until you can
> no longer divide it without a remainder, and then do the same
> thing for d. Then take the larger of the numbers left over.
>
> To find the prime limit or odd limit of a list of ratios,
> simply calculate it for each of them individually, and then
> take the maximum.
>
> To find the prime or odd limit of a chord, one must first
> compute its table of dyads, e.g. for major triad C-E-G the
> dyads are C-E, E-G, and C-G. Then apply the procedure
> (above) for a list of ratios.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

> 81/80 isn't a stepsize inside a mode, but with a modulation it
> become a completely different note so I don't see it as if there's
> a 81/80 stepsize.

Still, you *are* asking the oboist to play a step of 81/80 between one
note and the next. (What is a 'stepsize' if not exactly the interval
between one note and the next?) And in the Palestrina, you are asking
a singer to shift between 10/9 and 9/8 in the middle of one syllable.

This is precisely the incompatibility between JI and common practice -
i.e. classical music.
In classical music G (bar 2) is the same note as G (bar 3), and both G
and G belong within the scale of F major, in which there is by
definition no modulation at all. Modulation in classical music means,
for instance, the difference between a scale with B flat and one with
B natural.

Now you are telling classical musicians that to play perfectly
ordinary harmony in F major they need two "completely different
notes", both of which are G, and they need a "modulation" in the
middle of a phrase, or even the middle of a note.

Note that I *don't* say that every G in classical music must have
exactly the same pitch! But it is essential that every G makes a
consonant interval with each of C, E/Eb, B/Bb, and D. Whereas each of
your G's makes at least one of these intervals dissonant.

This is the clearest possible demonstration that JI is simply
incompatible with the structure of classical - common practice -
music, as musicians learn it. In classical music all fourths, fifths,
thirds and sixths are consonant: in JI, some are dissonant.

