Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Michael's Ultimate Goal

Mike/ME>
> Agreed. :-) A general pattern I've noticed with noble-number-

> generated scales, for example, is it's quite often best to use the
> noble-number itself as the period (and that using the 2/1 octave as
> the period in such cases I've found actually causes horrific
> dissonance).

Kalle>
---"But shouldn't you get the same intervals no matter which one is the
---generator and which one is the period? "

Not quite.
For one, certain notes that would make that true have to be taken out from the tuning to make the scale because they fall too closely within the critical band and could cause critical band roughness issues.
Try result=PHI^x/2^y with x = 0 to 15 and y = any value that reduces the result to less than the PHI period and you'll notice, for example, a tone around 1.3 and another around 1.32 (obviously both can't be used). The equivalent of the "spiral of 5ths (3/2^x)" IE the "spiral of PHI...PHI^X" is preserved, however, by the fact PHI is the period.

    Another thing, due to the division by 2^y where y is highly variable, this isn't an equal temperament. A really simple example is the "mini PHI scale"   1
(space 1) 1.1618/1 (space 2) 2/1. Note that the interval between space 1 and space 2 are not the same.
***************************************************************
Kalle> "But is it okay to suggest scales with octave or tritave periods?"
    It's up to the scale designer's will, of course, but I've found it creates a lot more dissonance (at least for octaves: I would need to try tri-taves). So far I've tested this on PHI scales, Silver Ratio scales, the square root of PHI, one other noble number which escapes me. It's likely to have to do with the fact using periods other than PHI disrupts the "spiral of PHI" mentioned above, for example.
***************************************************************
Kalle>
--"If we give up the requirement that the
---harmonics must be consecutive we get more possibilities."
    Right, and that's exactly what I tried to do with my
"rationally estimated" version of the scale which used 21/13 to estimate PHI.
   And, that version did improve in consonance slightly over the irrational version when used with some instruments, but not others.

It does, however, have the side effect of making certain intervals far more pure than others, which partly works against my goal of having equal consonance across all intervals...at least with low-numbered fractions.
*****************************************************************
>Kalle
--"If we give up the requirement that the
--harmonics must be consecutive we get more possibilities. Because
--such scales are subsets of the harmonic series we get nice
--proportional beatings. "
Sounds like a good compromise. I guess my question boils down to...how do I know which ones to choose? In my latest version of the PHI scale I round to ratios that make tones that sound
the best when played by themselves, trying to "align to the basilar areas of the ear with the best resolution". Most of these end up rounding to ratios of around 303/241 so far as how high the numbers are. In some way, indirectly, I think I ended up fulfilling your above request/idea...if I have it right.

Kalle> "Recurrent sequences a la Dudon/Grady/ Wilson could also be used for difference tone effects."

What do you mean by recurrent sequences (I'm guessing this goes far beyond, say, 1.618034^2 = 2.618034 in the circle of PHI)? I need to educate myself here...do you have any links? :-)

-Michael

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:

> Kalle>
> ---"But shouldn't you get the same intervals no matter which one is
the
> ---generator and which one is the period? "
>
> Not quite.
> For one, certain notes that would make that true have to be
taken out from the tuning to make the scale because they fall too
closely within the critical band and could cause critical band
roughness issues.
> Try result=PHI^x/2^y with x = 0 to 15 and y = any value that
reduces the result to less than the PHI period and you'll notice, for
example, a tone around 1.3 and another around 1.32 (obviously both
can't be used). The equivalent of the "spiral of 5ths (3/2^x)" IE
the "spiral of PHI...PHI^X" is preserved, however, by the fact PHI is
the period.

OK, but if you didn't do this picking it wouldn't matter which one
is the period and which one is the generator.

> Another thing, due to the division by 2^y where y is highly
variable, this isn't an equal temperament. A really simple example
is the "mini PHI scale" 1
> (space 1) 1.1618/1 (space 2) 2/1. Note that the interval between
space 1 and space 2 are not the same.

