Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning [tuning] Lasso in JI. This time correct! (with midi)

Here's the JI transcription and rendering of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina
Coelorum.
JI transcription:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI.rtf

Just intonation midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_harmonica.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_piano.mid

12tet midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_harmonica.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_piano.mid

Adaptive-JI midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_harmonica.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_piano.mid

The adaptive-JI is the one Carl posted and was done by Joe Monzo.
I removed a stray note (very short) that was in the file (an error) and
changed the timbres.
I consider the name adaptive-JI misleading as the chords are not all pure
JI. Some are JI, some are meantone.
And the adaptive-JI shifts during held notes by quarter commas all the time.
Also the melodies are not pure JI, and the whole piece is slowly shifting up
and down by quarter commas all the time.
It does remarkibly well with this particular piece and you have to listen
carefully to hear the errors, but they're errors nontheless.
It also won't do this well with other pieces.

12tet is offcourse bad all over. Not much to tell about this one, it's
offcourse wrong.

Btw I did not include the church organ midi timbre that's often used because
all it's samples consist of one octave, in every octave a slightly different
timbre of the other octave.
So it shifts all notes in thesame octave and this is a serious modification
of the composition and of harmony and melody in general.

Also wish to say sorry for my last attempt to put this Lasso piece in JI.
I did it in a hurry on autopilot without looking at it good. Had slept too
little for a week and just had the flu so I wasn't clear in my head.
Then I posted it without listening. And after I posted it and made the audio
version and heard it for myself I heard it was wrong and instead of thinking
the probles of this piece through properly I tried to fix the problem
quickly making an even bigger mess of things.
So I'm very glad to finally be able to post the correct version :)

This correct version is a bit of a shock to me though.
As some of the chords are very dissonant.
I had to seriously rethink the way I thought about JI and modulations to
come to this transcription and still have to connect all the dots and learn
from this piece.
I also take back what I said previously that I don't like this piece, I love
it now for many reasons :)
One of the things that I love about it is that one of the melodies has a
stepsize of 27/25.
That's to me an arabic stepsize, first time I'm seeing this in western
music!

Anyhow, I hope the people on this list can see it and hear it and then
accept this is the correct JI version.

Btw here 2 extra timbres of a choir.
My soundcard produces terrible choirs but as it's written for choir I'll
include them:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_choir.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_synthchoir.mid

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Ah what the hell..I'll give a comparison with the choir timbres too.
Just don't look in my files folder, way too many midi files :)

JI midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_choir.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_synthchoir.mid

Adaptive-JI midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_choir.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_synthchoir.mid

12tet midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_choir.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_synthchoir.mid

Marcel

2009/3/1 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Here's the JI transcription and rendering of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina
> Coelorum.
> JI transcription:
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI.rtf
>
>
> Just intonation midi:
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_violin.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_trombone.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_harmonica.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_piano.mid
>
> 12tet midi:
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_violin.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_trombone.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_harmonica.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_piano.mid
>
> Adaptive-JI midi:
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_violin.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_trombone.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_harmonica.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_piano.mid
>
>
> The adaptive-JI is the one Carl posted and was done by Joe Monzo.
> I removed a stray note (very short) that was in the file (an error) and
> changed the timbres.
> I consider the name adaptive-JI misleading as the chords are not all pure
> JI. Some are JI, some are meantone.
> And the adaptive-JI shifts during held notes by quarter commas all the
> time.
> Also the melodies are not pure JI, and the whole piece is slowly shifting
> up and down by quarter commas all the time.
> It does remarkibly well with this particular piece and you have to listen
> carefully to hear the errors, but they're errors nontheless.
> It also won't do this well with other pieces.
>
> 12tet is offcourse bad all over. Not much to tell about this one, it's
> offcourse wrong.
>
> Btw I did not include the church organ midi timbre that's often used
> because all it's samples consist of one octave, in every octave a slightly
> different timbre of the other octave.
> So it shifts all notes in thesame octave and this is a serious modification
> of the composition and of harmony and melody in general.
>
> Also wish to say sorry for my last attempt to put this Lasso piece in JI.
> I did it in a hurry on autopilot without looking at it good. Had slept too
> little for a week and just had the flu so I wasn't clear in my head.
> Then I posted it without listening. And after I posted it and made the
> audio version and heard it for myself I heard it was wrong and instead of
> thinking the probles of this piece through properly I tried to fix the
> problem quickly making an even bigger mess of things.
> So I'm very glad to finally be able to post the correct version :)
>
> This correct version is a bit of a shock to me though.
> As some of the chords are very dissonant.
> I had to seriously rethink the way I thought about JI and modulations to
> come to this transcription and still have to connect all the dots and learn
> from this piece.
> I also take back what I said previously that I don't like this piece, I
> love it now for many reasons :)
> One of the things that I love about it is that one of the melodies has a
> stepsize of 27/25.
> That's to me an arabic stepsize, first time I'm seeing this in western
> music!
>
> Anyhow, I hope the people on this list can see it and hear it and then
> accept this is the correct JI version.
>
> Btw here 2 extra timbres of a choir.
> My soundcard produces terrible choirs but as it's written for choir I'll
> include them:
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_choir.mid
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_synthchoir.mid
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the JI transcription and rendering of Orlando di Lasso
[snip]
> /tuning/files/Marcel
> /LassoAveRegina_JI_harmonica.mid

