Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Guess the tuning (Lasso)

>
> I'm only doing this one version of the Lasso comma pump.
>
> /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
>
> Any guesses as to what the tuning might be? How does this compare with
> the other versions that have been proposed?
>

Some meantone or something?
Sounds terrible.

So I take it that you do not see my final version as the perfect and single
correct one?
Not even after seeing the transcription etc?

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Some meantone or something?
>> Sounds terrible.
>>
>> So I take it that you do not see my final version as the perfect and
>> single correct one?
>> Not even after seeing the transcription etc?
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>
> Ah wait I'll have a better listen I can't tell from this stupid trombone
> sound.
>
> Marcel
>

Some meantone or 12tet.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> I'm only doing this one version of the Lasso comma pump.
>
> /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
>
> Any guesses as to what the tuning might be? How does this compare with
> the other versions that have been proposed?
>

Sounds good- sounds "as one" and the degree of softness/firmness is appropriate to the music.

Marcel's "perfect" version sounds like it is forcing the notes back to their original pitches against their will.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> I'm only doing this one version of the Lasso comma pump.
>
> /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
>
> Any guesses as to what the tuning might be? How does this compare
> with the other versions that have been proposed?

Not putting this in your user folder: bad Herman!

The chords sound very slightly impure. Maybe meantone, or
maybe some kind of adaptive thing that makes melodic motions
smaller in exchange for slightly impure harmony? You know,
like 1/6-comma adaptive meantone with 3rds left 1/6 sharp.

Which reminds me, I'd been thinking it'd be nice to hear a
1/5-comma adaptive version: you raise the 5ths and lower
the 3rds by 1/5-comma steps.

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

Sounds like 1/4-comma meantone to me. I had forgotten how beautiful
the flat fifths could be though. Very interesting indeed.
-Mike

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> I'm only doing this one version of the Lasso comma pump.
>
> /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
>
> Any guesses as to what the tuning might be? How does this compare with
> the other versions that have been proposed?
>
>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

Mike Battaglia wrote:
> Sounds like 1/4-comma meantone to me. I had forgotten how beautiful
> the flat fifths could be though. Very interesting indeed.
> -Mike

A good guess, as the fifths are 697.267 cents and the major thirds 385.440 cents (compare 696.578 cents and 386.314 cents of 1/4-comma meantone).

This is in fact a modified version of Kornerup's golden meantone, with the octaves stretched to 1201.814 cents (and a generator of 504.547 cents). The amount of stretch was calculated to minimize the TOP error of the tuning (thus: TGM = TOP golden meantone). The diatonic semitone is 119.11 cents and the chromatic semitone is 73.61 cents. I've recently been using it as my default meantone. The beating as I perceive it is just enough to be effective without detracting too much from the near-purity of the intervals, although an irregular temperament starting with this tuning and moving some intervals closer to JI would also be an interesting experiment.

! C:\Scala22\tgm.scl
!

12
!
73.61241
192.71978
311.82716
385.43957
504.54694
578.15935
697.26673
816.37410
889.98651
1009.09389
1082.70630
1201.81367

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> Mike Battaglia wrote:
> > Sounds like 1/4-comma meantone to me. I had forgotten how beautiful
> > the flat fifths could be though. Very interesting indeed.
> > -Mike
>
> A good guess, as the fifths are 697.267 cents and the major thirds
> 385.440 cents (compare 696.578 cents and 386.314 cents of 1/4-comma
> meantone).
>
> This is in fact a modified version of Kornerup's golden meantone, with
> the octaves stretched to 1201.814 cents (and a generator of 504.547
> cents). The amount of stretch was calculated to minimize the TOP error
> of the tuning (thus: TGM = TOP golden meantone). The diatonic semitone
> is 119.11 cents and the chromatic semitone is 73.61 cents. I've recently
> been using it as my default meantone. The beating as I perceive it is
> just enough to be effective without detracting too much from the
> near-purity of the intervals, although an irregular temperament starting
> with this tuning and moving some intervals closer to JI would also be an
> interesting experiment.
>
> ! C:\Scala22\tgm.scl
> !
>
> 12
> !
> 73.61241
> 192.71978
> 311.82716
> 385.43957
> 504.54694
> 578.15935
> 697.26673
> 816.37410
> 889.98651
> 1009.09389
> 1082.70630
> 1201.81367
>
It's an excellent meantone to my ears. I also find that thinking of "me" in terms of a pure 6/5 and "mi" as a different, concretely lower than 5/4, sonority also works. This obviously creates things close to 19-equal but not necessarily with the 19-equal character of "sogginess" (as I hear it).

