Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning [tuning] Final Lasso in JI. With transcription, MIDI and comparisons.

The correct version of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina Coelorum in Just
Intonation.
Transcription:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso-AveReginaCoelorum.rtf

Scala scale:
MDV_JI_Lasso.scl

MIDI:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_harmonica.mid

Here's a short transcription (in one octave) of the piece:

3/2 15/8 9/8
" " " 3/2
1/1 1/1 5/4 "
4/3 " 4/3 5/3
" 1/1 " "
16/9 10/9 " 16/9
" " 3/2 "
1/1 1/1 " 5/3
" " 4/3 "
" " " 3/2
" " 5/4 "
" " 9/8 "
" " 5/4 27/16
9/8 15/8 9/8 "
" " " 3/2
9/8 27/16 9/8 "
" " " 45/32
" " " 81/64
" " " 45/32
3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2

1/1 10/9 9/8 5/4 81/64 4/3 45/32 3/2 5/3 27/16 16/9 15/8 2/1

As you can see all melodies have full integrity, they do not jump by a comma
or anything like that and can be played perfectly on their own.
Please don't mistake the 27/16 for A on line 4 as a comma jump as it is the
start of a NEW melody (that echos exactly the melody played before on line
3).

Here a comparison with 12tet and adaptive-"JI":

12tet MIDI:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/Lasso_12tet_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/Lasso_12tet_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/Lasso_12tet_harmonica.mid

Adaptive-"JI" MIDI:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/LassoAveRegina_adaptive-JI_harmonica.mid

Now a further comparison of the individual melodies:

Correct Just Intonation:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/MdV_JI_Lasso_M1.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/MdV_JI_Lasso_M2.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/MdV_JI_Lasso_M3.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/MdV_JI_Lasso_M4.mid
(please note that melody 4 consists of 2 different melodies one after the
other. should have placed them in different files)

12tet:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_12tet_M1.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_12tet_M2.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_12tet_M3.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_12tet_M4.mid

Adaptive-"JI":
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_ADJI_M1.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_ADJI_M1.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_ADJI_M1.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/Lasso_ADJI_M1.mid

How do the other versions compare to the correct Just Intonation version?
They mess up big time.

Adaptive-"JI" tries to make everything consonant.
In doing so it destroys the perfect structure of the music.
It makes all the melodies out of tune and wobbly shifting all over the
place.
The structure and character of the music becomes less clear, one doesn't
easily hear the intent of the melodies and the tension of certain chords.
I don't hear the seperation between the 2 melodies one after another on line
4.

12tet makes terribly out of tune harmonies.
The difference between 9/8 and 10/9 gets tempered out which leads to
character less melodies.
It does however not mess up the melodies as bad as Adaptive-"JI" does,
atleast they don't wobble / drift all over the place.
The character and structure of the whole piece and all it's individual parts
go lost for a large part.

Correct Just Intonation does everything 100% perfect offcourse.
It's the only one that makes clear exactly what's going on, full of all the
character the music has. It makes me cry of beauty.
It makes perfectly clear that on line 4 a new melody takes over from an old
one, and one can hear clearly the interplay between melodies and how they
form hamonies and everything else that's going on. So wonderfull, music is
perfect.

I hope many people on this list will regain new trust in Just Intonation.
I beleive it to be the underlying structure of music and that all music can
only be played perfectly in correct Just Intonation.
Furthermore one can learn many things from analysing this JI transcription.
On how to transcribe to JI other music, on how to compose new music, and to
form music theory on.
I must say one thing about the transcription. It is clear to me of every
single note that it is 100% correct except for one note.
The 81/64 note I'm 99.99% sure of, but I can't be 100% sure it should not be
5/4. Just felt I needed to say this so if there's someone out there who
draws conclusions from this note into other work he do so with a tiny little
bit care in the back of his mind. Don't want to be responsible for yet more
wrong JI.