You've got to be joking.

> This correct version is a bit of a shock to me though.
> As some of the chords are very dissonant.

I'll say.

> The adaptive-JI is the one Carl posted and was done by
> Joe Monzo. I removed a stray note (very short) that was
> in the file (an error) and changed the timbres.
> I consider the name adaptive-JI misleading as the chords are
> not all pure JI. Some are JI, some are meantone.

All the triads in this kind of adaptive JI are tuned
perfectly 4:5:6, and as far as I know, were tuned this
way in Joe's original MIDI file.

> And the adaptive-JI shifts during held notes by quarter commas
> all the time.

Only by 5 cents at a time, which is right around the
Just Noticeable Difference under laboratory listening
conditions.

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> You've got to be joking.
>

You know I'm not joking.
I stand 100% behind this beeing pure JI and this beeing the only way this
piece is in tune.

> This correct version is a bit of a shock to me though.

> > As some of the chords are very dissonant.
>
> I'll say.
>

Yes, and so your view of music is that every major and minor triad in any
inversion or transposition has to be in it's most consonant way?
This is an impossibility, you must know this.

This correct JI version of the Lasso piece shows how it should be.
I you tried actually listening you'd hear that the also the dissonant chords
are perfectly in tune.
For instance in the third chord, the held note that gets played again you
can clearly hear that this is the pitch it should be at. Any other way and
it will sound out of tune.

> The adaptive-JI is the one Carl posted and was done by
> > Joe Monzo. I removed a stray note (very short) that was
> > in the file (an error) and changed the timbres.
> > I consider the name adaptive-JI misleading as the chords are
> > not all pure JI. Some are JI, some are meantone.
>
> All the triads in this kind of adaptive JI are tuned
> perfectly 4:5:6, and as far as I know, were tuned this
> way in Joe's original MIDI file.
>

I'll check later which chords are sounding out of tune (not just dissonant
but OUT OF TUNE) to me.

> > And the adaptive-JI shifts during held notes by quarter commas
> > all the time.
>
> Only by 5 cents at a time, which is right around the
> Just Noticeable Difference under laboratory listening
> conditions.
>

So according to you melodies can shift all the time?
Just for the sake of harmony (which is still out of tune)?
It is YOU who has got to be kidding ME Carl...

Marcel

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

The best one to my ears is the adaptive-JI one.

I think something that you should consider is that sometimes people
tend not to hear things in terms of specific JI intervals, but rather
general "pitch classes." That is, they're going to hear the C-major
scale as C D E F G A B C, not 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 5/4 5/3 15/8 2/1. If you
put 27/26 instead of 5/3, they'll probably still hear that as an A,
although intonated differently.

And I don't think that there is any "one correct way" to put this in JI.