Huh? Both choices for period and generator give this same mini Phi
scale, just a different mode or rotation (which means that different
note is taken as starting the scale) in the same sense of "scale"
where the major and the natural minor are different modes of the
same diatonic scale.

> ***************************************************************
> Kalle> "But is it okay to suggest scales with octave or tritave
periods?"
> It's up to the scale designer's will, of course, but I've found
it creates a lot more dissonance (at least for octaves: I would need
to try tri-taves). So far I've tested this on PHI scales, Silver
Ratio scales, the square root of PHI, one other noble number which
escapes me. It's likely to have to do with the fact using periods
other than PHI disrupts the "spiral of PHI" mentioned above, for
example.

OK, if you insist on basing the scale on Phi. But didn't we agree
that other methods of scale construction are allowed too if they
result in your primary goal of a 7+ note chord-scale? Basing the
scale on Phi is just one approach which might or might not work.

> ***************************************************************
> Kalle>
> --"If we give up the requirement that the
> ---harmonics must be consecutive we get more possibilities."
> Right, and that's exactly what I tried to do with my
> "rationally estimated" version of the scale which used 21/13
to estimate PHI.

I don't think you were trying to base it on non-consecutive
segments of the harmonic series which I'm suggesting. You were just
approximating the irrational numbers with rational numbers but not
fitting the complete scale to a harmonic sequence.

I'm talking about expressing scales as harmonic series segments
like the JI diatonic can be expressed as

24:27:30:32:36:40:45:48

These are easily found using the fit/harmonic-command in Scala.

If the rational version of your scale is expressed similarly the
first number will be 371280 so you definitely weren't doing exactly
the same thing.

>    And, that version did improve in consonance slightly over the
irrational version when used with some instruments, but not others.
>
>    It does, however, have the side effect of making certain
intervals far more pure than others, which partly works against my
goal of having equal consonance across all intervals...at least with
low-numbered fractions.
> *****************************************************************
> >Kalle
> --"If we give up the requirement that the
> --harmonics must be consecutive we get more possibilities. Because
> --such scales are subsets of the harmonic series we get nice
> --proportional beatings. "
>    Sounds like a good compromise. I guess my question boils down
to...how do I know which ones to choose?

I'll try to come up with some suggestions having to do with co-prime
numbers.

>In my latest version of the PHI scale I round to ratios that make
tones that sound
> the best when played by themselves, trying to "align to the
basilar areas of the ear with the best resolution". Most of these
end up rounding to ratios of around 303/241 so far as how high the
numbers are.

Sorry, but I don't have the foggiest what this means.

>In some way, indirectly, I think I ended up fulfilling your above
>request/idea...if I have it right.

You did not but don't worry: while I try to find a scale that
fulfills your primary goal you can continue with your Phi-approach.

> Kalle> "Recurrent sequences a la Dudon/Grady/ Wilson could also
be used for difference tone effects."
>
> What do you mean by recurrent sequences (I'm guessing this goes
far beyond, say, 1.618034^2 = 2.618034 in the circle of PHI)? I need
to educate myself here...do you have any links? :-)

<Sigh>Oh Michael, the topic of recurrent sequences did come up
earlier when Jacques joined the discussion, don't you remember?

Anyway, an example of recurrent sequence is Fibonacci numbers:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, ... which

satisfy the recurrence relation

F_{n} = F_{n-1}+F_{n-2}, that is

a number in the sequence is the sum of the two previous numbers.

Other recurrence relations figure in the Mt. Meru scales of Wilson
and in the scales of Jacques Dudon.

Kalle Aho

🔗djtrancendance@...

Kalle> "OK, but if you didn't do this picking it wouldn't matter which one

is the period and which one is the generator."
Right. For those who just started reading the exclusion of certain frequencies which are too close in phi^x/2^y are done for the sake of avoiding critical band roughness.