Oh and one last thing.
I uploaded a wrong version the first time, and right after when correcting
that a version with a possible error due to too many files and hand editing
of pitch bends of which I could have lost track. I then wrote every note and
retuned again with care, so the above versions are correct MIDI renderings.
So be sure to download from this thread just in case you were unlucky enough
to download at the wrong time.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

In my opinion, the "letter of the law, not the spirit of the law" mentality that would call these stiff and stilted Pythagorean stylings "5-limit JI" should be the domain of shyster lawyers, not musicians.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@> wrote:
> >
> > The correct version of Orlando di Lasso - Ave Regina Coelorum
> > in Just Intonation.
> > Transcription:
> > /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso
> > /MdV_JI_Lasso-AveReginaCoelorum.rtf
>
> This is very close to the Lumma2005 version, except you choose
> to allow an extra 20/27 or two in order to get rid of a shift
> or two. I reentered your transcription so it starts and ends
> on 1/1, and I also show the chord type on the right:
>
> b t a s chord
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 " 4:5:6
> " " " 1/1 "
> 4/3 4/3 5/3 " "
> 4/3 " 16/9 10/9 3:4:5
> " 4/3 " " "
> 32/27 40/27 " 32/27 4:5:6
> " " 1/1 " 4:5:27 X
> 4/3 4/3 " 10/9 3:4:5
> " " 16/9 " 3:4:5
> " " " 1/1 3:4
> " " 5/3 " 4:5:6
> " " 3/2 " 4:6:9
> " " 5/3 9/8 4:5:27 X
> 3/2 5/4 3/2 " 5:6:15
> " " " 1/1 4:5:6
> 3/2 9/8 3/2 " 4:6:9
> " " " 15/8 4:5:6
> " " " 27/16 4:6:9
> " " " 15/8 4:5:6
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 1/1 4:5:6
>
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> This is very close to the Lumma2005 version, except you choose
> to allow an extra 20/27 or two in order to get rid of a shift
> or two. I reentered your transcription so it starts and ends
> on 1/1, and I also show the chord type on the right:
>
> b t a s chord
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 " 4:5:6
> " " " 1/1 "
> 4/3 4/3 5/3 " "
> 4/3 " 16/9 10/9 3:4:5
> " 4/3 " " "
> 32/27 40/27 " 32/27 4:5:6
> " " 1/1 " 4:5:27 X
> 4/3 4/3 " 10/9 3:4:5
> " " 16/9 " 3:4:5
> " " " 1/1 3:4
> " " 5/3 " 4:5:6
> " " 3/2 " 4:6:9
> " " 5/3 9/8 4:5:27 X
> 3/2 5/4 3/2 " 5:6:15
> " " " 1/1 4:5:6
> 3/2 9/8 3/2 " 4:6:9
> " " " 15/8 4:5:6
> " " " 27/16 4:6:9
> " " " 15/8 4:5:6
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 1/1 4:5:6
>

Hi Carl,

I didn't realise this :) Nice.
But those different notes are enough reason you couldn't hear and see it as
beeing right before.
I think I posted a version before in the beginning with only one note
different where I not only raised the A4 by a comma but also the E4 (on
measure 4.2), it was enough to not see how the piece works and enough to
make that part sound wrong once I got critical.

But I take your message as meaning that you take this version serious now
and are investigating wether it is right?
I'm glad to hear this.
(not for myself but for the sake of just intonation)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Carl,

> Of course I take it seriously, and no I don't think it's right!

I'm glad you take it serious, and hope I can help you see it's right.

I don't really look at the harmonies as I see the harmonies as comming from
melody that moves within a broader underlying structure of "harmony".
The melodies move like this:

Melody 3 (bass is melody 4) moves like this:
5/4 - 4/3 - 3/2 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 5/4

Melody 2 moves like this:
9/8 - 5/4 - 4/3 - 3/2 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 9/8 - 9/8

Melody 1 first part moves like this:
9/8 - 5/4 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8

Melody 1 second part (new melody) moves like this:
3/2 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 5/4 - 4/3

I don't yet fully understand why the bass (melody 4) moves pythagorean.