Again, I don't say that JI intervals necessarily always produce a bad
way of performing classical music. But the very structure and notation
of the classical scale means that two different intervals 10/9 and 9/8
cannot be distinguished, nor can any kind of "modulation" involving
80:81. The melody F-G-A-G-F can be tuned in performance however you
like, but as a melody in classical music it contains only one type of
interval, the whole tone.
~~~T~~~

>
> Still, you *are* asking the oboist to play a step of 81/80 between one
> note and the next. (What is a 'stepsize' if not exactly the interval
> between one note and the next?) And in the Palestrina, you are asking
> a singer to shift between 10/9 and 9/8 in the middle of one syllable.
>

Well the oboist wouldn't have to if the composer wrote it so that the oboist
melody goes somewhere else and another instrument takes a note 81/80 higher
or lower than where the note of the oboist was.
Infact I consistently find that handling this comma shift in either the way
described above or even better by the way above and make the comma shift
happen an octave lower or higher (81/40 for instance) gives in my opinion
prettyer music.

But if the composer wished to write it so that the oboist plays a stepsize
of 81/80 then in JI he can.

This is precisely the incompatibility between JI and common practice -
> i.e. classical music.
> In classical music G (bar 2) is the same note as G (bar 3), and both G
> and G belong within the scale of F major, in which there is by
> definition no modulation at all. Modulation in classical music means,
> for instance, the difference between a scale with B flat and one with
> B natural.
>

It is not incompatible at all.
JI can play all classical music ever written.
It's only incompatible with current instruments.
Not incompatible with the music.

Now you are telling classical musicians that to play perfectly
> ordinary harmony in F major they need two "completely different
> notes", both of which are G, and they need a "modulation" in the
> middle of a phrase, or even the middle of a note.
>

No you don't need a modulation where you don't allready have one in 12tet.
Now indeed some harmony rules in 12tet fail to mention certain harmonic
progressions have indeed a modulation in them while they appear to move in
only 1 mode.
But it's the error of music theory here in describing things correctly (as
can be expected it's loaded with errors), not an additional modulation
because of JI, the modulation was allready there in 12tet aswell.

> Note that I *don't* say that every G in classical music must have
> exactly the same pitch! But it is essential that every G makes a
> consonant interval with each of C, E/Eb, B/Bb, and D. Whereas each of
> your G's makes at least one of these intervals dissonant.
>

No you can offcourse have C(1/1), D(9/8), Eb(6/5), E(5/4), G(3/2), Bb(9/5),
B(15/8)
See no problem.

> This is the clearest possible demonstration that JI is simply
> incompatible with the structure of classical - common practice -
> music, as musicians learn it. In classical music all fourths, fifths,
> thirds and sixths are consonant: in JI, some are dissonant.
>

As musicians learn it perhaps.
But the actual music they produce with what they learn is 100% compatible
with JI.
They're learning it in a way that works in 12tet.
They don't differentiate correctly between all the enharmonically equivalent
meaning of the 12tet notes.
They're not learning JI after all.
But incompatible, no.

Again, I don't say that JI intervals necessarily always produce a bad
> way of performing classical music. But the very structure and notation
> of the classical scale means that two different intervals 10/9 and 9/8
> cannot be distinguished, nor can any kind of "modulation" involving
> 80:81.
>

Nevertheless it's there, also in 12tet.

> The melody F-G-A-G-F can be tuned in performance however you
> like, but as a melody in classical music it contains only one type of
> interval, the whole tone.
>

Yes and the whole tone in JI can be 10/9 and 9/8 (and other intervals).
F-G-A-G-F can very well be 10/9 + 10/9, or 9/8 + 9/8, or 9/8 + 10/9, or 10/9
+ 9/8, or others.
When you for instance play a continues C while playing the above it become
more clear what's beeing said musically.
What's wrong with this?

Marcel

Ok very simple example:
Play in 12tet (without connecting chords) F5-A5-C6 -> C5-E5-G5 -> G5-B5-D6
-> D5-F#5-A5 -> D5-G5-B5 repeating again F5-A5-C6 etc
Now play in 12tet C5-F5-A5 -> C5-E5-G5 -> D5-G5-B5 -> D5-F#5-A5 repeating
again C5-F5-A5 etc.
Now the above 2 things are basically thesame musical structure right?
Inverted a few chords and cut out the last connecting chord but it's still
thesame thing.
Now play the above chords while holding any connecting notes. Also hold the
A5 note connecting the last and first chord when repeating.

Now in JI:
F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) -> C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) ->
D5(9/8)-G5(3/2)-B5(15/8) repeating again F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) etc
Now there's no problem with commas in the above example right.
And no discussion I assume about wether this is the correct JI transcription
of the 12tet example.
It also sounds perfectly correct and much better than the 12tet example.

Now the other one which is basically thesame except for a few chords
inverted and cutting out the last connecting chord.
C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3) -> C5(2/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
D5(9/8)-G5(3/2)-B5(15/8) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) repeating again
C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3) etc.
Now you see that when you hold the A5 note connecting the last chord to the
first chord this held note has a different meaning in each chord.
You get a comma shift in a held note in JI.
This is perfectly ok! No problem! If you don't do it it sounds bad, if you
do it it sounds good! So what's the problem?
D(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) -> C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)
No problem writing it down as a held note in 12tet but JI reveals it's 2
different notes.
Now there is a difference for some instruments. This 81/80 shift isn't
written as a note with a percussive onset like for instance a piano.
So a piano capable of playing both notes would have to strike again with
it's hammer producing another percussive instance.
You could say this percussive instance is modifying the composition.
This is the fault of the piano, not the fault of JI.
But a choir or violin or trombone shouldn't have any trouble playing this in
correct JI.

Marcel

Marcel wrote:

>So a piano capable of playing both notes would have to strike again with
it's hammer producing another percussive instance.
>This is the fault of the piano, not the fault of JI.
>But a choir or violin or trombone shouldn't have any trouble playing this
in correct JI.

Hi Marcel,
Do not fully understand how this relates to Tom Dent's previous post.
Tom very cleverly abridged in a few sentences centuries of wisdom that
modern science has proven correct.
The internal incompatibilities of JI were already spotted and published back
in the 16th century, commented upon by the likes of Rameau and Helmholtz.
If JI were feasible in classical music with traditional instruments,
keyboards would have been discarded long ago and musicians would have played
in JI happily ever after.

The above is of course not an issue for the modern use of JI with suitable
instruments and music.

Kind regards,

Claudio

Just wanted to say I agree: well said, Tom Dent.

On Feb 25, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

>
> Marcel wrote:
>
> >So a piano capable of playing both notes would have to strike again > with it's hammer producing another percussive instance.
> >This is the fault of the piano, not the fault of JI.
> >But a choir or violin or trombone shouldn't have any trouble > playing this in correct JI.
>
> Hi Marcel,
> Do not fully understand how this relates to Tom Dent's previous post.
> Tom very cleverly abridged in a few sentences centuries of wisdom > that modern science has proven correct.
> The internal incompatibilities of JI were already spotted and > published back in the 16th century, commented upon by the likes of > Rameau and Helmholtz.
> If JI were feasible in classical music with traditional instruments, > keyboards would have been discarded long ago and musicians would > have played in JI happily ever after.
>
> The above is of course not an issue for the modern use of JI with > suitable instruments and music.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Claudio
>
>

> Hi Marcel,
> Do not fully understand how this relates to Tom Dent's previous post.
> Tom very cleverly abridged in a few sentences centuries of wisdom that
> modern science has proven correct.
> The internal incompatibilities of JI were already spotted and published
> back in the 16th century, commented upon by the likes of Rameau and
> Helmholtz.
> If JI were feasible in classical music with traditional instruments,
> keyboards would have been discarded long ago and musicians would have played
> in JI happily ever after.
>
> The above is of course not an issue for the modern use of JI with suitable
> instruments and music.
>

Yes JI is perfectly feasible with traditional instruments that have the
ability to play all pitches fluidly, and played by perfect musicians (which
don't exist).
But the biggest obstacle to JI has surely been that nobody wrote correct JI,
same as on this list :)

Please play my above examples in 12tet and JI and you will see that shifting
a comma in a held note is perfectly good.

How the piano example related to shifting notes is that a piano cannot shift
a held note offcourse.
There's a frequency and a percussive instance. These 2 are allways combined
in a piano, but when writing a held note in 12tet you can have a shifting
note without a new percussive instance. So it would not be correct to see
this as a new note strike on the piano for instance, I'd see this as
modifying the composition, shifting a note is not modifying the composition.
So 12tet gives the magic ability to an instrument that can't shift notes
without a new percussive instance, the ability to do just this.
JI doesn't give this ability to instruments becuase there is no enharmonic
equivalence.
Anyhow this is to do with instruments in 12tet vs JI.
But in music all 12tet can be played perfectly in pure JI.
If you don't yet see this look better at my above example for instance or
state clearly your other misbeleifs why JI wouldn't be able to do this or
that.

Marcel

One could make a tempering where one tempers all notes in all octaves to
just one note.Then one would only have to hold that one note for an hour or
so to play the complete beethoven 5th :)
12tet vs JI is same kind of story.
A held note can be more than one note. It's due to the enharmonic
equivalence.
The enharmonic equivalence switching can happen just as well when holding
the note than when striking it again.
Music can have comma shifts due to modulations.
So yes one can write something where an instrument has to make a step of
81/80.
No problem, sounds perfectly ok when done correctly. Sounds bad when done
incorrectly, sounds bad when not doing a comma shift.
This is simple stuff, there are bigger problems in translating to correct
JI.
But when you can't accept the above you can't do correct JI in music that
has comma shifts in held notes so I understand some people here thinking JI
doesn't work.
But it does work, and infact I strongly beleif it's the way music really
works, and if you tune different than pure JI you're out of tune.

Marcel

Marcel wrote:
Yes JI is perfectly feasible with traditional instruments that have the
ability to play all pitches fluidly, and played by perfect musicians (which
don't exist).
Please play my above examples in 12tet and JI and you will see that shifting
a comma in a held note is perfectly good.
Anyhow this is to do with instruments in 12tet vs JI.
If you don't yet see this look better at my above example for instance or
state clearly your other misbeleifs why JI wouldn't be able to do this or
that.

Marcel you are saying that Renaissance and Baroque theoreticians, Helmholtz,
modern authorities such as Lindley and Barbieri, knowledgeable colleagues
here such as Dr. Dent, are all wrong, and that there is a solution which I
fail to see.
Indeed, a distinct possibility is that I am stupid.
I have decided therefore to avoid such an uncertainty: I am out of this
discussion.
Will filter out "JI challenges" from now on.
Have a nice time.

Kind regards

Claudio

Yes, legato play is used in music, of course, but amplitude and timbral envelope is an essential part of instrumental and vocal sound, necessary for rhythm, articulation, expression, dynamics... You can't exclude it from music just because you want to retune in the middle of sounding tone. In this sense music will not work.

Daniel Forro

On 26 Feb 2009, at 12:38 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> One could make a tempering where one tempers all notes in all > octaves to just one note.
>
> Then one would only have to hold that one note for an hour or so to > play the complete beethoven 5th :)
> 12tet vs JI is same kind of story.
> A held note can be more than one note. It's due to the enharmonic > equivalence.
> The enharmonic equivalence switching can happen just as well when > holding the note than when striking it again.
> Music can have comma shifts due to modulations.
> So yes one can write something where an instrument has to make a > step of 81/80.
> No problem, sounds perfectly ok when done correctly. Sounds bad > when done incorrectly, sounds bad when not doing a comma shift.
> This is simple stuff, there are bigger problems in translating to > correct JI.
> But when you can't accept the above you can't do correct JI in > music that has comma shifts in held notes so I understand some > people here thinking JI doesn't work.
> But it does work, and infact I strongly beleif it's the way music > really works, and if you tune different than pure JI you're out of > tune.
>
> Marcel

>
> Yes, legato play is used in music, of course, but amplitude and
> timbral envelope is an essential part of instrumental and vocal
> sound, necessary for rhythm, articulation, expression, dynamics...
> You can't exclude it from music just because you want to retune in
> the middle of sounding tone. In this sense music will not work.
>

I think you misunderstood what I ment.

What I ment was that the piano when playing in 12tet and holds a note during
2 different chords it can be that the held note has one meaning / ratio to
the first chord and another enharmonically equivalent meaning / ratio to the
other chord.
The piano plays these 2 notes in 12tet without striking again, without a new
amplitude and timbral envelope.
In reality the note offcourse does not shift in 12tet, piano notes can't
shift. But the way it works in the music the note does infact shift, it
becomes a different note while beeing held.
So 12tet gives the piano the ability to slide by a comma whithout triking
again.
In JI the piano would also have to slide by comma, but this time in reality.
A piano can't do this. Even if one were to have a piano tuned to a JI scale
with 2 notes a comma appart, the piano would have to strike again.
I think to strike 2 notes in JI when there is one held note written in 12tet
can be seen as modifying the composition.
So in this respect one could say that even a microtonal piano can't play
every piano piece written in 12tet.
But this is the inadequacy of the piano as an instrument offcourse, it is
not the fault of JI.
Only a microtonal piano that can also retune a note while it sounds without
striking again can play every piano piece written in 12tet in correct JI.

Marcel

>
> Marcel you are saying that Renaissance and Baroque theoreticians,
> Helmholtz, modern authorities such as Lindley and Barbieri, knowledgeable
> colleagues here such as Dr. Dent, are all wrong, and that there is a
> solution which I fail to see.
> Indeed, a distinct possibility is that I am stupid.
> I have decided therefore to avoid such an uncertainty: I am out of this
> discussion.
> Will filter out "JI challenges" from now on.
> Have a nice time.
>

Well if you still fail to see it I will indeed call you stupid just as I
call myself stupid for not seeing this obviously correct solution right away
when I retuned the Lasso piece :)

And yes if all those names you mentioned have said that not all classical
music can be played in JI they were / are all wrong.

Too bad that you choose to filter out JI challenges from now on at the
moment you stand to learn something.
I'm off to make an audio example of my above example for the people that
have not yet seen the truth in it by only seeing the ratios and that have
not checked it on their keyboards.
I hope you will still get it and can hear for yourself that correct comma
shifts sound wonderfull and give great clarity to music.

Marcel

I understood well what you meant and wrote generally about legato + gliding, not about the acoustic piano. Such kind of retuning is easily possible with electronic instruments.

Daniel Forro

On 26 Feb 2009, at 4:05 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
> Yes, legato play is used in music, of course, but amplitude and
> timbral envelope is an essential part of instrumental and vocal
> sound, necessary for rhythm, articulation, expression, dynamics...
> You can't exclude it from music just because you want to retune in
> the middle of sounding tone. In this sense music will not work.
>
>
> I think you misunderstood what I ment.
>
> What I ment was that the piano when playing in 12tet and holds a > note during 2 different chords it can be that the held note has one > meaning / ratio to the first chord and another enharmonically > equivalent meaning / ratio to the other chord.
> The piano plays these 2 notes in 12tet without striking again, > without a new amplitude and timbral envelope.
> In reality the note offcourse does not shift in 12tet, piano notes > can't shift. But the way it works in the music the note does infact > shift, it becomes a different note while beeing held.
> So 12tet gives the piano the ability to slide by a comma whithout > triking again.
> In JI the piano would also have to slide by comma, but this time in > reality.
> A piano can't do this. Even if one were to have a piano tuned to a > JI scale with 2 notes a comma appart, the piano would have to > strike again.
> I think to strike 2 notes in JI when there is one held note written > in 12tet can be seen as modifying the composition.
> So in this respect one could say that even a microtonal piano can't > play every piano piece written in 12tet.
> But this is the inadequacy of the piano as an instrument offcourse, > it is not the fault of JI.
> Only a microtonal piano that can also retune a note while it sounds > without striking again can play every piano piece written in 12tet > in correct JI.
>
> Marcel
>

But why all classical music should be played in JI? I see no reason, it was not written for JI. I would use JI for new compositions, specially composed and using JI fully.

Daniel Forro

On 26 Feb 2009, at 4:12 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
> Well if you still fail to see it I will indeed call you stupid just > as I call myself stupid for not seeing this obviously correct > solution right away when I retuned the Lasso piece :)
>
> And yes if all those names you mentioned have said that not all > classical music can be played in JI they were / are all wrong.
>
> Too bad that you choose to filter out JI challenges from now on at > the moment you stand to learn something.
> I'm off to make an audio example of my above example for the people > that have not yet seen the truth in it by only seeing the ratios > and that have not checked it on their keyboards.
> I hope you will still get it and can hear for yourself that correct > comma shifts sound wonderfull and give great clarity to music.
>
> Marcel

>
> I understood well what you meant and wrote generally about legato +
> gliding, not about the acoustic piano. Such kind of retuning is
> easily possible with electronic instruments.
>

Yes it is.
Also possible with a choir, violin, trombone and many other instruments.

Marcel

>
> But why all classical music should be played in JI? I see no reason,
> it was not written for JI. I would use JI for new compositions,
> specially composed and using JI fully.
>

Well I'm not saying one should.
I'd prefer it myself since it sounds better to me, clearer and more
character etc.
And I beleive JI is the way music really works so when one plays any music
in 12tet I beleive this music to be played out of tune.
But I can see the other side of the story where someone feels that if music
has been written in 12tet by the composer it should be performed in 12tet,
or the way the orchestra would naturally play it etc as this is the way
that's historically authentic.

But the main point wasn't about historical authenticity or about what which
instrument can or cannot do.
The main point was that it is perfectly possible to play all classical music
in JI.
Just about everybody on this list holds / held the belief this isn't
possible.
It is this wrong belief I'm arguing against.

Marcel

Marcel wrote:
>Also possible with a choir, violin, trombone and many other instruments.
> But the main point wasn't about historical authenticity or about what
which instrument can or cannot do.