Kalle>
--"Both choices for period and generator give this same mini Phi
--scale, just a different mode or rotation (which means that different
--note is taken as starting the scale)"
Ah so that's what you meant...in that case you are right. I thought you were meaning "key" instead of "mode" (and, in the case of key, of course, the only thing that would provide, say, the same interval gap from any starting note is equal temperament)...hence I'm very glad you clarified about using a different "mode" and not "key".

Kalle>
"OK, if you insist on basing the scale on Phi. But didn't we agree

that other methods of scale construction are allowed too "
Of course, I was just giving the spiral of PHI as an example, by no means am I advocating PHI as the only possible way to achieve this. It could have just as well been generated by any noble number...or anything that does a good job of preserving symmetric difference tone relationships period.
***************************************************
Kalle> "Basing the scale on Phi is just one approach which might or might not work."
Personally I've had better luck with PHI than any other noble number or any other generator otherwise...but I'm actually quite eager for more people to jump in, start experimenting, and find a better one...so long as progress is made. :-)
******************************************************
Kalle> "You were just approximating the irrational numbers with rational numbers but not fitting the complete scale to a harmonic
sequence."

Well, what counts to you as a harmonic sequence?
A single harmonic series itself, for example, does not even come close to approximating the PHI scale....unless you mean something like 303/201, 329/201. Or are you talking about something else entirely?
***********************************************************
Me> "Most of these end up rounding to ratios of around 303/241 so far as how high the numbers are."

Kalle> "Sorry, but I don't have the foggiest what this means."

I meant, most tones are relatively near having an o-tonal relationship/common denominator of around 301-ish AKA pretty darn far up the series. But I don't have the foggiest clue how to mathematically determine which denominator would provide the best solution to "fit my scale to the high end of the harmonic series"...if that's what you are talking about.
**************************************************************
Kalle>
"I'm talking about expressing scales as harmonic series segments

like the JI diatonic can be expressed as 24:27:30:32: 36:40:45:48

These are easily found using the fit/harmonic- command in Scala."

Awesome, I'll definitely give that a shot.

--"If the rational version of your scale is expressed similarly the
---first number will be 371280 so you definitely weren't doing exactly
---the same thing. "
Apparently not...I was rounding "by ear" to the nearest low-numbered fraction. And I honestly have no clue how SCALA calculates it's "stacked ratio" format you described above...but it can't hurt to try it and see how the result sounds.
**************************************************************
Kalle> "Anyway, an example of recurrent sequence is Fibonacci numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89"

Ah, ok, duh, my bad...I've obviously heard that before: each number is a function of the last couple of numbers in the same way the number before it is the same function of the
numbers before that. And 21/13 IE 1.615 is stuck is that example...go figure...while the higher fractions merge ever closer to the value of PHI.

Anyhow, I was thinking of things in terms of "only ratios" and got sidetracked.
********************************************************
-Michael