-Mike

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> Here's the JI transcription and rendering of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina
> Coelorum.
>
> JI transcription:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI.rtf
>
>
> Just intonation midi:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_violin.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_trombone.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_harmonica.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_piano.mid
>
> 12tet midi:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_violin.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_trombone.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_harmonica.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_12tet_piano.mid
>
> Adaptive-JI midi:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_violin.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_trombone.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_harmonica.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_piano.mid
>
>
> The adaptive-JI is the one Carl posted and was done by Joe Monzo.
> I removed a stray note (very short) that was in the file (an error) and
> changed the timbres.
> I consider the name adaptive-JI misleading as the chords are not all pure
> JI. Some are JI, some are meantone.
> And the adaptive-JI shifts during held notes by quarter commas all the time.
> Also the melodies are not pure JI, and the whole piece is slowly shifting up
> and down by quarter commas all the time.
> It does remarkibly well with this particular piece and you have to listen
> carefully to hear the errors, but they're errors nontheless.
> It also won't do this well with other pieces.
> 12tet is offcourse bad all over. Not much to tell about this one, it's
> offcourse wrong.
> Btw I did not include the church organ midi timbre that's often used because
> all it's samples consist of one octave, in every octave a slightly different
> timbre of the other octave.
> So it shifts all notes in thesame octave and this is a serious modification
> of the composition and of harmony and melody in general.
> Also wish to say sorry for my last attempt to put this Lasso piece in JI.
> I did it in a hurry on autopilot without looking at it good. Had slept too
> little for a week and just had the flu so I wasn't clear in my head.
> Then I posted it without listening. And after I posted it and made the audio
> version and heard it for myself I heard it was wrong and instead of thinking
> the probles of this piece through properly I tried to fix the problem
> quickly making an even bigger mess of things.
> So I'm very glad to finally be able to post the correct version :)
> This correct version is a bit of a shock to me though.
> As some of the chords are very dissonant.
> I had to seriously rethink the way I thought about JI and modulations to
> come to this transcription and still have to connect all the dots and learn
> from this piece.
> I also take back what I said previously that I don't like this piece, I love
> it now for many reasons :)
> One of the things that I love about it is that one of the melodies has a
> stepsize of 27/25.
> That's to me an arabic stepsize, first time I'm seeing this in western
> music!
> Anyhow, I hope the people on this list can see it and hear it and then
> accept this is the correct JI version.
> Btw here 2 extra timbres of a choir.
> My soundcard produces terrible choirs but as it's written for choir I'll
> include them:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_choir.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI_synthchoir.mid
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> The best one to my ears is the adaptive-JI one.
>
Ok seems like you're listening for consonance.
Can't argue with you liking that one the most :)

But do hope you will later come to realise that the correct JI version is
the other one.
Much to learn from it.
For me also much joy to listen to it but taste can allways be argued :)

I think something that you should consider is that sometimes people
> tend not to hear things in terms of specific JI intervals, but rather
> general "pitch classes." That is, they're going to hear the C-major
> scale as C D E F G A B C, not 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 5/4 5/3 15/8 2/1. If you
> put 27/26 instead of 5/3, they'll probably still hear that as an A,
> although intonated differently.
>
> And I don't think that there is any "one correct way" to put this in JI.
>

Yes I have taken many things in consideration but I think this is the only
correct way to put it in JI.Yes one could possibly see it as in another mode
but then it doesn't make any sense musically as different chords will be
dissonant and the tonic wouldn't be the tonic etc etc.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Marcel, some of the chords here are not JI.
>

But offcourse all the chords in my JI transcription are all pure JI.
5-limit pure JI.
How can you say it's not JI??

> Yes, and so your view of music is that every major and minor
> > triad in any inversion or transposition has to be in it's most
> > consonant way? This is an impossibility, you must know this.
>
> I'm not sure it's impossible, but no, I didn't say that.
>

Well it seems like your argument for rejecting this is the correct JI for
this Lasso piece is that some of the chords are dissonant?
Now you say this isn't a good argument but in this case of this Lasso piece
you decide there shouldn't be a dissonant chord?

> > I you tried actually listening you'd hear that the also the
> > dissonant chords are perfectly in tune.
>
> If they're "perfectly in tune" you should be able to tune
> them by ear using a bank of three variable oscillators.
>

Why is that?
Perhaps I could do it now after I heard the correct JI version.
But I'm pretty sure I would have been trying to tune every chord in a
consonant way (in error) if I hadn't known.

Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> What is "in tune" if not a perceptual quality? While it does fit your
> system if one actively thinks about that while listening to the music,
> it hardly sounds "in tune" at that third chord.
>

It's a quality that doesn't require active thinking while listening.
And to me it sounds perfectly in tune at that third chord.
The harmony is dissonant yes, but all the notes are to me at their exact
correct pitch.
The only thing that's very noticable is that the harmony created by the
perfectly in tune individual notes is not relaxed but is dissonant.

And if I played that version to people to demonstrate the
> "superiority" of JI over 12-tet, they'd think I'd lost my mind and be
> even more convinced that microtonality and alternate tuning systems
> are useless.
>

I did just this, played it to family and friends and this time they all went
aah wow etc.
Nothing but good responses.
And comments on this version vs 12tet were that they were amazed that the
12tet version lost all character.
I pointed people to the third chord with several timbres yet they weren't as
surprised as I was about it sounding so dissonant.
And they said the notes all sounded in tune and didn't see any problem with
the chord beeing dissonant. (had to explain it to some people what I ment
with dissonant, but they thought it was natural)
I guess it's hardest to accept this as the correct version by people on this
list as everybody here is so trained to listen for perfect consonance in
major and minor triads.

If people are just supposed to get used to this system you've invented
> because it's the "correct" way, why don't you just get used to
> tempered root movements such as in the adaptive JI file instead? That
> might be easier.
>

No I don't think this is the case at all.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> It would be nice if you finally told us why.

How do you mean finally?If you're referring to my theory I posted part of it
allready in a specific thread a week ago or so.

Or if you're talking about this piece, if you accept that it's correct JI
has so much to teach.
First of all this piece shows that melody can move according to the mode I
predicted with the 27/25 stepsize.
What you can also see is that melody doesn't bend for harmony.
It is melody that forms harmony and you get complete control this way over
making consonant and dissonant harmonies.
And the melodies move together in a structure that you can call a scale.
Many other hints at how things work lie in this piece still looking at them
myself.

Seems to tie in perfectly with my harmonic interval permuation structure
theory but while I really like my theory and think it's the best one out
there both in logic and in results, I don't place thesame trust in it as I
do in this piece.
My main theory seems perfectly suitable to decribe all parts of music in
mathematics, but only the future will tell if it will hold up.

But again you don't need my main theory to talk about this piece, they're to
seperate things.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Ok here the transcription of another JI version that looks like it may be
correct aswell.
Transcription:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2.rtf

Midi:
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2_harmonica.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2_piano.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2_choir.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/LassoAveRegina_JI2_synthchoir.mid

This one is different that F is 16/9 instead of 9/5
And the 27/25 as a stepsize in one of the melodies is now 16/15
As a result the 3rd chord is less dissonant, but the 4th chord which was
consonant is now also dissonant.

I can't choose yet between either, and can't say yet that both are correct.
But I felt I had the obligation to let this list know.

Marcel

2009/3/2 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> And I don't think that there is any "one correct way" to put this in JI.
>
>
> Hmm yes.
> I've just been doing some more thinking and tried out another possibility
> with 16/9 instead of 9/5 for F, and it makes sense too.
> Perhaps even more so.
> So I don't know wether to take back again and think this new one is the
> correct JI version or to accept there is, at least often, more than one way
> to put a piece in correct JI.
> Will post yet more midi soon :)
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

To my ears all the adaptive-JI melodies are very out of tune.
All the first version JI I posted sound perfect in tune to me.

The second version JI I'm not sure, I may hear the 4th melody / the bass as
out of tune. The one note that changed. Not sure here.

Marcel

2009/3/2 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> And here is a comparison between the melodies of the JI, JI2 and
> adaptive-JI versions:
> Melody 1:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI_M1.mid first just intonation version.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI2_M1.mid second just intonation version, same as first version with this melody.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_ADJI_M1.mid adaptive-JI version, very wobbly and out of tune.
>
> Melody 2:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI_M2.mid stepsize 27/25 + 10/9
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI2_M2.mid differs from first version, stepsize 16/15 + 9/8
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_ADJI_M2.mid wobbly and out of tune
>
> Melody 3:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI_M3.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI2_M3.mid same as first version.
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_ADJI_M3.mid wobbly and out of tune.
>
> Melody 4:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI_M4.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_JI2_M4.mid differs in 1 note from first version
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_ADJI_M4.mid wobbly and out of tune.
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hmm looks to me like the second JI version doesn't make much sense
after
> all.The bass movement of 1/1 4/3 16/9 6/5 doesn't sound good.
> Would expect 1/1 4/3 16/9 32/27 which would be a modulation.
> But looks like this whole thing is in G without modulation where
the bass of
> 1/1 4/3 9/5 6/5 does make sense.
> Also sounds right that way, and doesn't sound right with the second
version.