I don't use temperaments, only tunings, but some function for functional harmony, and this is how I view your Lemba "temperament"; not as a temperament, but as a general tuning framework that works for functional harmony. For example I-ii-vi-V7-I. Since it is nowhere written in stone that "mi" must be 5/4, and I enjoy a "mi" of say 369 cents (as measured from the song of a cuckoo bird) just as much as 5/4, what the hell, you know? And works wonderfully with a pure 7/4. Like Lemba, you get something that's a piece of crap as far as "approximating 5-limit", but something that works musically very sweetly. Unlike "better" temperaments which, to my ears, fail because of too much "almost", giving a spongey feeling.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

Cameron Bobro wrote:

> I don't use temperaments, only tunings, but some function for
> functional harmony, and this is how I view your Lemba "temperament";
> not as a temperament, but as a general tuning framework that works
> for functional harmony. For example I-ii-vi-V7-I. Since it is
> nowhere written in stone that "mi" must be 5/4, and I enjoy a "mi" of
> say 369 cents (as measured from the song of a cuckoo bird) just as
> much as 5/4, what the hell, you know? And works wonderfully with a
> pure 7/4. Like Lemba, you get something that's a piece of crap as far
> as "approximating 5-limit", but something that works musically very
> sweetly. Unlike "better" temperaments which, to my ears, fail because
> of too much "almost", giving a spongey feeling.

Certainly lemba would win no awards as a 5-limit temperament, as it tempers out 140625/131072, a 121.8-cent "comma"! Actually how I first ran across it is that I was looking specifically for little-known temperaments that would work with a stretched octave. It turns out to be more useful as a 7-limit temperament, tempering out 50/49 and allowing some interesting harmonic progressions. It ranks even better in the higher limits, even as crude as its approximation is, since it's not as complex as most other temperaments with similar degree of error (or "deviation" as I prefer).

A 23-limit lemba mapping (generators: 601.700493, 230.874926)
[<2, 2, 5, 6, 5, 7, 7, 10, 9], <0, 3, -1, -1, 5, 1, 3, -4, 0]>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

I really can't understand why some people prefer this meantone version to
the correct JI version.
Just listen to them side by side:
/tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid

The meantone one sounds like an old effect. Though pleasant in some way.
But the JI version is crystal clear and perfect.
It's no comparison to my ears.

So far only Mike said he liked part of the JI where the second melody comes
in a comma higher. (and right after saying he likes the flat fifths in this
meantone)
And Carl said he liked it better than his 2005 JI version (which he didn't
like) but doesn't think it's right.
So he probably still prefers meantone and adaptive-"JI".

I don't get it why nobody gets it.

Marcel

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron Bobro wrote:
>
> > I don't use temperaments, only tunings, but some function for
> > functional harmony, and this is how I view your Lemba "temperament";
> > not as a temperament, but as a general tuning framework that works
> > for functional harmony. For example I-ii-vi-V7-I. Since it is
> > nowhere written in stone that "mi" must be 5/4, and I enjoy a "mi" of
> > say 369 cents (as measured from the song of a cuckoo bird) just as
> > much as 5/4, what the hell, you know? And works wonderfully with a
> > pure 7/4. Like Lemba, you get something that's a piece of crap as far
> > as "approximating 5-limit", but something that works musically very
> > sweetly. Unlike "better" temperaments which, to my ears, fail because
> > of too much "almost", giving a spongey feeling.
>
> Certainly lemba would win no awards as a 5-limit temperament, as it
> tempers out 140625/131072, a 121.8-cent "comma"! Actually how I first
> ran across it is that I was looking specifically for little-known
> temperaments that would work with a stretched octave. It turns out to be
> more useful as a 7-limit temperament, tempering out 50/49 and allowing
> some interesting harmonic progressions. It ranks even better in the
> higher limits, even as crude as its approximation is, since it's not as
> complex as most other temperaments with similar degree of error (or
> "deviation" as I prefer).
>
> A 23-limit lemba mapping (generators: 601.700493, 230.874926)
> [<2, 2, 5, 6, 5, 7, 7, 10, 9], <0, 3, -1, -1, 5, 1, 3, -4, 0]>
>

As I said, I don't consider Lemba a "temperament" at all, although of course a person could view any tuning as some kind of temperament, if they want to. It's just a tuning that works on its own logic, in my opinion, and "real life" implementations could use pure 7/4s in practice, for example, with far less "adaptive JI" necessary than the meantone>JI movements in the Lasso example (for example).

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> I really can't understand why some people prefer this meantone >version to
> the correct JI version.

The meantone version sounds soft, smooth, elegant and logical. The "correct JI version" is not correct, and it sounds stiff, hard, and difficult to perform.

> Just listen to them side by side:
> /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
>
> The meantone one sounds like an old effect. Though pleasant in some >way.
> But the JI version is crystal clear and perfect.

It is not "crystal clear" at all, it is hard and "bent" sounding. Not that there's anything wrong with that- it's simply not "crystal clear" like an actual, correct, 5-limit JI version would be.

> It's no comparison to my ears.

Well, that's your taste, and there you go!

> I don't get it why nobody gets it.