> The main point was that it is perfectly possible to play all classical
music in JI.
> Just about everybody on this list holds / held the belief this isn't
possible.
> It is this wrong belief I'm arguing against.

Dear Marcel,
everybody is encouraged to contribute to the progress of human knowledge.
If you have found that prior important research results are wrong,
congratulations.
That however entails the moral responsibility to prove it.
In this particular case, you should submit your findings to academic
journals for publication, as it would be the Temperament finding of the
century.

For the benefit of non-specialists, let me put classical wisdom in a
nutshell.
Let us forget about keyboards or other fixed pitch instruments and play only
voices, violins, trombones as Marcel says.
If everybody played in JI, the well-known comma shift would continuously
change the pitch.
Further, the shift would NOT be self-compensating: it would keep changing as
the modulations unfold.
This effect was well understood, described and shown in a musical example in
a writing dated before 1565 (Barbieri, Enharmonic Keyboards, 2008, p.13). It
was also clearly explained by Rameau.
In the 19th century Gustav Engel in 1887 (Barbour 1951, p.198) in a paper on
Mozart's Don Giovanni, noted that if the opera were performed only by
singers using pure intonation, the final pitch would be 5 to 6 semitones
flatter than at the beginning.
One of the consequences of the above is that JI is not even practicable in
violins, because they DO have fixed pitches-the open strings-that would need
continuous retuning during performance.

Now please Marcel explain us where all the scholars quoted above (historical
and present) have been wrong.
Or else where Tom Dent, Caleb, myself and others in this list have
misunderstood you:
if that is the case I for one will be the first to stand corrected.

Kind Regards

Claudio

(you did not expect me to filter out JI, didn't you?)

Dear Claudio,

Thank you for your response.

> For the benefit of non-specialists, let me put classical wisdom in a
> nutshell.
> Let us forget about keyboards or other fixed pitch instruments and play
> only voices, violins, trombones as Marcel says.
> If everybody played in JI, the well-known comma shift would continuously
> change the pitch.
> Further, the shift would NOT be self-compensating: it would keep changing
> as the modulations unfold.
> This effect was well understood, described and shown in a musical example
> in a writing dated before 1565 (Barbieri, Enharmonic Keyboards, 2008,
> p.13). It was also clearly explained by Rameau.
> In the 19th century Gustav Engel in 1887 (Barbour 1951, p.198) in a paper
> on Mozart's Don Giovanni, noted that if the opera were performed only by
> singers using pure intonation, the final pitch would be 5 to 6 semitones
> flatter than at the beginning.
> One of the consequences of the above is that JI is not even practicable in
> violins, because they DO have fixed pitches-the open strings-that would need
> continuous retuning during performance.
>

I fear you have not understood me correctly.
The pitch can indeed shift by commas due to modualtions.
However this causes the exact oposite of pitch shifting in the whole
composition.
In other words, the final chord will be exactly thesame pitch as in the
beginning.
The composition does not drift in pitch.
Only small parts withing the composition drift in pitch, which will allways
end up shifting back.
Infact it is the other way around, without comma shift the whole composition
will drift in pitch.
With correct comma shifts the composition will not drift as a whole.

Further more these comma shifts within the composition are not made because
of or with consideration of the composition pitch as a whole.
They are simply the correct way to play certain chordal progressions etc.
But all of a sudden it turns out that because of playing every note and
every chord and every chordal progression correctly that this solves / makes
the composition no longer shift in pitch as a whole.
This can be considered as an additional proof of how to correctly play JI.

Now please Marcel explain us where all the scholars quoted above (historical
> and present) have been wrong.
> Or else where Tom Dent, Caleb, myself and others in this list have
> misunderstood you:
> if that is the case I for one will be the first to stand corrected.
>

I have in my example a few posts above allready made clear that a comma
shift in a held note is the correct way to do JI.
This comma shift in a held note solves what was previously a big problem as
it was not seen as acceptable because of lack of understanding as to why it
is correct.
With this problem solved there is no longer an unsolvable problem to do JI.
There are only difficulties in translating music to correct JI where one
wonders wether to make a modulation for instance 9/8 or 10/9, or 6/5 vs
32/27.
With simple trial and error and some logic this will allways eventually lead
to the correct solution for all compositions.
I'm working on a theory that will explain when it should be 32/27 and when
it should be 6/5 so one no longer has to try it out semi randomly. (though
this is more of a music theory, understanding of the structure of music and
what's beeing said musically)
There are other difficulties in when a chord is for instance 1/1 6/5 3/2 or
can also be 1/1 32/27 3/2. In modern music this is not allways clear, but
there will allways be a solution.
So with the comma shift in held notes solved, and explained why it is indeed
correct and a nessecity for correct JI, there is no problem in doing pure JI
except for the practical difficulties in understanding the structure of
certain compositions.

Btw sorry I did not provide midi demos yet but I found cakewalk sonar to not
handle scala tuned midi files correctly so I could not edit them to make a
held note shift. Finale also messed up.
I'm installing cubase now, I hope cubase will handle it correctly.

Marcel

Marcel wrote:
> I fear you have not understood me correctly.
> The pitch can indeed shift by commas due to modualtions.
> However this causes the exact oposite of pitch shifting in the whole
composition.
> In other words, the final chord will be exactly thesame pitch as in the
beginning.
> The composition does not drift in pitch.
> Only small parts withing the composition drift in pitch, which will
allways end up shifting back.
> With correct comma shifts the composition will not drift as a whole.
> I have in my example a few posts above allready made clear that a comma
shift in a held note is the correct way to do JI.
...

Marcel,

well I am happy that we are speaking a similar language now.
To compensate for shifts obviously the ONLY way is:
- to keep track of comma shifts
- as soon as a comma shift occurs, and as soon as music allows without
souding offensive, to produce an opposite shift.
Indeed you may need to perform the "compensating shift" in a long held note
as you say.
You will find however that most harmonically-involved classical music does
not allow you to perform such a shift, I mean, you have to shift MOST parts,
not just one note.
But indeed, it can be done, and this way in the long term no variations in
the general pitch are observed.
And indeed it is surely useful for modern music, as clearly said by
knowledgeable colleagues in this forum.

Back to classical music however I have more than one objection.
I do not find that it is not even a new idea at all: problem is, it was
considered inappropriate by classical writers and composers.
They found the comma shift, by over 20 Cents, absolutely intollerable.
Let us remember that they were very sensitive to tuning, as proved by the
success of ET31 in Renaissance times, further proving the level of accuracy
they expected meantone tuning to reach.
For them a comma shift was intollerable, and accordingly music was written
for - and meant to be performed with - non-JI temperaments.
Even when voices and violins performed pure intervals (a tendency already
observed by Renaissance writers) it was to perform momentary adjustments to
different types of temperaments (meantone, circular, equal), NOT to play
throughout in JI or pure intervals.

Summing up, you are free of course to find ways to perform classical music
in JI with "compensation shifts".
Not that easy in Baroque music, it is certainly easier in later music, with
its pauses and changes of mood.

Problem is, it is be hopelessly unauthentic: the music was not written with
those effects in mind.
[It is the same as playing Bach on a piano or with jazz rhythm. There are no
laws against it, it can be done with very nice effect, but authentic Bach it
is not.]

Kind regards,

Claudio

>
> well I am happy that we are speaking a similar language now.
> To compensate for shifts obviously the ONLY way is:
> - to keep track of comma shifts
> - as soon as a comma shift occurs, and as soon as music allows without
> souding offensive, to produce an opposite shift.
> Indeed you may need to perform the "compensating shift" in a long held
> note as you say.
> You will find however that most harmonically-involved classical music does
> not allow you to perform such a shift, I mean, you have to shift MOST parts,
> not just one note.
> But indeed, it can be done, and this way in the long term no variations in
> the general pitch are observed.
> And indeed it is surely useful for modern music, as clearly said by
> knowledgeable colleagues in this forum.
>

I would not call it a compensating shift, as this suggests the shift is
there for the reason to compensate which is not the case.
The shift is there not as a compensation but simply because it's the correct
way to play that chordal progression. Wether it's in that particualr
composition or in a different composition or as a chordal progression all by
itself.

Therefore your 2 ways that keep track of comma shifts and as soon as a comma
shift occurs produce an opposite shift when it doesn't sound offensive is
completely the wrong way that will allmost allways produce out of tune
music.

Take my simple example:
F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) -> C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) ->
F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1)
-> C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) -> G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) ->
D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) -> F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) ->
C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) -> G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) ->
D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) etc

As you can see the A5 note gets a comma shift from 27/16 to 5/3. You can
write this / do this shift in a held note or as 2 different notes it doesn't
make a difference.
This is not a shift by choice. It is a mandatory shift if you wish to play
the music correctly.
And there is no shift back as you can see. The chords progress in such a way
that there is only a shift from 27/16 to 5/3, and no sudden shift back yet
the overall pitch does not go up and down as you continue to repeat this
chordal progression.

All harmonic classical music that contains such a shift must be played in
this way otherwise you will be out of tune.
It is not usually the choice of the performer (unless one can interpret the
music in different ways) but is fixed in the composition / music itself.

> Back to classical music however I have more than one objection.
> I do not find that it is not even a new idea at all: problem is, it was
> considered inappropriate by classical writers and composers.
>

Yes I know it's not a new idea.
But the idea has been misunderstood and wrongly executed and therefore
rejected while it shouldn't have been.

> They found the comma shift, by over 20 Cents, absolutely intollerable.
>

Yes when performed wrongly it's absolutely intollerable.
When done correctly it's perfectly tollereable, infact it's perfect and
sounds best.

One way to do it wrongly is to simply perform this comma shift at a wrong
place, which is offcourse intolerable.
Another way to view it wrongly is to take my above JI example and then
extract a melody out of it's harmonic context.
For instance A5 -> G5 -> B5 -> A5 -> A5 -> G5 -> B5 -> A5 -> A5 etc
Now use the tuning these tones get in the JI chordal progression above:
A5(5/3) -> G5(3/2) -> B5(15/8) -> A5(27/16) -> A5(5/3) -> G5(3/2) ->
B5(15/8) -> A5(27/16) -> A5(5/3) etc
Now when playing the melody like this on it's own you may think hey this
sounds wrong.
You may imagine for instance a fixed note C5(1/1) and judge the melody
against this.
And indeed in 12tet this you can do.
But in JI the chordal progression made clear what the real melody is in the
case of the chordal progression.
And it is not thesame as when playing these same 12tet notes on their own
judged against a fixed note and not as in the modulations of the chordal
progression.
So when on it's own one would expect something like:
A5(5/3) -> G5(3/2) -> B5(15/8) -> A5(5/3) -> A5(5/3) -> G5(3/2) -> B5(15/8)
-> A5(5/3) -> A5(5/3) etc
This is perfectly logical and ok. This does not mean that the comma shift in
the chordal progression is wrong, it's simply a different melody with a
different structure.
It is one of the functions of harmony and bass etc to make clear the
structure of the melody. So different chords / bass movements make different
melodies clear, this is a great function of music. It doesn't mean comma
shifts are wrong.
Comma shifts only sound wrong when done in the wrong way.

> Let us remember that they were very sensitive to tuning, as proved by the
> success of ET31 in Renaissance times, further proving the level of accuracy
> they expected meantone tuning to reach.
> For them a comma shift was intollerable, and accordingly music was written
> for - and meant to be performed with - non-JI temperaments.
> Even when voices and violins performed pure intervals (a tendency already
> observed by Renaissance writers) it was to perform momentary adjustments to
> different types of temperaments (meantone, circular, equal), NOT to play
> throughout in JI or pure intervals.
>
>

Again, they must have been doing wrong comma shifts after which they found
them intolerable.
One must understand the structure of music in order to do correct comma
shifts, it's much easyer to do them wrong.

> Summing up, you are free of course to find ways to perform classical music
> in JI with "compensation shifts".
> Not that easy in Baroque music, it is certainly easier in later music, with
> its pauses and changes of mood.
>
>

It's pretty easy in baroque music i think.
I find it gets harder in modern music with so many modulations and broken
chords it gets harder to read the structure of the music.

> Problem is, it is be hopelessly unauthentic: the music was not written with
> those effects in mind.
> [It is the same as playing Bach on a piano or with jazz rhythm. There are
> no laws against it, it can be done with very nice effect, but authentic Bach
> it is not.]
>

It's not an effect it's the structure of the real music.
It's also the structure of the music when it's played in 12tet, only
difference is that 12tet is out of tune (amongst other things because it
doesn't do these comma shifts).
But authentic in historical sense yes i agree it's not authentic in this
way.
But it is in my view 100% authentic to the music. It's not modifying the
composition like playing bach with jazz rhythm.

Marcel

Marcel wrote:
> > To compensate for shifts obviously the ONLY way is:
> > - to keep track of comma shifts
> > - as soon as a comma shift occurs, and as soon as music allows without
souding offensive, to produce an opposite shift
> > Indeed you may need to perform the "compensating shift" in a long held
note as you say.
> I would not call it a compensating shift, as this suggests the shift is
there for the reason to compensate which is not the case.
>The shift is there not as a compensation but simply because it's the
correct way to play that chordal progression.
>Therefore your 2 ways that keep track of comma shifts and as soon as a
comma shift occurs produce an opposite shift when it doesn't sound offensive
is completely the wrong way that will allmost allways produce out of tune
music.
> Take my simple example:
> F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) -> C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) ->
F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) -> C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) ->
F5(4/3)-A5(5/3)-C6(2/1) -> C5(1/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
G5(3/2)-B5(15/8)-D6(9/4) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) etc

> As you can see the A5 note gets a comma shift from 27/16 to 5/3. You can
write this / do this shift in a held note or as 2 different notes it doesn't
make a difference.
> This is not a shift by choice. It is a mandatory shift if you wish to
play the music correctly.

Marcel: instead of my "compensating shift as soon as you can", you are
specifying when to perform the comma shift when you find it less offensive.
That is the only difference I can find.
Your example does not show what to do with every possible harmonic
progression: you would need a very complex set of rules to do that.
It would be quite difficult to do, and your argument does not even prove
that it is feasible.

> And there is no shift back as you can see.
> The chords progress in such a way that there is only a shift from 27/16 to
5/3,
> and no sudden shift back yet the overall pitch does not go up and down as
you continue to repeat this chordal progression.
IMHO this is a shift back, sorry to say.

> It's not an effect it's the structure of the real music.
> ... But it is in my view 100% authentic to the music.
> It's not modifying the composition like playing bach with jazz rhythm.
For me it is Marcel, and I am afraid I am not alone in this feeling.

> It's pretty easy in baroque music i think.
Now this gets interesting!
Could you give us a practical example in well-known modulations?
Let us begin with something short and relatively simple, e.g. Bach's great
organ Fantasia et Fuga in g minor, played with a modern string sextet.
I mean, only the bars of the famous progression, 31 to 36. Six bars only.
Can you show us where the shifts would occur to accomplish your double goals
of
a) using JI throughout and
b) ending at the same initial pitch?
Even if not historically authentic, it would certainly be a very good
example!

For a practical example (with harmonies certainly far from too elaborate) I
suggest the full central movement of Bach's Fantasia in G BWV 572: the
"Grave" in 5 parts (though the last 9 bars are actually in 6 parts).
If you can produce that - via MIDI say - and record it in an audio file with
a sound rich in harmonics (organ, harpsichord, string sextet) and it can
have JI throughout with no offending comma shifts, you will get my full
admiration.

Regards
Claudio

>
> Now this gets interesting!
> Could you give us a practical example in well-known modulations?
> Let us begin with something short and relatively simple, e.g. Bach's great
> organ Fantasia et Fuga in g minor, played with a modern string sextet.
> I mean, only the bars of the famous progression, 31 to 36. Six bars only.
> Can you show us where the shifts would occur to accomplish your double
> goals of
> a) using JI throughout and
> b) ending at the same initial pitch?
> Even if not historically authentic, it would certainly be a very good
> example!
>
> For a practical example (with harmonies certainly far from too elaborate) I
> suggest the full central movement of Bach's Fantasia in G BWV 572: the
> "Grave" in 5 parts (though the last 9 bars are actually in 6 parts).
> If you can produce that - via MIDI say - and record it in an audio file
> with a sound rich in harmonics (organ, harpsichord, string sextet) and it
> can have JI throughout with no offending comma shifts, you will get my full
> admiration.
>

I will with joy make these 2 examples in pure JI :)
And I will make them in pitch bent midi files so you can change the
instument if you don't trust my default choice.
(like when I shifted the "adaptive JI" version Carl posted of the Lasso
piece from trombone to organ all of a sudden it's mistakes were more clearly
revealed audibly)
Only I do have a few pieces I have first in my list to retune, i don't think
these will take long.
I am figuring out an effective workflow right now, hope to be up to spead in
a few days.

Kind regards,
Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Please play my above examples in 12tet and JI and you will see that
shifting
> a comma in a held note is perfectly good.
> (...)
>
> Marcel

- So this is precisely the question. (Which I haven't seen a real
attempt to answer yet.)
*Is* it always "perfectly good" to shift a comma in a held or repeated
note, given sustained timbres of high harmonic content which emphasize
melodic motion (e.g. oboe, some stops of pipe/reed organ)?

Since I don't have MIDI capability I am not able to implement the
"modulatory" pitch assignments that Marcel has given for the first
Mozart and Palestrina. Has anyone actually done it?
Until I actually hear a tuning with such a shift in a melodic upper
voice, I will not be convinced of what is 'perfectly good'!

And what about the second Mozart ... where should the 'shift' (this
time a downwards one) come? Which D's should be 9/8 and which 10/9?
What other notes need to shift along with them?

By the way, the better tempered comparison to JI is *not* 12ET, rather
quarter-comma meantone, - since none of the examples use enharmonics.
~~~T~~~