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
>
> Kalle> "OK, but if you didn't do this picking it wouldn't matter which one
>
> is the period and which one is the generator."
> Right. For those who just started reading the exclusion of certain frequencies which are too close in phi^x/2^y are done for the sake of avoiding critical band roughness.
>
> Kalle>
> --"Both choices for period and generator give this same mini Phi
> --scale, just a different mode or rotation (which means that different
> --note is taken as starting the scale)"
> Ah so that's what you meant...in that case you are right. I thought you were meaning "key" instead of "mode" (and, in the case of key, of course, the only thing that would provide, say, the same interval gap from any starting note is equal temperament)...hence I'm very glad you clarified about using a different "mode" and not "key".
>
> Kalle>
> "OK, if you insist on basing the scale on Phi. But didn't we agree
>
> that other methods of scale construction are allowed too "
> Of course, I was just giving the spiral of PHI as an example, by no means am I advocating PHI as the only possible way to achieve this. It could have just as well been generated by any noble number...or anything that does a good job of preserving symmetric difference tone relationships period.
> ***************************************************
> Kalle> "Basing the scale on Phi is just one approach which might or might not work."
> Personally I've had better luck with PHI than any other noble number or any other generator otherwise...but I'm actually quite eager for more people to jump in, start experimenting, and find a better one...so long as progress is made. :-)
> ******************************************************
> Kalle> "You were just approximating the irrational numbers with rational numbers but not fitting the complete scale to a harmonic
> sequence."
>
> Well, what counts to you as a harmonic sequence?
> A single harmonic series itself, for example, does not even come close to approximating the PHI scale....unless you mean something like 303/201, 329/201. Or are you talking about something else entirely?
> ***********************************************************
> Me> "Most of these end up rounding to ratios of around 303/241 so far as how high the numbers are."
>
> Kalle> "Sorry, but I don't have the foggiest what this means."
>
> I meant, most tones are relatively near having an o-tonal relationship/common denominator of around 301-ish AKA pretty darn far up the series. But I don't have the foggiest clue how to mathematically determine which denominator would provide the best solution to "fit my scale to the high end of the harmonic series"...if that's what you are talking about.
> **************************************************************
> Kalle>
> "I'm talking about expressing scales as harmonic series segments
>
> like the JI diatonic can be expressed as 24:27:30:32: 36:40:45:48
>
> These are easily found using the fit/harmonic- command in Scala."
>
> Awesome, I'll definitely give that a shot.
>
> --"If the rational version of your scale is expressed similarly the
> ---first number will be 371280 so you definitely weren't doing exactly
> ---the same thing. "
> Apparently not...I was rounding "by ear" to the nearest low-numbered fraction. And I honestly have no clue how SCALA calculates it's "stacked ratio" format you described above...but it can't hurt to try it and see how the result sounds.
> **************************************************************
> Kalle> "Anyway, an example of recurrent sequence is Fibonacci numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89"
>
> Ah, ok, duh, my bad...I've obviously heard that before: each number is a function of the last couple of numbers in the same way the number before it is the same function of the
> numbers before that. And 21/13 IE 1.615 is stuck is that example...go figure...while the higher fractions merge ever closer to the value of PHI.
>
> Anyhow, I was thinking of things in terms of "only ratios" and got sidetracked.
> ********************************************************
> -Michael
>
Hi Michael,

Did you check out the phi samples in Robert Walkers post below? The first sounds like a minor sixth interval with the tonic at the top, while the others sound like major triads. This is a good example of what Carl, myself and others have been driving at, that both in nature and in human hearing the mind tends to sort things in terms of small rational numbers, even when the numbers are quite far-off.

-Rick

🔗djtrancendance@...

Rick>"Did you check out the phi samples in Robert Walkers post below?"

Yes, and they sound like what they are: intervals based on the noble mediant. Which has nothing to do with my scales or vaguely with anything I'm working on (or want to work on)...but rather he's taking the points of maximum harmonic entropy.

That, as Kalle also stated, is the opposite goal of my scales, which go for a sense of relaxation. The only thing those intervals have vaguely to do with mine is that they use math involving PHI.
For example, his method takes a midpoint between two JI-type intervals using
noble mediant of JI ratios i/j and k/m = (i + Phi * m)/(j + Phi * n)

...while mine uses
100% no JI in the calculation and goes by the formula
phi^x/2^y. Isn't the difference pretty obvious, even
mathematically?
*******************************************************************************************
Rick> "The first (in Robert Walker's examples) sounds like a minor sixth interval with the >tonic at the top,
while the others sound like major triads."

Agreed. But, think about it...he's, to some extent, taking mid-points between small-number ratio intervals. If you take a set of all the notes furthest from 12TET (IE those in between 12TET)...you simply get 12TET again but 1/4 tone up. No wonder they sound so alike...

One direct example from http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt
says taking the noble mediant between 5:4 and 6:5 gives 339.3 cents AND taking the mediant between 9:7 and 4:3 gives 448.5 cents. In almost all cases...we're getting something near the midpoints of the two tones in question.