Melody 1 is transposed by

OMG
as I'm writing this I took along the final transcription of the Lasso piece,
and noticed there's an error in it :( :( :(
and just checked and the error is also in the midi renderings :( :( :( :( :(
:( :(
ohnooooooo

will start re-rendering everything and update it with thesame names so the
links in this post will still be correct.
will let you know when it's done

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Updated all the files.
There was one error that had slipped in due to carelessness.
The error was note D4 measure 3, melody 3 line 2 of the transcription.
I wrote it as 40/9 it should have been and is now 9/2.

All the JI files were affected.
I've corrected them now. The links in the first post of this thread now give
the corrected files, but I'll relist the files that have changed here for
convenience:

/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso-AveReginaCoelorum.rtf
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso.scl

/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_harmonica.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_violin.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/MdV_JI_Lasso_M3.mid

If you have looked in my folder you'd have found 2 files which were not
linked in this thread but were also affected:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_organ.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_piano.mid

All other files remain unchanged.

It's truly unbeleivable how many times I've messed up with this piece.
Sorry for that.
But I hope the result makes up for the mess.

Btw now also no longer unsure about the E4 note in melody 1 second part as I
based that very slight doubt on how the whole scale looked in my underlying
harmonic structure system and I used the scale of this piece with the error
but now the whole scale gets a different place and it no longer looks
strange. Ah longer story even but too long to explain.

Marcel

OMG
> as I'm writing this I took along the final transcription of the Lasso
> piece, and noticed there's an error in it :( :( :(
> and just checked and the error is also in the midi renderings :( :( :( :(
> :( :( :(
> ohnooooooo
>
> will start re-rendering everything and update it with thesame names so the
> links in this post will still be correct.
> will let you know when it's done
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

To finish this story:

Melody 3 (bass is melody 4) moves like this:
> 5/4 - 4/3 - 3/2 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 5/4
>
> Melody 2 moves like this:
> 9/8 - 5/4 - 4/3 - 3/2 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 9/8 - 9/8
>
> Melody 1 first part moves like this:
> 9/8 - 5/4 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8
>
> Melody 1 second part (new melody) moves like this:
> 3/2 - 4/3 - 5/4 - 9/8 - 5/4 - 4/3
>
> I don't yet fully understand why the bass (melody 4) moves pythagorean.
>
> Melody 1 is transposed by
>

Melody 1 first part is transposed by 9/8 down compared to melody 3.
Melody 1 second part is transposed be 4/3 down compared to melody 3.
Melody 2 is transposed by 3/2 down compared to melody 3.

It's a perfect structure of melodies moving against eachother and echoing
etc.

I hope you and others can see this beauty.
I never composed a thing in my life but now I will start composing as now
I'm starting to understand how to treat melody and create perfect music.
I hope this JI transcription will do these kind of things to others aswell
and that JI will eventually lead to perfect understanding and perfect music
theory.

Btw I like the sound of the corrected version even better.
But I'm afraid some people will dislike the pythagorean chord on measure 3
even more than the dissonance of the following note that was in the version
with error.
So I hope people will try to understand the structure of the music and see
it's not all about perfect triads.

Marcel

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

I like the way this one ends, when the comma-sharp A comes back in and
resolves nicely to the 3rd to last chord.

There are a few alterations I would make, but I'm not sure exactly how
you're doing these renderings - are you using scala?

-Mike

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> Updated all the files.
> There was one error that had slipped in due to carelessness.
> The error was note D4 measure 3, melody 3 line 2 of the transcription.
> I wrote it as 40/9 it should have been and is now 9/2.
> All the JI files were affected.
> I've corrected them now. The links in the first post of this thread now give
> the corrected files, but I'll relist the files that have changed here for
> convenience:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso-AveReginaCoelorum.rtf
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso.scl
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_harmonica.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_violin.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/comparisons/melody/MdV_JI_Lasso_M3.mid
>
> If you have looked in my folder you'd have found 2 files which were not
> linked in this thread but were also affected:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_organ.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_piano.mid
>
> All other files remain unchanged.
>
> It's truly unbeleivable how many times I've messed up with this piece.
> Sorry for that.
> But I hope the result makes up for the mess.
> Btw now also no longer unsure about the E4 note in melody 1 second part as I
> based that very slight doubt on how the whole scale looked in my underlying
> harmonic structure system and I used the scale of this piece with the error
> but now the whole scale gets a different place and it no longer looks
> strange. Ah longer story even but too long to explain.
> Marcel
>
>> OMG
>> as I'm writing this I took along the final transcription of the Lasso
>> piece, and noticed there's an error in it :( :( :(
>> and just checked and the error is also in the midi renderings :( :( :( :(
>> :( :( :(
>> ohnooooooo
>> will start re-rendering everything and update it with thesame names so the
>> links in this post will still be correct.
>> will let you know when it's done
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> I like the way this one ends, when the comma-sharp A comes back in and
> resolves nicely to the 3rd to last chord.
>
> There are a few alterations I would make, but I'm not sure exactly how
> you're doing these renderings - are you using scala?
>