>
> - So this is precisely the question. (Which I haven't seen a real
> attempt to answer yet.)
> *Is* it always "perfectly good" to shift a comma in a held or repeated
> note, given sustained timbres of high harmonic content which emphasize
> melodic motion (e.g. oboe, some stops of pipe/reed organ)?
>

Yes.
If you can accept my example a few posts back in this thread you should be
able to accept it as a whole as it's allways basically thesame thing.

Since I don't have MIDI capability I am not able to implement the
> "modulatory" pitch assignments that Marcel has given for the first
> Mozart and Palestrina. Has anyone actually done it?
> Until I actually hear a tuning with such a shift in a melodic upper
> voice, I will not be convinced of what is 'perfectly good'!
>

I'm working on it right now.
Just got cubase installed after both sonar and finale were unable to edit
midi correctly (needed for the held note shift) ugh.
Cubase does it right.
Hope to have the files ready in a few hours, otherwise it will be tomorrow
Btw you can play scala tuned midi files right? Otherwise I'll also make mp3
versions for you.

And what about the second Mozart ... where should the 'shift' (this
> time a downwards one) come? Which D's should be 9/8 and which 10/9?
> What other notes need to shift along with them?
>

I haven't checked the second mozart yet but will do so later.

By the way, the better tempered comparison to JI is *not* 12ET, rather
> quarter-comma meantone, - since none of the examples use enharmonics.
>

Hmm I'm not sure what's your or the standard defenition of enharmonics then.
But it seems to me (the way I have been defining enharmonics) that all
examples contain enharmonics (in 12tet enharmonically equal notes / notes
with double meaning tempered to 1 note).
I know too little about meantones to be able to say something sensible on
the matter.
If you wish to compare to meantones someone else should make the meantone
files.

Marcel

Marcel de Velde wrote:

> No you don't need a modulation where you don't allready have
> one in 12tet. Now indeed some harmony rules in 12tet fail to
> mention certain harmonic progressions have indeed a modulation
> in them while they appear to move in only 1 mode.
> But it's the error of music theory here in describing things
> correctly (as can be expected it's loaded with errors), not
> an additional modulation because of JI, the modulation was
> allready there in 12tet aswell.

Hello, Marcel

You seem to imply that if one doesn't hear a shift by syntonic
comma (whether tuned as such or not) as a change of tonic
(modulation) one doesn't hear it correctly as it really is. But
how can a harmonic progression *appear* to stay in only one key
while *really* modulating?

I would have thought that the way we hear, i.e. our auditory
experience is the ultimate standard in this and that music
theory reflects the psychology of music. After all what happens
in the objective reality is just causally independent mechanical
vibrations initiated by musicians or machines. There are no
melodies or modulations *in the world itself*. We hear the
music in sounds. I don't think music can be said to exist
without minds capable of musical listening. We shouldn't try
to adjust the ways we hear to beautiful theories.
The theories should adjust to the way we hear.

Also in justly tuned common practice music at least I
don't hear the notes differing by syntonic comma as
different notes even if I try. I hear them as versions of
the same note.

Kalle Aho

Hi Kalle,

> You seem to imply that if one doesn't hear a shift by syntonic
> comma (whether tuned as such or not) as a change of tonic
> (modulation) one doesn't hear it correctly as it really is. But
> how can a harmonic progression *appear* to stay in only one key
> while *really* modulating?
>

Well how exactly does one define a modulation / change of tonic?
If you stick to the way it's taught at music schools then you get shifts too
when there is not modulation / change of tonic.
There's no way to play I -> ii -> iv -> V with pure JI major and minor
chords without a comma shift.
Yet I think music theory teaches that when you do this chord progression you
stay in thesame major key.
So I say you're modulating.
There are different ways to solve the above progression in JI.
In one of them you never leave the tonic, but you do use 2 different modes.
I'd still call this a modulation.
But if you don't define this as a modulation then you can say you can also
get comma shifts without modulation in certain cases.

I would have thought that the way we hear, i.e. our auditory
> experience is the ultimate standard in this and that music
> theory reflects the psychology of music. After all what happens
> in the objective reality is just causally independent mechanical
> vibrations initiated by musicians or machines. There are no
> melodies or modulations *in the world itself*. We hear the
> music in sounds. I don't think music can be said to exist
> without minds capable of musical listening. We shouldn't try
> to adjust the ways we hear to beautiful theories.
> The theories should adjust to the way we hear.
>

Well yes I agree.
But music is special in that when you start to explain what you hear you get
into this world of beautifull math.

> Also in justly tuned common practice music at least I
> don't hear the notes differing by syntonic comma as
> different notes even if I try. I hear them as versions of
> the same note.
>

Justly tuned common practice music?
I assume you mean a choir or string quartet or trombones.
They don't do just intonation particulary well, their pitches are most often
many cents off and not consistent.
Surely better than a piano tuned to 12tet, but by no means perfect.
And a comma shift in a chordal progression is allready hard to hear when
doing it with a midi instrument that maximally exposes such small
differences.
I don't know if I could hear a comma shift in a choir even if they were
actually doing it.
But perhaps such comma shifts have been measured, I know too little of the
research done.

I'm working on several audio examples demonstrating comma shifts in held
notes.
I'll have one ready later today I hope.
So you can let your ear decide.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Kalle,
>
> > You seem to imply that if one doesn't hear a shift by syntonic
> > comma (whether tuned as such or not) as a change of tonic
> > (modulation) one doesn't hear it correctly as it really is. But
> > how can a harmonic progression *appear* to stay in only one key
> > while *really* modulating?
>
> Well how exactly does one define a modulation / change of tonic?

Modulation means change of key i.e. the heard tonic center changes.
The diatonic functions of notes and chords are heard against this
new tonic.

> If you stick to the way it's taught at music schools then you get
shifts too
> when there is not modulation / change of tonic.
> There's no way to play I -> ii -> iv -> V with pure JI major and minor
> chords without a comma shift.
> Yet I think music theory teaches that when you do this chord
progression you
> stay in thesame major key.

I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor subdominant)
would not belong to a major key.

> So I say you're modulating.

No, you get comma shifts but that is not the same thing as
modulation.

> There are different ways to solve the above progression in JI.
> In one of them you never leave the tonic, but you do use 2 different
modes.
> I'd still call this a modulation.

Maybe in this progression you could hear a modulation into or
a tonicization of the relative minor vi.

> But if you don't define this as a modulation then you can say you
can also
> get comma shifts without modulation in certain cases.

Right.

> > Also in justly tuned common practice music at least I
> > don't hear the notes differing by syntonic comma as
> > different notes even if I try. I hear them as versions of
> > the same note.
>
> Justly tuned common practice music?
> I assume you mean a choir or string quartet or trombones.

No, I mean common practice music that is really tuned justly.
This means some notes that are the same in musical notation will
have different versions separated by syntonic comma. I also
tend to hear them that way, not as different notes. So
different pitches are not always necessarily different notes.
That is at least how I think about it and how I hear.

> I'm working on several audio examples demonstrating comma shifts in
> held notes.
> I'll have one ready later today I hope.
> So you can let your ear decide.

Good, let our ears decide!

Kalle Aho

Ok I made the examples in scala tuned midi files.
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs1_12tet.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs2_12tet.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet_bagpipe.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet_trombone.mid

/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs1_JI.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs2_JI.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI_bagpipe.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI_trombone.mid

The hcs3 versions have the held A notes that shifts a comma while beeing
held.
C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3) -> C5(2/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
D5(9/8)-G5(3/2)-B5(15/8) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) repeating again
C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3) etc.

Here a picture of the score so you can see the held notes:
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs.gif

I used 3 different default midi instruments because I had a hard time before
finding a midi player that allowed me to switch instruments.
I myself find the bagpipe the clearest to spot errors but it sounds horrible
in any case (least with JI), the trombone the least clear for spotting
errors but it's a fairly pleasant sound atleast on my general midi
soundcard.

Btw these midi files are not correctly played by my quicktime player inside
my browser.
Quicktime plays the JI versions as 12tet, so it doesn't retune them.
My other midi players do play the JI versions correct.
Anybody knows what causes this and how to fix it in the midi files?

Also I'll start retuning in midi the many compositions I have on my list.
Starting with the mozcomma and palcomma, hope to post them tomorrow when I
have the time.

Marcel

Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:

C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
> I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor subdominant)
> would not belong to a major key.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
>
> C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
> > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor subdominant)
> > would not belong to a major key.

Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
which I still think Marcel meant.

Kalle Aho

>
> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
> which I still think Marcel meant.
>

Ah I think I understand now.
When you make it lower capital it's a minor chord with capitals it's a major
chord?
Then I ment I, ii, IV, V in for instance C-major mode / key.
But anyhow thesame thing holds for I, ii, V, vi. Must have a comma shift.
Sorry never studied music theory.

Marcel

>
> No, you get comma shifts but that is not the same thing as
> modulation.
>

Well I tend to see modes like this:

mode 1 (major)
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 (minor)
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

Here you can see that for instance 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 and 1/1
10/9 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 are according to my system 2 different modes,
and after I've made clear that I'm for instance in the first mode and have
played the 9/8, if I then play a chord from the second mode that uses the
10/9 I call it that I have modulated even though the tonic was first degree
1 of major mode, then degree 3 of minor mode, the tonic stays in thesame
place (1/1), but I do get a comma shift.
I have thousands of other modes.
But it seems normal music theory orders modes according to 12tet with all
the enharmonic equivalent notes.

No, I mean common practice music that is really tuned justly.
> This means some notes that are the same in musical notation will
> have different versions separated by syntonic comma. I also
> tend to hear them that way, not as different notes. So
> different pitches are not always necessarily different notes.
> That is at least how I think about it and how I hear.
>

Well I have not yet heard any music tuned to what I call correct just
intonation on this list.
I'm not saying that it has not been posted, I just never saw / heard it
myself.
Or are you not talking about music posted on this list?
Could you possibly give me a link of the just intonation music you mean?

Marcel

Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)

(i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western harmony, west of the Balkans.

Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
(i.e. L+s)

So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.

see this page for more examples:

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

On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:17, Kalle Aho wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
> >
> > Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
> >
> > C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
> >
> > On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
> > > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor > subdominant)
> > > would not belong to a major key.
>
> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
> which I still think Marcel meant.
>
> Kalle Aho
>
>
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, I mean common practice music that is really tuned justly.
> This means some notes that are the same in musical notation will
> have different versions separated by syntonic comma. I also
> tend to hear them that way, not as different notes. So
> different pitches are not always necessarily different notes.
> That is at least how I think about it and how I hear.
>

Sorry my previous reply to this was a bit besides your point :)
I think I know what you mean.
I tend to see and hear such a shifted note as both thesame note and as a
different note with a different meaning from the previous note, different
character, different places to go to next etc.
It's a subtle way of listening. I can hear it in both 12tet and JI, only in
JI it becomes more clear to me.

Marcel

Marcel wrote:
Sorry never studied music theory.
I see, I see...
It's never too late ... fascinating subject, you know ...
:-)

Kind regards

Claudio

Yes, one of used system works like this. There can be problem with augmented and diminished triad (and more complex chords using these two as a base), as we can hardly describe them as major and minor.

Another system use always capitals as it's clear which chords belong naturally to the key. Chromatically altered chords in extended tonality have different functional sign (for example chord D-F#-A in C major can be double dominant, Bb-Db-F can be double subdominant etc).

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2009, at 8:23 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

> Ah I think I understand now.
> When you make it lower capital it's a minor chord with capitals > it's a major chord?
> Then I ment I, ii, IV, V in for instance C-major mode / key.
> But anyhow thesame thing holds for I, ii, V, vi. Must have a comma > shift.
> Sorry never studied music theory.
>
> Marcel
>

Charles,

I have just gone through your entire site (again) and my question is not
answered there.

It would seem a simple thing to answer - what is the root note where your
chains of 5ths and 4ths start from for each tuning file.

I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not providing the
information.

It would, I think, not be anymore complicated than your explanation of
mapping modes to Lucy tuning.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
>
> (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western harmony,
> west of the Balkans.
>
> Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
> (i.e. L+s)
>
> So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
>
> see this page for more examples:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:17, Kalle Aho wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Daniel Forro
> <dan.for@...> wrote:
> >
> > Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
> >
> > C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
> >
> > On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
> > > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor subdominant)
> > > would not belong to a major key.
>
> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
> which I still think Marcel meant.
>
> Kalle Aho
>
>
> 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 don't understand what you mean as I have no difficulty here.

Ab to B is augmented second. I've never heard about "sharp second".

Second there's sometimes natural, sometimes sharp, sometimes double sharp connected with augmented second in the scale, so to use sign #II is not always quite exact. Better is to use neutral +II or II+ which can be used in all those cases. But it's unusual to use Roman capitals for interval, as usually they are used for chord functions in tonality.

Using of harmonic major is quite common in western music of all kind. In this sense it has nothing to do with hijjaz tetrachord coming from Middle Eastern music (by the way, it's not limited to Balcan only, we can find it also in Jewish, Gipsy and Spanish music).

Note Cb has nothing to do with C major. Of course we have to write B in C major. To write Cb is against the main rule of enharmonic major scale ("notes of Tonic triad can't be altered").

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2009, at 8:36 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
>
>
> (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western > harmony, west of the Balkans.
>
> Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
> (i.e. L+s)
>
> So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
>
> see this page for more examples:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/

The chain is arranged in steps of fifths from left to right.
The root is whichever note you wish to choose, and this selection is the final number in the scalecoding, which depends upon your choice.

In the examples, when I have specified notenames or position I have used C as the root or I as the note.