    If they sound a bit too much like 12TET interval, why would they be the maximum points of dissonance, then? Try playing them next to scales within 12TET
to find out... :-D
    No wonder why, in the paper, Keenan describes the problem he's trying to solve with his scale as "the problem of finding the region of maximum complexity between two ratios" and Elrich's competing model as the "limit-weighted midpoint".
*******************************************************************************************

>This is a good example of
what Carl, myself and others have been driving at, that both in >nature
and in human hearing the mind tends to sort things in terms of small
rational >numbers, even when the numbers are quite far-off.
I strongly agree his scale follows that convention, but don't agree my scale and many other generated from PHI or other noble numbers in different ways do.

Not just due to the two noble-number examples above, but the general pattern I've seen in your posts of simply not understanding the workings or points of what I and others are doing with PHI and instead ending up pigeon-holing it into other theories which fit your hypothesis better (particularly this "noble-mediant" one.

If you enjoy the fact Robert Walker's example work to your liking, great.

However I, for one, am not interested in re-molding what I've done to fit that path and will say it here once again for every one else here: I have read the theories on noble-mediants through and through and am not interested in them in the slightest
(unlike Wilson's Mt Meru scales, for example, which I have some interest in although they are also a completely different way of using PHI IE as a logarithmic generator for MOS-type scales deriving series of generation from Pascal's Triangle).

Michael

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
> Rick>"Did you check out the phi samples in Robert Walkers post below?"
>
> Yes, and they sound like what they are: intervals based on the noble mediant. Which has nothing to do with my scales or vaguely with anything I'm working on (or want to work on)...but rather he's taking the points of maximum harmonic entropy.
>
> That, as Kalle also stated, is the opposite goal of my scales, which go for a sense of relaxation. The only thing those intervals have vaguely to do with mine is that they use math involving PHI.
> For example, his method takes a midpoint between two JI-type intervals using
> noble mediant of JI ratios i/j and k/m = (i + Phi * m)/(j + Phi * n)
>
> ...while mine uses
> 100% no JI in the calculation and goes by the formula
> phi^x/2^y. Isn't the difference pretty obvious, even
> mathematically?
> *******************************************************************************************
> Rick> "The first (in Robert Walker's examples) sounds like a minor sixth interval with the >tonic at the top,
> while the others sound like major triads."
>
> Agreed. But, think about it...he's, to some extent, taking mid-points between small-number ratio intervals. If you take a set of all the notes furthest from 12TET (IE those in between 12TET)...you simply get 12TET again but 1/4 tone up. No wonder they sound so alike...
>
> One direct example from http://dkeenan.com/Music/NobleMediant.txt
> says taking the noble mediant between 5:4 and 6:5 gives 339.3 cents AND taking the mediant between 9:7 and 4:3 gives 448.5 cents. In almost all cases...we're getting something near the midpoints of the two tones in question.
>
> If they sound a bit too much like 12TET interval, why would they be the maximum points of dissonance, then? Try playing them next to scales within 12TET
> to find out... :-D
> No wonder why, in the paper, Keenan describes the problem he's trying to solve with his scale as "the problem of finding the region of maximum complexity between two ratios" and Elrich's competing model as the "limit-weighted midpoint".
> *******************************************************************************************
>
> >This is a good example of
> what Carl, myself and others have been driving at, that both in >nature
> and in human hearing the mind tends to sort things in terms of small
> rational >numbers, even when the numbers are quite far-off.
> I strongly agree his scale follows that convention, but don't agree my scale and many other generated from PHI or other noble numbers in different ways do.
>
> Not just due to the two noble-number examples above, but the general pattern I've seen in your posts of simply not understanding the workings or points of what I and others are doing with PHI and instead ending up pigeon-holing it into other theories which fit your hypothesis better (particularly this "noble-mediant" one.
>
>
> If you enjoy the fact Robert Walker's example work to your liking, great.
>
> However I, for one, am not interested in re-molding what I've done to fit that path and will say it here once again for every one else here: I have read the theories on noble-mediants through and through and am not interested in them in the slightest
> (unlike Wilson's Mt Meru scales, for example, which I have some interest in although they are also a completely different way of using PHI IE as a logarithmic generator for MOS-type scales deriving series of generation from Pascal's Triangle).
>
> Michael
>
Michael,