Hello Marcel,

while it has some entertainment value could you please refrain from
doing your thinking online on the list? The list is not your
notebook. Please do your thinking in your head or on paper before
posting! Having one or two scheduled times of day for posting might
help.

BTW, I'm sorry but I can't say I liked your Lasso example. The third
chord doesn't sound right at all. I don't think it is supposed to be
dissonant. And it doesn't simply sound dissonant to me, it also
sounds out of tune. The rest of it is quite acceptable to my ears
though.

Kalle Aho

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Kalle,

while it has some entertainment value could you please refrain from
> doing your thinking online on the list? The list is not your
> notebook. Please do your thinking in your head or on paper before
> posting! Having one or two scheduled times of day for posting might
> help.
>

Yes you're right.
I just felt bad about saying to Mike before there could be only one JI
solution for this piece and then finding myself possibly agreeing with Mike
all of a sudden.
Somehow didn't feel fair to not speak out about it.

BTW, I'm sorry but I can't say I liked your Lasso example. The third
> chord doesn't sound right at all. I don't think it is supposed to be
> dissonant. And it doesn't simply sound dissonant to me, it also
> sounds out of tune. The rest of it is quite acceptable to my ears
> though.
>

Ok glad you like the rest.
The third chord doesn't sound out of tune to me but very dissonant yes
especially with sounds that bring this out.
I don't think however that it would be unpleasantly dissonant when sung by a
choir or when performed on certain real instruments.

Marcel

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

The point I'm making is that you have arbitrarily decided that the
only way to make a piece sound "in tune" is to have a constant set of
pitches and have no comma adjustments, and I see no reason why that
should be the case. You make the argument that if you use 5/3
sometimes and 27/16 other times, that perceptually, that new 27/16
will sound "out of tune" since we're used to 5/3 - but if we're going
to make the argument from perception, a lot of the comma-flat fifths
you've been using in your chords sound "out of tune" by almost
everyone who has heard them. So your solution isn't quite the answer
to immediate perceptual gratification either.

And if you're going to say that they just aren't used to dissonance,
perhaps you just aren't used to having comma-adjustments in melodic
lines either? :)

There are lots of ways to create order in music that people will
"latch onto" upon hearing it and come to like. Your method of having a
finite pitch set (what you call a "mode") is certainly one way to
create order. There are other ways of creating order as well that
people also like that have nothing to do with having a finite pitch
set. Had you started working out the math from a different angle, you
might have come to a different structure that focuses on different
elements of sound, such as virtual fundamental production.

So for you to insist that your current system is the only "correct"
one doesn't make sense, because if people don't like it and have to
get used to it, then you might as well come to hear comma-shifted
melodic jumps as "more complex and dissonant" rather than "out of
tune" as well.

-Mike

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> Hi Kalle,
>>
>> while it has some entertainment value could you please refrain from
>> doing your thinking online on the list? The list is not your
>> notebook. Please do your thinking in your head or on paper before
>> posting! Having one or two scheduled times of day for posting might
>> help.
>
> Yes you're right.
> I just felt bad about saying to Mike before there could be only one JI
> solution for this piece and then finding myself possibly agreeing with Mike
> all of a sudden.
> Somehow didn't feel fair to not speak out about it.
>
>>
>> BTW, I'm sorry but I can't say I liked your Lasso example. The third
>> chord doesn't sound right at all. I don't think it is supposed to be
>> dissonant. And it doesn't simply sound dissonant to me, it also
>> sounds out of tune. The rest of it is quite acceptable to my ears
>> though.
>
> Ok glad you like the rest.
> The third chord doesn't sound out of tune to me but very dissonant yes
> especially with sounds that bring this out.
> I don't think however that it would be unpleasantly dissonant when sung by a
> choir or when performed on certain real instruments.
> Marcel
>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

Perhaps this piece is not properly representative of the period and therefore impossible to be made to represent then current practice.