On 27 Feb 2009, at 00:41, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Charles,
>
> I have just gone through your entire site (again) and my question is > not answered there.
>
> It would seem a simple thing to answer - what is the root note where > your chains of 5ths and 4ths start from for each tuning file.
>
> I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not providing the > information.
>
> It would, I think, not be anymore complicated than your explanation > of mapping modes to Lucy tuning.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> > wrote:
> Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
>
>
> (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western > harmony, west of the Balkans.
>
> Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
> (i.e. L+s)
>
> So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
>
> see this page for more examples:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:17, Kalle Aho wrote:
>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
>> >
>> > C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
>> >
>> > On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
>> > > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor >> subdominant)
>> > > would not belong to a major key.
>>
>> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
>> which I still think Marcel meant.
>>
>> Kalle Aho
>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
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

Sorry for sounding stupid - that to me says every scale is equivalent -
which is obviously not true...

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> The chain is arranged in steps of fifths from left to right.
> The root is whichever note you wish to choose, and this selection is the
> final number in the scalecoding, which depends upon your choice.
>
> In the examples, when I have specified notenames or position I have used C
> as the root or I as the note.
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 00:41, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> Charles,
>
> I have just gone through your entire site (again) and my question is not
> answered there.
>
> It would seem a simple thing to answer - what is the root note where your
> chains of 5ths and 4ths start from for each tuning file.
>
> I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not providing the
> information.
>
> It would, I think, not be anymore complicated than your explanation of
> mapping modes to Lucy tuning.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
>> Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
>>
>> (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western harmony,
>> west of the Balkans.
>>
>> Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
>> (i.e. L+s)
>>
>> So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
>>
>> see this page for more examples:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>>
>>
>> On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:17, Kalle Aho wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Daniel Forro
>> <dan.for@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
>> >
>> > C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
>> >
>> > On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
>> > > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor subdominant)
>> > > would not belong to a major key.
>>
>> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
>> which I still think Marcel meant.
>>
>> Kalle Aho
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> 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.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Dan;

I hear you, yet it was you you used the notenames Ab and B, which can lead to ambiguity if you use them in some other unspecified way.

I accept that #II may be ambiguous as you are using it, although there is no similar confusion in meantone usage of this concept.

"Jewish, Gipsy and Spanish", I view of not being West of the Balkans tradition, as the Spanish #II seems to have come from Arabic via North Africa and the Moors, and the other two are obviously from the Balkans or East of them.

Any note can be altered e.g. Cb.

You could have a chord or tuning which uses C as the tonic and Cb

e.g. C-E-G-Cb as a chord would be C bVIII, although in 12edo you would probably spell it as CMaj7.

On 27 Feb 2009, at 00:45, Daniel Forro wrote:

> I don't understand what you mean as I have no difficulty here.
>
> Ab to B is augmented second. I've never heard about "sharp second".
>
> Second there's sometimes natural, sometimes sharp, sometimes double
> sharp connected with augmented second in the scale, so to use sign
> #II is not always quite exact. Better is to use neutral +II or II+
> which can be used in all those cases. But it's unusual to use Roman
> capitals for interval, as usually they are used for chord functions
> in tonality.
>
> Using of harmonic major is quite common in western music of all kind.
> In this sense it has nothing to do with hijjaz tetrachord coming from
> Middle Eastern music (by the way, it's not limited to Balcan only, we
> can find it also in Jewish, Gipsy and Spanish music).
>
> Note Cb has nothing to do with C major. Of course we have to write B
> in C major. To write Cb is against the main rule of enharmonic major
> scale ("notes of Tonic triad can't be altered").
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 8:36 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
> > Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
> >
> >
> > (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western
> > harmony, west of the Balkans.
> >
> > Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
> > (i.e. L+s)
> >
> > So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
> >
> > see this page for more examples:
> >
> > http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>
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

Every scale is equivalent. You could consider every unique scale as a unique sequence of intervals. (starting from I or the tonic)

By changing the key, you change the notenames of all the notes, although the scale positions and sequence of intervals remain the same.

i.e. all scales are transposable

On 27 Feb 2009, at 01:29, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Sorry for sounding stupid - that to me says every scale is > equivalent - which is obviously not true...
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> > wrote:
> The chain is arranged in steps of fifths from left to right.
>
> The root is whichever note you wish to choose, and this selection is > the final number in the scalecoding, which depends upon your choice.
>
> In the examples, when I have specified notenames or position I have > used C as the root or I as the note.
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 00:41, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
>> Charles,
>>
>> I have just gone through your entire site (again) and my question >> is not answered there.
>>
>> It would seem a simple thing to answer - what is the root note >> where your chains of 5ths and 4ths start from for each tuning file.
>>
>> I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not providing the >> information.
>>
>> It would, I think, not be anymore complicated than your explanation >> of mapping modes to Lucy tuning.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> >> wrote:
>> Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
>>
>>
>> (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western >> harmony, west of the Balkans.
>>
>> Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
>> (i.e. L+s)
>>
>> So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
>>
>> see this page for more examples:
>>
>> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>>
>>
>> On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:17, Kalle Aho wrote:
>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forro <dan.for@...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
>>> >
>>> > C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
>>> >
>>> > On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
>>> > > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor >>> subdominant)
>>> > > would not belong to a major key.
>>>
>>> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
>>> which I still think Marcel meant.
>>>
>>> Kalle Aho
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
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

A 440 is important in tuning the guitars - is this the note from which your
chain starts?
What I'm getting at is - when I try Lucy Tuning it is apparent that not all
intervals are equal on my 12 note keyboard. I just would like an idea to
predict what tuning file in your nomenclature will indicate this particular
scala file is intended for the keys of C, G, D, A, and E.

Does that make any sense?

Thanks for trying to get me to understand.

Chris

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> Every scale is equivalent. You could consider every unique scale as a
> unique sequence of intervals. (starting from I or the tonic)
>
> By changing the key, you change the notenames of all the notes, although
> the scale positions and sequence of intervals remain the same.
>
> i.e. all scales are transposable
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 01:29, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> Sorry for sounding stupid - that to me says every scale is equivalent -
> which is obviously not true...
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
>> The chain is arranged in steps of fifths from left to right.
>> The root is whichever note you wish to choose, and this selection is the
>> final number in the scalecoding, which depends upon your choice.
>>
>> In the examples, when I have specified notenames or position I have used C
>> as the root or I as the note.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 Feb 2009, at 00:41, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>
>> Charles,
>>
>> I have just gone through your entire site (again) and my question is not
>> answered there.
>>
>> It would seem a simple thing to answer - what is the root note where your
>> chains of 5ths and 4ths start from for each tuning file.
>>
>> I think you are doing yourself a disservice by not providing the
>> information.
>>
>> It would, I think, not be anymore complicated than your explanation of
>> mapping modes to Lucy tuning.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Your difficulty here is that Ab to B is a sharp second. (#II)
>>>
>>> (i.e. 2L-s) and hence not usually found in traditional Western harmony,
>>> west of the Balkans.
>>>
>>> Western tradition expects a flat third (bIII)
>>> (i.e. L+s)
>>>
>>> So expects to see notation as Ab to Cb.
>>>
>>> see this page for more examples:
>>>
>>> http://www.lucytune.com/scales/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Feb 2009, at 23:17, Kalle Aho wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Daniel Forro
>>> <dan.for@...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Minor subdominant belongs to harmonic major key, for example:
>>> >
>>> > C-D-E-F-G-Ab-B
>>> >
>>> > On 27 Feb 2009, at 7:36 AM, Kalle Aho wrote:
>>> > > I guess you meant I -> ii -> vi -> V because iv (a minor subdominant)
>>> > > would not belong to a major key.
>>>
>>> Yes, you're right Daniel. But not to the plain vanilla major scale
>>> which I still think Marcel meant.
>>>
>>> Kalle Aho
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> 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.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I have used Ab - B, which is the only right spelling of those notes when they are in C major harmonic.

Yes, it came to Spain from Moors and Gypsies (flamenco) thru Africa.

But European classical music has its own tradition of using this tetrachord with augmented second, independent on folklore influence and inspiration. It's usually not used in the melody, melody doesn't go in that direction Ab ----> B. Ab is always resolved down to G, and B up to C. Origin of this is in harmony - using progressions like minor subdominant ----> tonic, or minor subdominant ----> dominant, or diminished seventh ----> tonic...

That hijjaz tetrachord can be found often in Mozart works, and it's questionable if it came from Turkish music which was those times fashionable in Europe (alla Turca works has also Beethoven and other composers). He used it with flattened VI before dominant, in C major it would be Ab triad or Ab - C - D# - F# (this is enharmonically right, but Mozart wrote it as Ab - C - Eb - F# to make the reading easy, but this is lend from C minor). And melodically he would use Ab - B - C - D - Eb - F# - G scale here on this chord.

Sorry, but according to the classical music theory rules your opinion concerning enharmonics is wrong when we talk about tonality and extended tonality (which is this case). C major enharmonic chromatic scale differs for example from C minor or F# major enharmonic chromatic scale because we have to keep two basic rules of enharmonic tonality:

1. Notes of tonic triad mustn't be altered.

2. Neighboring notes of tonic triad mustn't be altered in such a way that they become enharmonically changed notes of tonic triad.

If we don't keep those rules, tonal centre is damaged and we have to talk about modulation to different key.

So C major enharmonic chromatic scale is (tonic triad is in bold characters):

C - Db - D - D# - E - F - F# - G - Ab - A - A# - Bb - B

Thanks to this system tonality feeling is kept, as far as tonic centre is not changed (at least in the score). And thanks to this such specialties like double direction altered chords are possible in the frame of extended tonality, like for example Db - F - Ab - B - D#, or Ab - C - D# - F# - A# in C major.

In fact we can use any chord in C major if only is written according to the rules of enharmonics. For example F# major should be written as F# - A# - Db or F# - Bb - Db, then it's allowed in C major, if we write it as F# - A# - C#, it's not allowed. Which is funny rule to some degree, as what we hear is the same in 12ET, and by using of such far distance chords we damage tonality in fact.

C minor enharmonic chromatic scale is:

C - Db - D - Eb - Fb - F - F# - G - Ab - A - A# - Bb - B

And F# major enharmonic chromatic scale must spell like:

F# - G - G# - Gx - A# - B - B# - C# - D - D# - Dx - E - E#

Daniel Forro

On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:42 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> Yes Dan;
>
>
> I hear you, yet it was you you used the notenames Ab and B, which > can lead to ambiguity if you use them in some other unspecified way.
>
> I accept that #II may be ambiguous as you are using it, although > there is no similar confusion in meantone usage of this concept.
>
>
> "Jewish, Gipsy and Spanish", I view of not being West of the > Balkans tradition, as the Spanish #II seems to have come from > Arabic via North Africa and the Moors, and the other two are > obviously from the Balkans or East of them.
>
>
>
> Any note can be altered e.g. Cb.
>
> You could have a chord or tuning which uses C as the tonic and Cb
>
> e.g. C-E-G-Cb as a chord would be C bVIII, although in 12edo you > would probably spell it as CMaj7.
>

Marcel de Velde wrote:

> But the main point wasn't about historical authenticity or about what > which instrument can or cannot do.
> The main point was that it is perfectly possible to play all classical > music in JI.
> Just about everybody on this list holds / held the belief this isn't > possible.
> It is this wrong belief I'm arguing against.

Possible? Sure, if you're willing to ignore comma shifts or allow the occasional dissonance. By that standard, all classical music can be played in 22-note equal temperament. Whether it sounds good is another thing entirely. I didn't want to comment on the di Lasso examples earlier because there was too much activity on the list to keep up with, and I don't often comment on things that don't sound good to me, but the comma shifts just stick out like sore thumbs.

I can't rule out the possibility that you might be able to achieve results that sound as good as adaptive JI, but from what I've heard so far, I don't think that's too likely. (I've heard some excellent results from adaptive JI, which if done well can effectively hide most pitch shifts of the size of a comma.)

This is really a simple simple centered on the sonority I like..

I work in every chromatic note - just G# seems to stick out.

http://www.traxinspace.com/song/43122

(Lucy Tuned only)

Or the comparison to 12 TET

http://micro.soonlabel.com/lucy-vs-12tet/lucytuning001.mp3

http://micro.soonlabel.com/lucy-vs-12tet/lucytuning001as12tet.mp3

Song Icon
http://micro.soonlabel.com/lucy-vs-12tet/lucy.jpg

>
> Possible? Sure, if you're willing to ignore comma shifts or allow the
> occasional dissonance. By that standard, all classical music can be
> played in 22-note equal temperament. Whether it sounds good is another
> thing entirely. I didn't want to comment on the di Lasso examples
> earlier because there was too much activity on the list to keep up with,
> and I don't often comment on things that don't sound good to me, but the
> comma shifts just stick out like sore thumbs.
>

So you think the comma shift in the hcs3 examples above stick out like a
sore thumb?
Strange, it sounds perfectly natural to me.

Btw you can't take the Lasso piece as an example as I've apologised many
many times allready for messing that one up.
I was stupid enough then to not yet realise you can retune sounding notes.
I have a few more excuses as to why I messed that one up but I won't bother
to list them now.
In any case, none of the Lasso retunes were correct.
I'll post the correct version soon and it will sound much much better than
the adaptive JI version.