Glad you like it :)
But have you read about the melodies and how they all relate to eachother?
Seems to me that if you make alterations it will destroy these relations and
probably also make the melodies out of tune.

I make these files by first writing down the JI ratios, then make a scale in
scala with all these ratios, then in cubase place all the notes (melodies in
seperate tracks / midi channels) so that they hit the right notes in the
scale.
Then save that midi and open scala en load the scale in scala (with keyboard
mapping to make the startnote thesame pitch as in 12tet), then retune midi
in scala.
Then open the retuned file in cubase and place the scala created pitch bend
track (after midi disolving it) on top of the midi tracks and glue them, so
it plays ok in quicktime.
Then if i want to change the midi sound i edit it in list view in cubase.
Also edit pitchbends in cubase for small changes, also in list view.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > In my opinion, the "letter of the law, not the spirit of the law" mentality
> > that would call these stiff and stilted Pythagorean stylings "5-limit JI"
> > should be the domain of shyster lawyers, not musicians.
>
>
> I'm sure exactly what you mean.
> Do you mean you do not think this is good 5-limit JI?
> Then you have a very wrong image of what 5-limi JI is because this is
> perfect 5-limit JI.
> Offcourse one can have pythagorean chords in 5-limit. One can have 1-limit
> octaves too ;)
>
> Marcel
>

You're doing numerology. The "soul" of "5-limit JI" is the fifth harmonic partial, not the number "5".

You've got the melodic movements related to the fifth harmonic partial, that's great, but you're drowning out the sound of it with chain-of-fifths "3-limit" harmonic intervals.

If it doesn't SOUND like "5-limit JI", it isn't 5-limit JI.

Hermann's meantone example is very musical because what it does is take a strong quality of proportions based on the 5th harmonic partial, which is softness, and apply it throughout. The sheer physical proportions (not regarding color and character) of the intervals are much more than "close enough" for the diatonic concept, so we're very clearly and concisely dealing with functional common practice harmony, and "the sound" at any given time is soft and "as one", as it would be in strictly adhering to proportions and coincidences based on the fifth harmonic partial.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > You've got the melodic movements related to the fifth harmonic partial,
> > that's great, but you're drowning out the sound of it with chain-of-fifths
> > "3-limit" harmonic intervals.
> >
>
> > If it doesn't SOUND like "5-limit JI", it isn't 5-limit JI.
> >
>
> You must be joking me (to quote Carl :)
>
> I don't even know where to begin to argue against this much ignorance.
> To call meantone 5-limit and this perfect 5-limit JI not 5-limit.. I don't
> know where to begin but I don't feel like wasting many words on this so I'll
> leave it.
> Too bad this means you also miss the bigger importance of this transcription
> and the way this piece works musically which is revealed in the JI.
>
> Marcel
>

I didn't call "meantone" "5-limit" at any point. Read what I wrote and think about it before you manufacture such straw men.

The "bigger importance" of your transcription is that it a.)is historically and acoustically bogus and difficult and b.) sounds like stiff, hard, and, well, beshitten. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course: to each their own.