The fact is most music of Lasso's period was decidedly polyphonic. So if you are talking about harmony bending to melody I must ask -which- melody do you mean? Soprano, alto, tenor, or bass? Because the idea of the period was each part had an equally important melody.

I suspect you are applying a homophonic JI solution to a then polyphonic world. I don't think it can work with say Palestrina. This Lasso piece happens to be pretty homophonic and not representative of the period.

Chris
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:37:33
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Lasso in JI. This time correct! (with midi)

>
> It would be nice if you finally told us why.

How do you mean finally?If you're referring to my theory I posted part of it
allready in a specific thread a week ago or so.

But again you don't need my main theory to talk about this piece, they're to
seperate things.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> The point I'm making is that you have arbitrarily decided that the
> only way to make a piece sound "in tune" is to have a constant set of
> pitches and have no comma adjustments, and I see no reason why that
> should be the case. You make the argument that if you use 5/3
> sometimes and 27/16 other times, that perceptually, that new 27/16
> will sound "out of tune" since we're used to 5/3 - but if we're going
> to make the argument from perception, a lot of the comma-flat fifths
> you've been using in your chords sound "out of tune" by almost
> everyone who has heard them. So your solution isn't quite the answer
> to immediate perceptual gratification either.
>

Nono that wasn't the way I was thinking.
Within one melody line that has no modulations you can't have both 5/3 and
27/16.
When there are modulations the melody can maybe use other intervals after,
not sure how this will work.
And all the other melodies can use other pitches aswell it seems to me.

And if you're going to say that they just aren't used to dissonance,
> perhaps you just aren't used to having comma-adjustments in melodic
> lines either? :)
>

Comma adjustments without modulation in melody lines I can't stand no :)

> There are lots of ways to create order in music that people will
> "latch onto" upon hearing it and come to like. Your method of having a
> finite pitch set (what you call a "mode") is certainly one way to
> create order. There are other ways of creating order as well that
> people also like that have nothing to do with having a finite pitch
> set. Had you started working out the math from a different angle, you
> might have come to a different structure that focuses on different
> elements of sound, such as virtual fundamental production.
>
> So for you to insist that your current system is the only "correct"
> one doesn't make sense, because if people don't like it and have to
> get used to it, then you might as well come to hear comma-shifted
> melodic jumps as "more complex and dissonant" rather than "out of
> tune" as well.
>

There is just way to much sense in rational numbers / JI for it not to be
the underlying structure to me.
But untill I have a definitive version of the Lasso I'll try to keep my
mouth shut :)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

Marcel de Velde wrote:
> It would be nice if you finally told us why.
> > > How do you mean finally?
> If you're referring to my theory I posted part of it allready in a > specific thread a week ago or so.
> > Or if you're talking about this piece, if you accept that it's correct > JI has so much to teach.
> First of all this piece shows that melody can move according to the mode > I predicted with the 27/25 stepsize.
> What you can also see is that melody doesn't bend for harmony.
> It is melody that forms harmony and you get complete control this way > over making consonant and dissonant harmonies.
> And the melodies move together in a structure that you can call a scale.
> Many other hints at how things work lie in this piece still looking at > them myself.

I've not yet heard one of the many JI versions you've produced that sounds "correct". There are too many to point out the problems in each one, but take the MdV_JI_Lasso_violin.mid that was recently posted. It has a quite obviously mistuned *unison* at 0:17.

There are inherent limitations in how many ways you can deal with a comma pump in pure JI. You can let the pitch fall or rise as the case may be, so you end up in a slightly different key from where you started. You can allow sudden pitch shifts by a comma. You can change the harmony so that consonant intervals become dissonant. Or you can do a combination of these things. But if you don't limit yourself to strict JI you can do things like make the pitch of each note rise gradually and imperceptibly, so that when the progression ends up a comma lower, the overall pitch has risen by a comma to compensate.