Marcel

Thanks for the detailled explanation.

I understand what you are suggesting yet nevertheless using meantone
notenaming, when I play F# Major triad, it as F# A# C#, it looks and
sounds consonant;

F# A# Db is much more dissonant.

Db-Ab-Eb-Bb-F-C-G-D-A-E-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#

Look at the number of steps of fourths and fifths between the notes
and compare the steps assuming that notes that are closer on the
spiral of fourths and fifths are more more consonant.

I believe that there are some fundamental logical paradoxes in the
traditional classical naming and enharmonic rules, which your example
has managed to demonstrate.

On 27 Feb 2009, at 02:24, Daniel Forró wrote:

>
>
> Yes, I have used Ab - B, which is the only right spelling of those
> notes when they are in C major harmonic.
>
> Yes, it came to Spain from Moors and Gypsies (flamenco) thru Africa.
>
> But European classical music has its own tradition of using this
> tetrachord with augmented second, independent on folklore influence
> and inspiration. It's usually not used in the melody, melody doesn't
> go in that direction Ab ----> B. Ab is always resolved down to G,
> and B up to C. Origin of this is in harmony - using progressions
> like minor subdominant ----> tonic, or minor subdominant ---->
> dominant, or diminished seventh ----> tonic...
>
> That hijjaz tetrachord can be found often in Mozart works, and it's
> questionable if it came from Turkish music which was those times
> fashionable in Europe (alla Turca works has also Beethoven and other
> composers). He used it with flattened VI before dominant, in C major
> it would be Ab triad or Ab - C - D# - F# (this is enharmonically
> right, but Mozart wrote it as Ab - C - Eb - F# to make the reading
> easy, but this is lend from C minor). And melodically he would use
> Ab - B - C - D - Eb - F# - G scale here on this chord.
>
> Sorry, but according to the classical music theory rules your
> opinion concerning enharmonics is wrong when we talk about tonality
> and extended tonality (which is this case). C major enharmonic
> chromatic scale differs for example from C minor or F# major
> enharmonic chromatic scale because we have to keep two basic rules
> of enharmonic tonality:
>
> 1. Notes of tonic triad mustn't be altered.
>
> 2. Neighboring notes of tonic triad mustn't be altered in such a way
> that they become enharmonically changed notes of tonic triad.
>
> If we don't keep those rules, tonal centre is damaged and we have to
> talk about modulation to different key.
>
> So C major enharmonic chromatic scale is (tonic triad is in bold
> characters):
>
> C - Db - D - D# - E - F - F# - G - Ab - A - A# - Bb - B
>
> Thanks to this system tonality feeling is kept, as far as tonic
> centre is not changed (at least in the score). And thanks to this
> such specialties like double direction altered chords are possible
> in the frame of extended tonality, like for example Db - F - Ab - B
> - D#, or Ab - C - D# - F# - A# in C major.
>
> In fact we can use any chord in C major if only is written according
> to the rules of enharmonics. For example F# major should be written
> as F# - A# - Db or F# - Bb - Db, then it's allowed in C major, if we
> write it as F# - A# - C#, it's not allowed. Which is funny rule to
> some degree, as what we hear is the same in 12ET, and by using of
> such far distance chords we damage tonality in fact.
>
> C minor enharmonic chromatic scale is:
>
> C - Db - D - Eb - Fb - F - F# - G - Ab - A - A# - Bb - B
>
> And F# major enharmonic chromatic scale must spell like:
>
> F# - G - G# - Gx - A# - B - B# - C# - D - D# - Dx - E - E#
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 10:42 AM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>> Yes Dan;
>>
>>
>> I hear you, yet it was you you used the notenames Ab and B, which
>> can lead to ambiguity if you use them in some other unspecified way.
>>
>> I accept that #II may be ambiguous as you are using it, although
>> there is no similar confusion in meantone usage of this concept.
>>
>>
>> "Jewish, Gipsy and Spanish", I view of not being West of the
>> Balkans tradition, as the Spanish #II seems to have come from
>> Arabic via North Africa and the Moors, and the other two are
>> obviously from the Balkans or East of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any note can be altered e.g. Cb.
>>
>> You could have a chord or tuning which uses C as the tonic and Cb
>>
>> e.g. C-E-G-Cb as a chord would be C bVIII, although in 12edo you
>> would probably spell it as CMaj7.
>>
>
>
>

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

Ok I managed to find the error causing quicktime not to play / pitchbend the
midi files correctly.All I had to do was to put the scala pitchbend in a
track where there were also notes.
It works correctly now also in quicktime. I've updated the midi files.

Also added 2 extra midi files where thesame sequence with the held note
shift plays in reverse.
So you can hear the comma shifting up instead of down.
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet_reversed.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI_reversed.mid

Now is there anybody who still thinks these comma shifts sounds wrong?
please let me know.
You may offcourse also let me know when you think it sounds good and this is
the correct way to play it :)

Marcel

2009/2/26 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Ok I made the examples in scala tuned midi files.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs1_12tet.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs2_12tet.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet_bagpipe.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet_trombone.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs1_JI.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs2_JI.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI_bagpipe.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI_trombone.mid
>
> The hcs3 versions have the held A notes that shifts a comma while beeing
> held.
> C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3) -> C5(2/1)-E5(5/4)-G5(3/2) ->
> D5(9/8)-G5(3/2)-B5(15/8) -> D5(9/8)-F#5(45/32)-A5(27/16) repeating again
> C5(2/1)-F5(4/3)-A5(5/3) etc.
>
> Here a picture of the score so you can see the held notes:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs.gif
>
> I used 3 different default midi instruments because I had a hard time
> before finding a midi player that allowed me to switch instruments.
> I myself find the bagpipe the clearest to spot errors but it sounds
> horrible in any case (least with JI), the trombone the least clear for
> spotting errors but it's a fairly pleasant sound atleast on my general midi
> soundcard.
>
> Btw these midi files are not correctly played by my quicktime player inside
> my browser.
> Quicktime plays the JI versions as 12tet, so it doesn't retune them.
> My other midi players do play the JI versions correct.
> Anybody knows what causes this and how to fix it in the midi files?
>
> Also I'll start retuning in midi the many compositions I have on my list.
> Starting with the mozcomma and palcomma, hope to post them tomorrow when I
> have the time.
>
> Marcel
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > No, you get comma shifts but that is not the same thing as
> > modulation.
> >
>
> Well I tend to see modes like this:
>
> mode 1 (major)
> 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 (minor)
> 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
>
> Here you can see that for instance 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1
and 1/1
> 10/9 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1 are according to my system 2 different
modes,
> and after I've made clear that I'm for instance in the first mode
and have
> played the 9/8, if I then play a chord from the second mode that
uses the
> 10/9 I call it that I have modulated even though the tonic was first
degree
> 1 of major mode, then degree 3 of minor mode, the tonic stays in thesame
> place (1/1), but I do get a comma shift.
> I have thousands of other modes.

Usually modes mean different rotations of the diatonic scale or some
other scale. That is, they are the same scale but with a different
tonal center. It is true that if you want play them in JI, you will
have to use syntonic comma inflections for some notes. But I don't
think this should be called modulation unless a new tonal center is
established i.e. you will hear that as the new tonic.

> But it seems normal music theory orders modes according to 12tet
with all
> the enharmonic equivalent notes.

Enharmonic equivalence happens when differently spelled (notated)
notes have the same pitch. Syntonic comma inflection is quite the
opposite of this: notes spelled the same have different pitches.
Conventional music notation is based on the premise that pitches
separated by a syntonic comma are notated as the same note. It is not
really based on 12tet.

> No, I mean common practice music that is really tuned justly.
> > This means some notes that are the same in musical notation will
> > have different versions separated by syntonic comma. I also
> > tend to hear them that way, not as different notes. So
> > different pitches are not always necessarily different notes.
> > That is at least how I think about it and how I hear.
> >
> Well I have not yet heard any music tuned to what I call correct >
just intonation on this list.
> I'm not saying that it has not been posted, I just never saw /
> heard it myself.

Well, presumably by correct JI you mean your own system so that is not
very surprising. :) How I see it, there is almost always more
than one way to tune a piece in JI. I don't know your criteria for
correctness yet, so I don't know if they narrow the ways to just one.

> Or are you not talking about music posted on this list?

Not really, but I'm sure I have heard the occasional example in this
list too. I have tried some short progressions on my own, nothing
fancy really. Personally I am more optimistic about adaptive JI but
I'm interested in pure JI approaches too.

> Could you possibly give me a link of the just intonation music you mean?

I'm working on a simple Csound instrument that can inflect tied notes
portamento. I will then compare pure and adaptive JI approaches side
by side for different progressions.

Kalle Aho

>
> Usually modes mean different rotations of the diatonic scale or some
> other scale. That is, they are the same scale but with a different
> tonal center. It is true that if you want play them in JI, you will
> have to use syntonic comma inflections for some notes. But I don't
> think this should be called modulation unless a new tonal center is
> established i.e. you will hear that as the new tonic.
>

Hmm ok interesting.
But then you can use all 12 keys in 12tet (many more JI intervals) in a
diatonic way without modulating just as long as you keep for instance the C
the tonic?

Enharmonic equivalence happens when differently spelled (notated)
> notes have the same pitch. Syntonic comma inflection is quite the
> opposite of this: notes spelled the same have different pitches.
> Conventional music notation is based on the premise that pitches
> separated by a syntonic comma are notated as the same note. It is not
> really based on 12tet.
>

Ok.
Then I need to come up with a new name for that a 12tet note has many
underlying just ratios :)

Well, presumably by correct JI you mean your own system so that is not
> very surprising. :) How I see it, there is almost always more
> than one way to tune a piece in JI. I don't know your criteria for
> correctness yet, so I don't know if they narrow the ways to just one.
>

Ah no I wasn't trying to imply my own system :)
But lets just say I have not heard any JI music that can be said to be
correct without any doubt / discussion (and without my ears disagreeing)

> I'm working on a simple Csound instrument that can inflect tied notes
> portamento. I will then compare pure and adaptive JI approaches side
> by side for different progressions.
>

Ok great, looking forward to hearing it.
I will post a similar comparison soon.

Marcel

>
> Marcel wrote:
> Sorry never studied music theory.
> I see, I see...
> It's never too late ... fascinating subject, you know ...
> :-)
>

Hehe yes I know fascinating subject... :)
No but I'm too bussy with JI and they don't teach this at conservatories!
And I'm best when I'm self taught. Didn't finish highschool either yet I set
up 2 very big internet companies (but blew away all the money years ago and
then got into music so very broke now haha).
The only trouble is with communicating with others as I don't know the
terminology.
I did get a few books though by Fux, Helmholtz, Rameau and Schoenberg, but
I'm allways doing other things than reading it has taken me 3 months or so
to read 1/4 of the Rameau book and yet to open the others lol.

Marcel

>
> ... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully 'fine-tuned'
> to reveal problems.
>
> http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
>

Ok I finished the mozcomma example.

12tet:
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_12tet.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_12tet_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_12tet_trombone.mid

Just intonation:
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_JI.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_JI_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_JI_trombone.mid

Also updated my JI translation to make it better readable:
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma.rtf

Hope to have the time to finish the palcomma aswell later today, otherwise
it may become after the weekend.

Marcel

Also finished the palcomma example.
12tet:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_12tet.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_12tet_bagpipe.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_12tet_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_12tet_violin.mid

Just intonation:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI_bagpipe.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI_violin.mid

JI transcription:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma.rtf

I used this many default midi sounds because midi files don't take up any
space and because the organ sound is on my general midi soundcard a bit
strange, this is an easy way to check with many sounds.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > ... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully
> > 'fine-tuned' to reveal problems.
> >
> > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
>
> Ok I finished the mozcomma example.
>
> Just intonation:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_JI.mid
>
> Hope to have the time to finish the palcomma aswell later
> today, otherwise it may become after the weekend.

I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what the
mozcomma example is supposed to be an example of, but it sounds
fine in JI to me. The pdf above is unavailable, but it seems
to be a I-IV-V7-I progression, which presents no comma problems
to solve.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Also finished the palcomma example.
>
> Just intonation:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid

Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
on, Marcel.

-Carl

agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
of it.

On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> >
> > Also finished the palcomma example.
> >
> > Just intonation:
> > /tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid
>
> Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
> on, Marcel.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

>
> Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
> on, Marcel.
>

It sounds great to me.
Not thesame as 12tet offcourse but it sounds 100% perfect, full of
character, every tone is clear what is the meaning, the mood, the
modulations are so clear etc etc.
Only the organ example sounds a little bit strange but this is due to first
of all that the church organ does not go lower over all octaves but changes
timbre when you go an octave lower etc. So you're not really hearing the
notes as written but many unisons and close intervals with slightly
different timbres.
I beleive it's the only midi sound to do this.
The other reason is that with the organ sound not all overtones are harmonic
overtones since it's a sampled organ (atleast on my soundcard) and not all
stops are tuned to harmonics but to 12tet or a tempering / the way the organ
is tuned.
But I assume you have written you message after listening to all the
examples.
I also assume you have a midi player that plays it correctly.
Then I can only say please listen again as it is pure correct JI, you may
come to like it over time.