In the voluminous yet opaque light of your cluelessness, for you to call my understanding "ignorance" is a marvelous example of perverse humor, thank you for the comical break! It's too bad Gene Ward Smith seems to be no longer here, for between the two of you the entertainment value of this group would be... majestic. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Cameron,
>
> On 5 Mar 2009, at 12:10, Cameron Bobro wrote:
> > I didn't call "meantone" "5-limit" at any point. Read what I >wrote
> > and think about it before you manufacture such straw men.
>
> Hm. I would indeed call the traditional use and 12+ note subset >of
> meantone 5-limit.

And that is sensible, and defensible, for obviously the traditional meantone IS based on proportions relating to the 5th harmonic partial (at the expense of the third partial).

However, I was just trying to prevent Marcel from going off on a tangent: calling a bunch of 32/27s and 81/64s and 40/27s "5-limit JI", no matter how "technically..." correct, is patently bogus.

>However, extended meantone variants (e.g., 31 ET or
> Lucy tuning) can also do 7-limit harmony nicely and approximate 11-
> limit chords.
>
> Best
> Torsten

Well that's something for another day. :-) "7-limit", the seventh harmonic partial itself in fact, is a very fascinating and difficult subject in and of itself.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Oh this is so strange.
If I were allowed to make a change for consonance reasons it would be the
way I wrote it down before when beeing careless about the melody on line 2.
To change the 9/8 in measure 3 to 10/9.
But this makes no sense melodically. Unless it's composed of more than one
melodic segment.

3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
" 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
16/9 10/9 " 16/9 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " 3/2 " 1/1 5/4 27/16
1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
" " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
" " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
" " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
" " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
" " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
" " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
" " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
" " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2

2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> To avoid confusion (as there is indication there is some among some people)
> here the short correct transcription and chords in one octave relative to
> the bass:
> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 16/9 9/8 " 16/9 1/1 81/64 3/2
> " " 3/2 " 1/1 81/64 27/16
> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Ok updated all the midi files and transcription again to the new old version
:-)So it's now no longer a pythagorean chord on measure 3.
Have to figure out how the melody on line 2 is constructed but after looking
again this one makes more sense to me in many ways.
Can't beleive I fooled myself into thinking it should be a pythagorean chord
on line 2.
So again another change. This makes change nr 8 or something haha.
But first time I'm comming back to an earlyer version :)

Marcel

2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Oh this is so strange.
> If I were allowed to make a change for consonance reasons it would be the
> way I wrote it down before when beeing careless about the melody on line 2.
> To change the 9/8 in measure 3 to 10/9.
> But this makes no sense melodically. Unless it's composed of more than one
> melodic segment.
>
>
> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 16/9 10/9 " 16/9 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " 3/2 " 1/1 5/4 27/16
> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>
>
> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
>
> To avoid confusion (as there is indication there is some among some people)
>> here the short correct transcription and chords in one octave relative to
>> the bass:
>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 16/9 9/8 " 16/9 1/1 81/64 3/2
>> " " 3/2 " 1/1 81/64 27/16
>> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
>> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
>> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
>> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
>> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
>> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

OhnoooooLOL
This is getting hilarious.

Guess what?
I was looking for the full score, and I found it on choral wiki:
http://www.choralwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Ave_Regina_coelorum_(Orlando_di_Lasso)

Now here it comes:
There's a note different!!
Either the version I've been doing is wrong or the one on choral wiki is
wrong.
Right now I'm trusting choral wiki as the note is consistently different in
the whole score.
So I have to redo it again :-)
Just one note different though which poses no additional problem.

Marcel

2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Ok updated all the midi files and transcription again to the new old
> version :-)So it's now no longer a pythagorean chord on measure 3.
> Have to figure out how the melody on line 2 is constructed but after
> looking again this one makes more sense to me in many ways.
> Can't beleive I fooled myself into thinking it should be a pythagorean
> chord on line 2.
> So again another change. This makes change nr 8 or something haha.
> But first time I'm comming back to an earlyer version :)
>
> Marcel
>
> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
>
>> Oh this is so strange.
>> If I were allowed to make a change for consonance reasons it would be the
>> way I wrote it down before when beeing careless about the melody on line 2.
>> To change the 9/8 in measure 3 to 10/9.
>> But this makes no sense melodically. Unless it's composed of more than one
>> melodic segment.
>>
>>
>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 16/9 10/9 " 16/9 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " 3/2 " 1/1 5/4 27/16
>> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
>> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
>> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
>> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
>> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
>> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
>>
>> To avoid confusion (as there is indication there is some among some
>>> people) here the short correct transcription and chords in one octave
>>> relative to the bass:
>>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 16/9 9/8 " 16/9 1/1 81/64 3/2
>>> " " 3/2 " 1/1 81/64 27/16
>>> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
>>> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
>>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
>>> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
>>> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
>>> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
>>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
>>> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
>>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
>>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>>
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>
>>
>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