> Seems to tie in perfectly with my harmonic interval permuation structure > theory but while I really like my theory and think it's the best one out > there both in logic and in results, I don't place thesame trust in it as > I do in this piece.
> My main theory seems perfectly suitable to decribe all parts of music in > mathematics, but only the future will tell if it will hold up.
> > But again you don't need my main theory to talk about this piece, > they're to seperate things.
> > Marcel

One difference between your theory and others is that other theories have actually produced new music. As for retuning existing music, much existing music sounds great in one or more varieties of meantone, and modern versions of adaptive JI can be quite a bit more sophisticated than Vicentino's method. Then there's the "play what sounds good" theory, which good acoustic musicians do without consciously thinking much about it.

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> I've not yet heard one of the many JI versions you've produced that
> sounds "correct". There are too many to point out the problems in each
> one, but take the MdV_JI_Lasso_violin.mid that was recently posted. It
> has a quite obviously mistuned *unison* at 0:17.
>

Yes mistaken upload, corrected it.
Have internet trouble on free wifi again and it's cutting out.
Will try to upload other timbres now too.

There are inherent limitations in how many ways you can deal with a
> comma pump in pure JI. You can let the pitch fall or rise as the case
> may be, so you end up in a slightly different key from where you
> started. You can allow sudden pitch shifts by a comma. You can change
> the harmony so that consonant intervals become dissonant. Or you can do
> a combination of these things. But if you don't limit yourself to strict
> JI you can do things like make the pitch of each note rise gradually and
> imperceptibly, so that when the progression ends up a comma lower, the
> overall pitch has risen by a comma to compensate.
>

Listen to the way it works in this piece.
There's no problem musically at all.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> One difference between your theory and others is that other theories
> have actually produced new music.
>

Mine will too.

> As for retuning existing music, much
> existing music sounds great in one or more varieties of meantone, and
> modern versions of adaptive JI can be quite a bit more sophisticated
> than Vicentino's method.
>

Meantone is badtone in my ears :)

And adaptive-JI will mess up the melodies no matter how you do it. Melodies
don't wobble.
Besides that, none of you methods will actually tell you how the music
works, only JI will do this.
All other methods than JI will make everything that's supposed to be
consonant less consonant and everything that's supposed to be dissonant more
consonant. It allways messes up the melodies and the play between melodies.
Only JI can do everything perfect and do justice to the music.

> Then there's the "play what sounds good"
> theory, which good acoustic musicians do without consciously thinking
> much about it.
>

And when they do it 100% perfect they will be doing JI :)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗monz <joemonz@...>

Hi Marcel,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok uploaded other timbres too.
>
>
> Oh here the links offcourse :)
>
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_harmonica.mid
>
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
>
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_piano.mid
>
> And the one previously posted was
>
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_violin.mid
> (make sure you have the right version of this one because the first
one was
> the wrong one)
>
> Marcel
>

I find it unbelievable that you actually like this version
with the violin timbre. I think it's horrible. The vibrato
is totally out of character for music of this style and period.

Anyway, the trombone version is much better to my ears,
but some of the chords still sound like real honkers, and
i think it's nowhere near as smooth-sounding as the
Vicentino adaptive-JI version that i have in my Encyclopedia,
which i believe is the version you posted when citing me.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/vicentino/vicentino.aspx

If i listen very carefully to the vicentino version,
i can hear the 1/4-comma shifts in the melodies, but it
doesn't bother me much. To me, the fact that each triad
has nice 4:5:6 harmonic proportions masks the 1/4-comma
melodic shifting to a great extent.

In contrast, your pure-JI version has both more noticeable
comma shifting in the melodies, as well as some real
howling wolves in the harmonies.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing --
for me, one of the great beauties of JI is that you get
a huge spectrum of accordance, from sublime concord to
subtle discord to grating discord, and all shades in between.
That wide sonic range is something you just don't find
with temperaments until you get into the higher cardinalities
(like, say, above 41 or so).

But still, i would not agree that this JI version is "perfect".
To my ears, the Vicentino tuning is probably the best one
that could be used on instruments of the 1600s.

I should try to contact John deLaubenfels and have him
run this piece thru his adaptive-JI software so we could
listen to what he comes up with.

BTW, that piece by Lasso was specifically chosen by me
(on recommendation by Paul Erlich) to illustrate Vicentino's
adaptive-JI, precisely because it was cited as an example
of a piece which could not be rendered propertly in JI.