Marcel

>
> agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
> of it.
>

No it does not.
If you're hearing out of tune V chords your midi player must be playing the
file / pitchbends incorrectly.
See the transcription, everything is 100% perfectly in tune.

Marcel

>
> I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what the
> mozcomma example is supposed to be an example of, but it sounds
> fine in JI to me. The pdf above is unavailable, but it seems
> to be a I-IV-V7-I progression, which presents no comma problems
> to solve.
>

Strange as the mozcomma you do like is allmost the same as the palcomma you
seem to dislike strongly.
The mozcomma does have a comma shift on 2 consecutive notes not during a
held note like the palcomma.
These are 2 examples written by Tom to give examples of comma problems.

Here are the pdf files:
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma.pdf
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma.pdf

Marcel

>
> agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
>> of it.
>>
>
> No it does not.
> If you're hearing out of tune V chords your midi player must be playing the
> file / pitchbends incorrectly.
> See the transcription, everything is 100% perfectly in tune.
>

I will make an mp3 version to clear any such doubts, but have no time to do
so untill sunday.

Marcel

FYI You can test your pitchbend range being used on your midi player using this link:

http://www.lucytune.com/midi_and_keyboard/test_pitch_bend.html

On 27 Feb 2009, at 19:39, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
> agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
> of it.
>
> No it does not.
> If you're hearing out of tune V chords your midi player must be > playing the file / pitchbends incorrectly.
> See the transcription, everything is 100% perfectly in tune.
>
> I will make an mp3 version to clear any such doubts, but have no > time to do so untill sunday.
>
> Marcel
>
>
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 don't hear any sour chords, but I do hear comma shifts
like crazy. You may be hearing the melodic sourness as
harmonic sourness. -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
> of it.
>
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also finished the palcomma example.
> > >
> > > Just intonation:
> > > /tuning/files/Marcel
> > > /palcomma_JI.mid
> >
> > Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
> > on, Marcel.
> >
> > -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>> /tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid
>
> > Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
> > on, Marcel.
//
> Then I can only say please listen again as it is pure
> correct JI, you may come to like it over time.

I've listened to it, and examples like it, more than enough
times over the years to know I will probably never come to like
it. Comma shifts *can* be used to great effect in original
compositions, but in diatonic compositions like these they do
horrible injustice to the music, to put it mildly.

-Carl

No, I'm sure of it! I'm listening to this:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MDioSfyFrioWYKxRGj5p_8bSshVTLo3F9YVnEHJ6sifdQkmO_2a35LHdOl9XP8zENZ3LOXurZL9ZpuFPUN74jmqoLZpH/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid

Is this an audio file, or is it MIDI?.

If it's MIDI, that would explain it.

I'm hearing an organ timbre, and it sounds like it's going

Key of F: I IV ii V (sour) vi ii V (sour) I more or less.

On Feb 27, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> I don't hear any sour chords, but I do hear comma shifts
> like crazy. You may be hearing the melodic sourness as
> harmonic sourness. -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >
> > agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
> > of it.
> >
> > On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also finished the palcomma example.
> > > >
> > > > Just intonation:
> > > > /tuning/files/Marcel
> > > > /palcomma_JI.mid
> > >
> > > Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
> > > on, Marcel.
> > >
> > > -Carl
>
>
>

cool!, thanks for that.

unfortunately, this seems to work--the two notes are the same

On Feb 27, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

> FYI You can test your pitchbend range being used on your midi player > using this link:
>
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/midi_and_keyboard/test_pitch_bend.html
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2009, at 19:39, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
>>
>> agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
>> of it.
>>
>> No it does not.
>> If you're hearing out of tune V chords your midi player must be >> playing the file / pitchbends incorrectly.
>> See the transcription, everything is 100% perfectly in tune.
>>
>> I will make an mp3 version to clear any such doubts, but have no >> time to do so untill sunday.
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Ok, on third hearing, I was wrong.

It is comma shifts that make it sound "sour"

Big Ears Morgan, wrong again.

On Feb 27, 2009, at 3:03 PM, caleb morgan wrote:

> No, I'm sure of it! I'm listening to this:
>
>
> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MDioSfyFrioWYKxRGj5p_8bSshVTLo3F9YVnEHJ6sifdQkmO_2a35LHdOl9XP8zENZ3LOXurZL9ZpuFPUN74jmqoLZpH/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid
>
> Is this an audio file, or is it MIDI?.
>
> If it's MIDI, that would explain it.
>
> I'm hearing an organ timbre, and it sounds like it's going
>
> Key of F: I IV ii V (sour) vi ii V (sour) I more or less.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
>> I don't hear any sour chords, but I do hear comma shifts
>> like crazy. You may be hearing the melodic sourness as
>> harmonic sourness. -Carl
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > agreed. Lands square on several sour V chords, by the sound
>> > of it.
>> >
>> > On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> >
>> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> >> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Also finished the palcomma example.
>> > > >
>> > > > Just intonation:
>> > > > /tuning/files/Marcel
>> > > > /palcomma_JI.mid
>> > >
>> > > Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
>> > > on, Marcel.
>> > >
>> > > -Carl
>>
>>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what the
> > mozcomma example is supposed to be an example of, but it sounds
> > fine in JI to me. The pdf above is unavailable, but it seems
> > to be a I-IV-V7-I progression, which presents no comma problems
> > to solve.
>
> Strange as the mozcomma you do like is allmost the same as the
> palcomma you seem to dislike strongly.
> The mozcomma does have a comma shift on 2 consecutive notes not
> during a held note like the palcomma.
> These are 2 examples written by Tom to give examples of comma
> problems.

Ah yes, I hear it now, at the start of the 3rd bar. I think
it's acceptable. Possible reasons for this:

1. it's a short, simple example and there's no chance for
problems to accumulate
2. the motion is upward rather than downward
3. there's only one shift and it occurs at the start of
the 'response' in a call/response pair
4. the note shifting is not the root of a chord

These are the kinds of things composers can access when
using comma shifts creatively in original compositions.
There are surely entire classical pieces that will also
present such conditions, as well as pieces that have no
comma pumps at all. But the majority of existing classical
works will exhibit problems like the Lassus and Palestrina
examples.

-Carl

>
> cool!, thanks for that.
>
> unfortunately, this seems to work--the two notes are the same
>

Hmm strange.
Are you sure you're hearing a chord in itself out of tune?
It's not that you're falling over the stepsize for instance form one chord
to another?
Because all the chords are perfectly in tune. No dissonant interpretation /
pythagorean chords either.

Perhaps something else is going wrong.
I did edit the scala tuned files since the way scala made them the pitch
bend channel would not play in quicktime so i'd hear the JI version in
12tet.
I pasted the pitch bend channels into the same channels as the notes and
then the JI versions worked in quicktime for me.

Marcel

>
> Ok, on third hearing, I was wrong.
>
> It is comma shifts that make it sound "sour"
>
> Big Ears Morgan, wrong again.
>

Hmm ok, I myself think the comma shifts make it sound the way it should
according to my ears.
I think it's beautifull.

Do you have thesame objection with the other sounds or only with the organ
one?
I don't like the organ myself as explained before but can hear through it.

Marcel

>
> I've listened to it, and examples like it, more than enough
> times over the years to know I will probably never come to like
> it. Comma shifts *can* be used to great effect in original
> compositions, but in diatonic compositions like these they do
> horrible injustice to the music, to put it mildly.
>

Ok strange that we have such a different view on it then.
I feel like it does perfect justice to the music and displays it the way it
is unfolding all character of the composition.
Too bad to hear that what I'm working on is not beautifull to all people.

Marcel

>
> Ok strange that we have such a different view on it then.
> I feel like it does perfect justice to the music and displays it the way it
> is unfolding all character of the composition.
> Too bad to hear that what I'm working on is not beautifull to all people.
>

Btw Carl you also hear it as wrong when listening to the bagpipe example for
instance?
I just can't imagine anybody not liking that one.

Marcel

With all due respect are not most instruments and voices using vibrato and
therefore the pitches are not precise to begin with?

It would seem to me that that is the answer to this maze.

Pianos, harpsichords, organs, etc. - are different - but then isn't this why
12 TET was developed?

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Tom Dent <stringph@...> wrote:

>
> > 81/80 isn't a stepsize inside a mode, but with a modulation it
> > become a completely different note so I don't see it as if there's
> > a 81/80 stepsize.
>
> Still, you *are* asking the oboist to play a step of 81/80 between one
> note and the next. (What is a 'stepsize' if not exactly the interval
> between one note and the next?) And in the Palestrina, you are asking
> a singer to shift between 10/9 and 9/8 in the middle of one syllable.
>
> This is precisely the incompatibility between JI and common practice -
> i.e. classical music.
> In classical music G (bar 2) is the same note as G (bar 3), and both G
> and G belong within the scale of F major, in which there is by
> definition no modulation at all. Modulation in classical music means,
> for instance, the difference between a scale with B flat and one with
> B natural.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Btw Carl you also hear it as wrong when listening to the bagpipe
> example for instance?
> I just can't imagine anybody not liking that one.
>
> Marcel

Yes, I've tried several timbres, and it sounded so wrong
to Caleb he thought it was a sour chord!

-Carl

Marcel de Velde wrote:
> Egad- that sounds terrible! You've got to be putting us
> on, Marcel.
> > > It sounds great to me.
> Not thesame as 12tet offcourse but it sounds 100% perfect, full of > character, every tone is clear what is the meaning, the mood, the > modulations are so clear etc etc.
> Only the organ example sounds a little bit strange but this is due to > first of all that the church organ does not go lower over all octaves > but changes timbre when you go an octave lower etc. So you're not really > hearing the notes as written but many unisons and close intervals with > slightly different timbres.
> I beleive it's the only midi sound to do this.
> The other reason is that with the organ sound not all overtones are > harmonic overtones since it's a sampled organ (atleast on my soundcard) > and not all stops are tuned to harmonics but to 12tet or a tempering / > the way the organ is tuned.
> But I assume you have written you message after listening to all the > examples.
> I also assume you have a midi player that plays it correctly.
> Then I can only say please listen again as it is pure correct JI, you > may come to like it over time.
> > Marcel

I find that the slight vibrato in the violin timbre seems to hide any objectionable quality of the comma shifts in this example. The pipe organ ends up with what sounds like a noticeable glitch in the sound, as if from a degraded tape recording. Of course these effects will differ from one sound card to another.

Marcel de Velde wrote:
> Ok I managed to find the error causing quicktime not to play / pitchbend > the midi files correctly.
> All I had to do was to put the scala pitchbend in a track where there > were also notes.
> It works correctly now also in quicktime. I've updated the midi files.
> > Also added 2 extra midi files where thesame sequence with the held note > shift plays in reverse.
> So you can hear the comma shifting up instead of down.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_12tet_reversed.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/hcs3_JI_reversed.mid
> > Now is there anybody who still thinks these comma shifts sounds wrong? > please let me know.
> You may offcourse also let me know when you think it sounds good and > this is the correct way to play it :)

This one has a kind of slippery feeling, like hitting an unexpected patch of ice while walking around. I wasn't sure if that was from the comma shift (which I had a hard time hearing at first) or the F-F# between the F major and D major chords. But I got my simulated Bosanquet keyboard out and tried this progression without the comma shift, and that felt more solid.

Having said that, there are times when this kind of slippery progression could be used to good effect.

>
> Btw these midi files are not correctly played by my quicktime player inside
> my browser.
> Quicktime plays the JI versions as 12tet, so it doesn't retune them.
> My other midi players do play the JI versions correct.
> Anybody knows what causes this and how to fix it in the midi files?
>
> Also I'll start retuning in midi the many compositions I have on my list.
> Starting with the mozcomma and palcomma, hope to post them tomorrow when I
> have the time.
>
> Marcel
>

I play tuned midis with embed tags and the pitchbends work fine. I use QT version 7.5 on a
MacBook. I hope they didn't dump this capability in a later version.

Billy

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Ok I managed to find the error causing quicktime not to play / pitchbend the
> midi files correctly.All I had to do was to put the scala pitchbend in a
> track where there were also notes.
> It works correctly now also in quicktime. I've updated the midi files.
>

Glad you found the bug. Boy you had me worried for a moment.

By the way, is Scala also a MIDI secuencer? I've wanted to find a suitable freeware sequencer
for Mac. So far I have MidiSwing installed, but it's limited in the ability to edit controls. You
can only change pitchbends graphically, which wouldn't be useful for setting pitchbends in a
4:5:6:7 chord to +0 -561 +80 -1277. I'd love it if I found a version of Cakewalk for the Mac,
and Garageband isn't a for-real MIDI program.