I propose acquisition of the original score. But then would our consider opinions shipwreck on the rocks of musica ficta? I think it is obvious that Orlande de Lassus composed this music incorrectly. Marcel please interpet and bring us truth.

Sincerly,

Chris
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

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

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 19:25:20
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Final Lasso in JI. With transcription, MIDI and
comparisons.

OhnoooooLOL
This is getting hilarious.

Guess what?
I was looking for the full score, and I found it on choral wiki:
http://www.choralwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Ave_Regina_coelorum_(Orlando_di_Lasso)

Marcel

2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>

> Ok updated all the midi files and transcription again to the new old
> version :-)So it's now no longer a pythagorean chord on measure 3.
> Have to figure out how the melody on line 2 is constructed but after
> looking again this one makes more sense to me in many ways.
> Can't beleive I fooled myself into thinking it should be a pythagorean
> chord on line 2.
> So again another change. This makes change nr 8 or something haha.
> But first time I'm comming back to an earlyer version :)
>
> Marcel
>
> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>
>
>> Oh this is so strange.
>> If I were allowed to make a change for consonance reasons it would be the
>> way I wrote it down before when beeing careless about the melody on line 2.
>> To change the 9/8 in measure 3 to 10/9.
>> But this makes no sense melodically. Unless it's composed of more than one
>> melodic segment.
>>
>>
>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 16/9 10/9 " 16/9 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " 3/2 " 1/1 5/4 27/16
>> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
>> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
>> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
>> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
>> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
>> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>
>>
>> To avoid confusion (as there is indication there is some among some
>>> people) here the short correct transcription and chords in one octave
>>> relative to the bass:
>>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 16/9 9/8 " 16/9 1/1 81/64 3/2
>>> " " 3/2 " 1/1 81/64 27/16
>>> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
>>> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
>>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
>>> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
>>> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
>>> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
>>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
>>> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
>>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
>>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
>>>
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>
>>
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

Okay, I've no officially completely lost track of what you're doing, I just can't keep up with the jumble of messages.