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

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Joe,
Nice to meet you :)

I find it unbelievable that you actually like this version
> with the violin timbre. I think it's horrible. The vibrato
> is totally out of character for music of this style and period.
>

Yes agreed it's horrible.
But the violin on my soundcard makes the individual melodies most clear to
me.
The violin in my quicktime player however is a mess.
So your violin sound will probably differ from mine.
One of the reasons I used several timbres.

Anyway, the trombone version is much better to my ears,
> but some of the chords still sound like real honkers, and
> i think it's nowhere near as smooth-sounding as the
> Vicentino adaptive-JI version that i have in my Encyclopedia,
> which i believe is the version you posted when citing me.
>

The trombone on both my soundcard and quicktime hides errors for me.
But sounds like yours is nicer.

Some chords have dissonance in them yes.
But only because a note from one of the melodies is either still hanging and
resolves right after.
Or because a note from a melody is "leading" into a new consonant chord.
All the dissonances in the chords are very functional and to play it any
other way would be wrong and out of tune.
You must listen to the melodies as well as the chords / piece as a whole in
order to understand it.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/vicentino/vicentino.aspx
>
> If i listen very carefully to the vicentino version,
> i can hear the 1/4-comma shifts in the melodies, but it
> doesn't bother me much.
>

It does bother me.
It's not very evident with the trombone timbre while playing the whole piece
at once.
But it starts getting disturbing when using for instance the harmonica
timbre.
And it is incredibly noticably out of tune when you listen to the individual
melodies and mute the other parts.
Furthermore, I think it's a fundamentally wrong approach and wrong line of
thought to think the melodies can bend to please harmony.
Melody I perfect in itself.
It's totally valid to see chords as comming from the combination of
different melodies.
And all melodies should sound perfect when listened to by themselves.
Adaptive-JI will allways destroy melody.
Also with adaptive-JI all you're trying to do is make every chord as
consonant as possible without knowing wether that chord should be consonant.
It destroys all character in the music and makes the whole a wobbly mess in
my opinion.

To me, the fact that each triad
> has nice 4:5:6 harmonic proportions masks the 1/4-comma
> melodic shifting to a great extent.
>

Yes it does.
But that doesn't make it right.

In contrast, your pure-JI version has both more noticeable
> comma shifting in the melodies, as well as some real
> howling wolves in the harmonies.
>

No there's no comma shifting in any melody in the JI version.
The high melody stops at a certain point and a new melody takes over that's
a comma higher.
It a sort of echo from a previous melody.
If you listen cerfully you will understand it musically.
All melodies in the JI version are perfect and can be listened to all on
their own and are still perfect then.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing --
> for me, one of the great beauties of JI is that you get
> a huge spectrum of accordance, from sublime concord to
> subtle discord to grating discord, and all shades in between.
> That wide sonic range is something you just don't find
> with temperaments until you get into the higher cardinalities
> (like, say, above 41 or so).
>

Yes agreed. I like 53 myself.
53tet would be able to play this piece authentically.
But not as good as this JI version which is 100% perfect.

But still, i would not agree that this JI version is "perfect".
> To my ears, the Vicentino tuning is probably the best one
> that could be used on instruments of the 1600s.
>

Well I urge you to listen again.
As right now you're saying you prefer an imperfect version to perfect music
:)
Before you said you thought a melody shifted by a comma.
This makes me think you have not yet understood that part musically.
Once you do you will hear the JI version is perfect indeed.

I should try to contact John deLaubenfels and have him
> run this piece thru his adaptive-JI software so we could
> listen to what he comes up with.
>

Sure I'm up for any pieces to compare.
But I will never be perfect like this JI.

BTW, that piece by Lasso was specifically chosen by me
> (on recommendation by Paul Erlich) to illustrate Vicentino's
> adaptive-JI, precisely because it was cited as an example
> of a piece which could not be rendered propertly in JI.
>

Ha I can understand why you guys thought that :)
I still can't beleive how many times I messed it up.
It gave me crisis after crisis.
Partly due to my own faults but mostly because it's so impossibly difficult
to put in correct JI.
But thanks for choosing this piece back then and thank to Carl for giving it
to me.
I've learned so much from it.

Btw maybe someone can show my version to Paul Erlich aswell?
Sure he'd find it interesting.

Marcel