Well, maybe some people know what the harmonic series actually sounds like? And since your example is adhering, harmonically, to number magic and not acoustics, there's no reason anyone on earth but you "should" "get it". But if it sounds "correct" to you, then don't let anyone stop you! Go ahead and make music according to your perceptions.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

It would be difficult to create an idiom in which the "theory" you
have outlined becomes the focus and the order and beauty within it is
readily apprehended. A lot of us on this list are looking for a
different kind of beauty, that of having extremely resonant chords. It
isn't impossible, but it is up to you to figure out how to guide us to
actually perceiving the order in your method, rather than
understanding it intellectually.

You have obviously studied your method enough to where you can see
some kind of beauty within it that is not immediately apparent to us.
It would be good for everyone if you could get us to perceive the same
order within it that you do. But you can't get us to perceive that
order by trying to convince us that what we already like is "bad" or
"wrong." There is no conflict.

-Mike

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> I really can't understand why some people prefer this meantone version to
> the correct JI version.
>
> Just listen to them side by side:
> /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
>
> The meantone one sounds like an old effect. Though pleasant in some way.
> But the JI version is crystal clear and perfect.
> It's no comparison to my ears.
> So far only Mike said he liked part of the JI where the second melody comes
> in a comma higher. (and right after saying he likes the flat fifths in this
> meantone)
> And Carl said he liked it better than his 2005 JI version (which he didn't
> like) but doesn't think it's right.
> So he probably still prefers meantone and adaptive-"JI".
> I don't get it why nobody gets it.
> Marcel
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

It just occurred to me that we might not all be on the same sheet of music, so to speak.

So I made a little test:

http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=ChordXampl01.wav

Marcel (and anyone else), what do you think of that sonority?

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> It would be difficult to create an idiom in which the "theory" you
> have outlined becomes the focus and the order and beauty within it is
> readily apprehended. A lot of us on this list are looking for a
> different kind of beauty, that of having extremely resonant chords. It
> isn't impossible, but it is up to you to figure out how to guide us to
> actually perceiving the order in your method, rather than
> understanding it intellectually.
>
> You have obviously studied your method enough to where you can see
> some kind of beauty within it that is not immediately apparent to us.
> It would be good for everyone if you could get us to perceive the same
> order within it that you do. But you can't get us to perceive that
> order by trying to convince us that what we already like is "bad" or
> "wrong." There is no conflict.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> > I really can't understand why some people prefer this meantone version to
> > the correct JI version.
> >
> > Just listen to them side by side:
> > /tuning/files/AveRegina_TGM.mid
> > /tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso/MdV_JI_Lasso_trombone.mid
> >
> > The meantone one sounds like an old effect. Though pleasant in some way.
> > But the JI version is crystal clear and perfect.
> > It's no comparison to my ears.
> > So far only Mike said he liked part of the JI where the second melody comes
> > in a comma higher. (and right after saying he likes the flat fifths in this
> > meantone)
> > And Carl said he liked it better than his 2005 JI version (which he didn't
> > like) but doesn't think it's right.
> > So he probably still prefers meantone and adaptive-"JI".
> > I don't get it why nobody gets it.
> > Marcel
> >
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > It just occurred to me that we might not all be on the same sheet of music,
> > so to speak.
> >
> > So I made a little test:
> >
> > http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=ChordXampl01.wav
> >
> > Marcel (and anyone else), what do you think of that sonority?
> >
>
> I like the way it sounds.
> Sounds like a resonant 4:5:6 major triad on Ab to me.
>
> Marcel
>

Whew, glad that's clear between us. :-) That's exactly what it is.

One thing you might not be aware of, and that is that not all soundcards play MIDI files back accurately. One of the members here is an expert on this subject, as he writes music software that has to deal with this problem- Fractal Tunesmith. Hopefully he'll chime in on this. Anyway, it's entirely possible to have some very serious misunderstandings because of things like this, as you can imagine!

So I thought it might be a good idea to to a strictly tuned JI "5 limit" triad just to see if we're talking about the same things.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> So I thought it might be a good idea to to a strictly tuned JI "5 limit"
> triad just to see if we're talking about the same things.

But what do you mean with this.
I know very well the one chord on measure 3 in the Lasso is a 3-limit
pythagorean chord..
And even if you wish to say the JI version of the Lasso is not 5-limit
because of this chord then I can't agree with that defenition but be my
guest and call it not 5-limit I don't really care it's not what it's about.
But you seem to hold the beleif that a pythagorean chord is not allowed in
any correct JI transcription of music.
I say it is allowed and it's what Lasso wrote (without knowing it himself
most likely).

Lasso wrote a counterpoint of several melodies.
I gave the transcription and midi rendering of what he wrote.
To transcribe it any other way would be to destroy the melodies and would be
wrongly writing the underlying structure of this piece.

Perhaps he intended to make the melodies go in such a way that also the
chord on measure 3 is a consonant major triad.
But if so then he failed in this (can't blame him as most choirs would make
this (wrongly) into a 4:5:6 like triad probably).
Though when sung exactly like I transcribed in JI by a real choir I'm sure
the pythagorean chord will still sound beautifull.

Marcel