And I see in your notation what looks like a V-I beginning rather than a I-IV, and it goes from there. Are you doing this as if it were in C, and maintaining Just relationships to C?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> OhnoooooLOL
> This is getting hilarious.
>
> Guess what?
> I was looking for the full score, and I found it on choral wiki:
> http://www.choralwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Ave_Regina_coelorum_(Orlando_di_Lasso)
>
> Now here it comes:
> There's a note different!!
> Either the version I've been doing is wrong or the one on choral wiki is
> wrong.
> Right now I'm trusting choral wiki as the note is consistently different in
> the whole score.
> So I have to redo it again :-)
> Just one note different though which poses no additional problem.
>
> Marcel
>
> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
>
> > Ok updated all the midi files and transcription again to the new old
> > version :-)So it's now no longer a pythagorean chord on measure 3.
> > Have to figure out how the melody on line 2 is constructed but after
> > looking again this one makes more sense to me in many ways.
> > Can't beleive I fooled myself into thinking it should be a pythagorean
> > chord on line 2.
> > So again another change. This makes change nr 8 or something haha.
> > But first time I'm comming back to an earlyer version :)
> >
> > Marcel
> >
> > 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
> >
> >> Oh this is so strange.
> >> If I were allowed to make a change for consonance reasons it would be the
> >> way I wrote it down before when beeing careless about the melody on line 2.
> >> To change the 9/8 in measure 3 to 10/9.
> >> But this makes no sense melodically. Unless it's composed of more than one
> >> melodic segment.
> >>
> >>
> >> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> 16/9 10/9 " 16/9 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> " " 3/2 " 1/1 5/4 27/16
> >> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
> >> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
> >> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
> >> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
> >> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
> >> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
> >> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
> >> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
> >> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
> >> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/3/6 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
> >>
> >> To avoid confusion (as there is indication there is some among some
> >>> people) here the short correct transcription and chords in one octave
> >>> relative to the bass:
> >>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> " " " 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> 1/1 1/1 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> 4/3 " 4/3 5/3 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> " 1/1 " " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> 16/9 9/8 " 16/9 1/1 81/64 3/2
> >>> " " 3/2 " 1/1 81/64 27/16
> >>> 1/1 1/1 " 5/3 1/1 3/2 5/3
> >>> " " 4/3 " 1/1 4/3 5/3
> >>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 3/2
> >>> " " 5/4 " 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> " " 9/8 " 1/1 9/8 3/2
> >>> " " 5/4 27/16 1/1 5/4 27/16
> >>> 9/8 15/8 9/8 " 1/1 3/2 5/3
> >>> " " " 3/2 1/1 4/3 5/3
> >>> 9/8 27/16 9/8 " 1/1 4/3 3/2
> >>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> " " " 81/64 1/1 9/8 3/2
> >>> " " " 45/32 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>> 3/2 15/8 9/8 3/2 1/1 5/4 3/2
> >>>
> >>> Marcel
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

I found, somewhat miraculously, your .scl Scala file. I'll see what I can do about getting your .mid to play something resembling the tuning, but if you'll render an audio file that would clear up everything immediately.

In the meantime, here's an even more "sci-fi" version of the Lasso, and in light of your .scl file, I'd be very interested indeed to know what you think of it:

http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=LassoSciFi2.wav

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I don't know where the fault lies, but Marcel's MIDI files and the
> > ratios he's posted don't jibe with each other at all, as far as I can tell.
> > Either I don't understand the notation, or his files mysteriously don't play
> > back correctly for me, or there's a discrepancy between the notation and the
> > MIDI, or something.
> >
> > Because what he's hammering at (from what I can tell from the notation)
> > actually is one of the very nice sounding solutions, which I'd never guess
> > from the MIDI file.
> >
> > So I'll have to wait until he renders to audio to know.
> >
>
> Perhaps you had the bad luck of downloading the midi file when I just
> uploaded a wrong version.
> Fixed this almost imediately but perhaps it's stuck in your cache or
> something (or you didn't redownload).
> I that case empty your cache, or download the midi file to your computer to
> a new name.
> The midi file and notation are both correct.
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

http://dl.kibla. org/dl.php? filename= LassoSciFi2. wav
I found the same problem in this otherwise very good and confident sounding piece. In fact, I found conflict in both the next to last chord and a chord before that which is around the 27 second mark. And, again, I realize this could be an intentional "dissonance resolved" by a consonance...but it is my personal preference that chord range between "good and fair" consonance/tension rather than between "great and poor" consonance/tension IE that too much swing in consonance makes music harder to listen to in my opinion.

Regardless...where can I find the .scl for this?

--- On Mon, 3/9/09, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

From: Herman Miller <hmiller@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Lasso in JI: Sci Fi? version
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 7:42 PM

Cameron Bobro wrote:

> I found, somewhat miraculously, your .scl Scala file. I'll see what I

> can do about getting your .mid to play something resembling the

> tuning, but if you'll render an audio file that would clear up

> everything immediately.

> In the meantime, here's an even more "sci-fi" version of the Lasso,

> and in light of your .scl file, I'd be very interested indeed to know

> what you think of it:

> http://dl.kibla. org/dl.php? filename= LassoSciFi2. wav

I think this sounds perfectly fine right up to near the end, where I

hear a lot of beating from the sustain between the notes of the melody

around 0:33. The next to last chord does sound a bit off, but in context

it's a dissonance that gets resolved. No sudden leaps of a comma

anywhere that I can tell.