Billy

What about Reaper project? www.reaper.fm

Daniel Forro

On 28 Feb 2009, at 3:15 PM, William Gard wrote:
> By the way, is Scala also a MIDI secuencer? I've wanted to find a > suitable freeware sequencer
> for Mac. So far I have MidiSwing installed, but it's limited in the > ability to edit controls. You
> can only change pitchbends graphically, which wouldn't be useful > for setting pitchbends in a
> 4:5:6:7 chord to +0 -561 +80 -1277. I'd love it if I found a > version of Cakewalk for the Mac,
> and Garageband isn't a for-real MIDI program.
>
> Billy
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> These are the kinds of things composers can access when
> using comma shifts creatively in original compositions.
> There are surely entire classical pieces that will also
> present such conditions, as well as pieces that have no
> comma pumps at all. But the majority of existing classical
> works will exhibit problems like the Lassus and Palestrina
> examples.

What is the difference between composing with allowance of comma
shifts on sustained notes and playing with electronic instruments
adopting adaptive JI methods? I mean, if with such an instrument I
played a harmonic passage similar to the ones in "mozcomma" etc. how
would such instrument manage tuning of sustained notes? If I
understand it correctly, adaptive JI adjusts tuning to optimize
consonance of intervals involved in the used chords according to
JI... right?

Many thanks!

Max

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Btw Carl you also hear it as wrong when listening to the bagpipe
> example for instance?
> I just can't imagine anybody not liking that one.

I do. Of course, my bagpipe may not be the same as yours.

-Carl

Herman - which example were you referring to? -Carl

> I find that the slight vibrato in the violin timbre seems to hide any
> objectionable quality of the comma shifts in this example. The pipe
> organ ends up with what sounds like a noticeable glitch in the sound,
> as if from a degraded tape recording. Of course these effects will
> differ from one sound card to another.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "massimilianolabardi" <labardi@...> wrote:
>
> > These are the kinds of things composers can access when
> > using comma shifts creatively in original compositions.
> > There are surely entire classical pieces that will also
> > present such conditions, as well as pieces that have no
> > comma pumps at all. But the majority of existing classical
> > works will exhibit problems like the Lassus and Palestrina
> > examples.
>
> What is the difference between composing with allowance of comma
> shifts on sustained notes and playing with electronic instruments
> adopting adaptive JI methods?

If I write a piece of music explicitly using a comma shift,
adaptive JI will erase the shift and that meaning in my
piece will be lost.

> I mean, if with such an instrument I
> played a harmonic passage similar to the ones in "mozcomma" etc.
> how would such instrument manage tuning of sustained notes? If
> I understand it correctly, adaptive JI adjusts tuning to optimize
> consonance of intervals involved in the used chords according to
> JI... right?

That's one way to put it. There are many schemes that may
qualify as "adaptive JI". The one demonstrated in the Lassus
example intones chord roots in meantone temperament, and other
chord notes in JI relative to the roots.

-Carl

Hi everyone,

I haven't been reading this list much lately, but i
see that the discussion of microtonal software has
come up again, and since i haven't been around, just
wanted to mention Tonescape.

http://tonalsoft.com/support/tonescape/help/tonescape-overview.aspx

Tonescape was designed from the ground up to be
a microtonal music composition application, using
multi-dimensional lattice-diagrams to represent tunings.
It only works on Windows XP.

The project has been stalled for several years, and
is stuck in alpha, so it is buggy and will either
work fine, install and work but not have the lattice,
or not install at all. But if you use XP give it a try.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "William Gard" <billygard@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Btw these midi files are not correctly played by
> > my quicktime player inside my browser.
> > Quicktime plays the JI versions as 12tet, so it
> > doesn't retune them.
> > My other midi players do play the JI versions correct.
> > Anybody knows what causes this and how to fix it in
> > the midi files?
> >
> > Also I'll start retuning in midi the many compositions
> > I have on my list.
> > Starting with the mozcomma and palcomma, hope to post
> > them tomorrow when I have the time.
> >
> > Marcel
> >
>
> I play tuned midis with embed tags and the pitchbends
> work fine. I use QT version 7.5 on a MacBook. I hope
> they didn't dump this capability in a later version.
>
> Billy
>

Ok I listened again with a fresh ear today and gave it some deep thought.
I do still hear the comma shift during modulations example I gave to day as
correct.
But I can only hear it as correct when hearing it with 2 modulations.
It doesn't do justice to the melody. It has no continuity I have to see it
as different melodies one taking over from the other.
Once I start listening to it as one melody it sounds out of tune.
So as much as I didn't expect to have to do this I take back that I think
the example I gave is the correct interpretation.
I do still see the first example I gave of the held-note comma shift hcs
examples as correct as there's no doubt about the modulation there.

I made a new JI transcription of the mozcomma and palcomma where I do not
see certain parts as modulations and see the entire piece as in F-major.
It's a bit shocking to me as it gives not the most consonant chords in
certain places but I do hear it as correct.

Here's the new transcription of the palcomma:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_Fmajor.rtf

The JI midi files:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_Fmajor_organ.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_Fmajor_bagpipe.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_Fmajor_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_Fmajor_violin.mid

Here's the new transcription of the mozcomma:
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_Fmajor.rtf

The JI midi files:
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_Fmajor_organ.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_Fmajor_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_Fmajor_violin.mid

I currently think these are correct, and have to rethink how to determine
when there's a modulation.

If you don't think these are correct let me know :)
Though I don't see any other way to do it in JI that makes any sense.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> It doesn't do justice to the melody. It has no continuity I have
> to see it as different melodies one taking over from the other.
[snip]
> I made a new JI transcription of the mozcomma and palcomma where
> I do not see certain parts as modulations and see the entire piece
> as in F-major.
[snip]
> The JI midi files:
> /tuning/files/Marcel
> /palcomma_Fmajor_organ.mid

For those interested, here it is in meantone:

/tuning/files/carl/palcomma_meantone.mid

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Herman - which example were you referring to? -Carl

/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI_violin.mid

>> I find that the slight vibrato in the violin timbre seems to hide any >> objectionable quality of the comma shifts in this example. The pipe >> organ ends up with what sounds like a noticeable glitch in the sound,
>> as if from a degraded tape recording. Of course these effects will
>> differ from one sound card to another.
>

>
> > Herman - which example were you referring to? -Carl
>
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI_violin.mid
>
> >> I find that the slight vibrato in the violin timbre seems to hide any
> >> objectionable quality of the comma shifts in this example. The pipe
> >> organ ends up with what sounds like a noticeable glitch in the sound,
> >> as if from a degraded tape recording. Of course these effects will
> >> differ from one sound card to another.
>

Well yes this indeed means the wave sets on soundcards differ a lot since
with mine I hear the strongest glitch with the violin.
Well but it is a glitch i simply jumped the pitch in 1 jump by a syntonic
comma while the note is sounding.
Wasn't about how it sounds with an instrument, a real instrument could
perform such a comma shift with a fast glide for instance.

Marcel

>
> For those interested, here it is in meantone:
>
> /tuning/files/carl/palcomma_meantone.mid
>

Thanks Carl.
It sounds very very close to 12tet to me, is that correct?

I'll save people browsing through this thread to compare files and list them
all below:

12tet:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_12tet.mid

Meantone done by Carl:
/tuning/files/carl/palcomma_meantone.mid

Meantone done by Carl again, same tuning but I put the pitchbend tracks with
the note tracks for the people who's quicktime won't retune otherwise like
mine does:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_meantone_carl.mid

JI with modulations and resulting comma shifts:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_JI.mid

JI in F-major, without modulations or resulting comma shifts:
/tuning/files/Marcel/palcomma_Fmajor_organ.mid

Marcel

I think both JI examples can be made to sound perfect by shifting individual
notes up and down by octaves.
For the JI version with modulations / comma shifts this will mean the main
melody gets broken up and is no longer heard as 1 continues melody.

For the JI version in F-major this will leave the main melody intact but
will make the pythagorean chords sound consonant.

Btw the midi church organ sound makes this worse in this way as it puts all
the notes in 1 octave with slightly different timbres.
Makes it harder to follow the main melody in all versions.
(atleast the church organ in both my quicktime and my soundcard is like
this)

Perhaps it does indeed mean that not all music can be made to sound good in
JI without modifying the composition / shifting notes by octaves.
But I can't say I prefer 12tet or meantone to the JI Fmajor version.
They both sound bad all over, it's just that they don't have dissonant notes
sticking out somewhat like the JI Fmajor version.

Marcel

Ohmy..Just had another look at the Lasso piece with new thoughts I had about
modulations etc after these pieces.
Things are comming apart and falling together, going in a very new
surprising direction.
Will post the the results tomorrow, off to bed now. But it's going to be
very good :) Shocking :)

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Carl.
> It sounds very very close to 12tet to me, is that correct?

Its triads are closer to JI than to 12-ET.

-Carl

Some are, some aren't. If you listen to many oboists from (say) the
1930's there is practically no vibrato at all.

If you consider that vibrato is sufficient and effective to remove
(audibly) an 81:80 shift or mistuning, you may as well return to
Pythagorean intonation for all of classical music ... every note is at
least within 81:80 of being perfect, then simply add vibrato and your
problems are over.

Harpsichords and organs are indeed the reason why MEANTONE developed,
of which 12ET is a rather feeble example.
~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> With all due respect are not most instruments and voices using
vibrato and
> therefore the pitches are not precise to begin with?
>
> It would seem to me that that is the answer to this maze.
>
> Pianos, harpsichords, organs, etc. - are different - but then isn't
this why
> 12 TET was developed?
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Tom Dent <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> > Still, you *are* asking the oboist to play a step of 81/80 between one
> > note and the next. (What is a 'stepsize' if not exactly the interval
> > between one note and the next?) And in the Palestrina, you are asking
> > a singer to shift between 10/9 and 9/8 in the middle of one syllable.
> >

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > > ... This is simple stuff, totally diatonic, but hopefully
> > > 'fine-tuned' to reveal problems.
> > >
> > > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/palcomma.pdf
> > > http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dent/mozcomma.pdf
> >
> > Ok I finished the mozcomma example.
> >
> > Just intonation:
> > /tuning/files/Marcel/mozcomma_JI.mid
> >
> > Hope to have the time to finish the palcomma aswell later
> > today, otherwise it may become after the weekend.
>
> I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what the
> mozcomma example is supposed to be an example of, but it sounds
> fine in JI to me. The pdf above is unavailable, but it seems
> to be a I-IV-V7-I progression, which presents no comma problems
> to solve.
>
> -Carl

By the way, to avoid my server problems I rewrote the files and put
them in 'my' folder
/tuning/files/sphaerenklang/

Marcel's first sonic example (as above) has A5/4->G10/9 in bar 2 and
G9/8 in bar 3, which might sound OK if you don't listen very hard to
the top melodic line.

If I understand correctly he has now decided to use G9/8 all the way
through even when the chord in b.2 is F1-Bb4/3-D5/3 - thus his D-G is
now 20:27.
I am not sure what all of this is going to prove except that a
progression of 9/8->10/9 above a constant 1:1 bass sounds wrong
(second note too flat) and a fourth of 20:27 sounds wrong too.
~~~T~~~

With all due respect what do the playing techniques of 1930 oboists have to
do with Renaissance choirs?

And 12-TET is the ultimate end product of the solution for keyboards -
meantone was just a period which the solution passed through.

And yes - add vibrato and I think a lot of this argument IS over.

I am willing to bet money that this conversation is far more particular than
the actual musical practice was at the time. Especially incredible to me are
the claims that composers incorrectly composed their pieces.

I think all measure of practicality has been lost here...

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Tom Dent <stringph@...> wrote:

> Some are, some aren't. If you listen to many oboists from (say) the
> 1930's there is practically no vibrato at all.
>
> If you consider that vibrato is sufficient and effective to remove
> (audibly) an 81:80 shift or mistuning, you may as well return to
> Pythagorean intonation for all of classical music ... every note is at
> least within 81:80 of being perfect, then simply add vibrato and your
> problems are over.
>
> Harpsichords and organs are indeed the reason why MEANTONE developed,
> of which 12ET is a rather feeble example.
> ~~~T~~~
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > With all due respect are not most instruments and voices using
> vibrato and
> > therefore the pitches are not precise to begin with?
> >
> > It would seem to me that that is the answer to this maze.
> >
> > Pianos, harpsichords, organs, etc. - are different - but then isn't
> this why
> > 12 TET was developed?
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Tom Dent <stringph@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Still, you *are* asking the oboist to play a step of 81/80 between one
> > > note and the next. (What is a 'stepsize' if not exactly the interval
> > > between one note and the next?) And in the Palestrina, you are asking
> > > a singer to shift between 10/9 and 9/8 in the middle of one syllable.
> > >
>
>
>

Those tunaniks with iphones may find this application interesting.

http://leisuresonic.com/cosmovox/

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