What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like "pigeon holing", "re-molding", going against "societies rules", and other general rock n' roll high school cliches, and yet your email address says "DJdanceandtrance"! So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable, heavily formularized, manneristic, commercially oriented and bottom-line form of "music" that ever existed on the planet. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or self reflection only seems to confirm this overall impression. Did you honestly think you could put us off the scent by accusing us of what you demonstrate?

So let me be absolutely clear: it takes years and years of practice and study to become a musician or musical scholar, not to mention tens of thousands of dollars. Much of what we learn is knowing what to leave out. It should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer programs or reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and "Phi" reaches anywhere near the same level of expertise. The maths we musicians are using is not picked at random but encodes thousands of years of experience and accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet understand.

-Rick

🔗djtrancendance@...

Rick> "What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like "pigeon holing", "re-molding"..."
   Well first I simply said "my scale is not the same" about 20 different times (often with sound and mathematical examples) and you apparently just didn't get it and kept sending posts irrelevant to the topic as replies to my examples. It's like you were telling the piston designer the shape of his piston (which needs to be that shape to work) is wrong b/c it doesn't look pretty...it may be true but it's a tangent useless to the productivity of a discussion.
    Anyhow, I figured how could I make it more obvious to you than using such obvious terms as "pigeon holed" to describe your stereotyping.
   I've noticed certain scale creators like
Wilson make a huge point of saying (paraphrased) "don't trust sources other than myself for any authentic versions/rationale behind my scales"..and now I know why: attitudes like yours distorting both authors work. There's nothing "high school" about that...people distorting
and badly communicating other people's work is a real issue...in academia, the work place, and beyond. Charles Lucy, Carl Lumma, and others have also had their share of trouble with people making mis-transcribed versions of their scales and theories...sometimes by accident sometimes not; but even good intentions often don't help slow the distortion. If it weren't a huge issue I wouldn't be bothering to write all this.
***************************************************************************************************
> "yet your email address says "DJdanceandtrance""
> "So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable"
    Man you are being a bastard. This is so FAR out of context.

The reason I have that name on my yahoo account is because it's an old address I've for my old musical artist name had since I was about 15
(and, for example, changing to a new one would require losing my list of old yahoo contacts).
And I figured most people would be able to figure out by how I write, for example, that I'm a 3.8GPA graduate school graduate. Of course...there's always going to be the occasional blind-sighted person being a bastard and saying (paraphrased) "haha...your name is djtrancendance" as if I had just created the account.

    You know, if some really wanted to be popular and socially acceptable, they wouldn't even think of touching micro-tonal music and certainly wouldn't be playing weird layered abstract-ambient break-beat tracks. They'd be doing same more simplified hip-hop tracks or commercial rock), sending out flyers everywhere, they'd be contacting DJ's and labels day and night, trying to get their music in video games, putting their tracks out on I-tunes, getting a degree from Berkeley School of Music to
"prove their professional-ity" ...
    It doesn't take a genius to figure out...if I've made the above "strides toward social acceptance" or not...good luck at finding a paper trail of any attempts to sell music in mass quantities.
**************************************************************************************************
Rick> "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or self reflection"
   I think I'll simply let other people on the forum be the judge as to if you are stereotyping or not...
*************************************************************************************************
>"it takes years and years of practice and study to become a musician or
musical scholar, >not to mention tens of thousands of dollars."
    Haha...wait a minute...a thought you were making the argument about why I was some musician grasping for social acceptability and taking common paths...and here you are telling me I must take the socially acceptable path toward musicianship. Conflicting suggestions? :-D

BTW, there are too many good musicians out there without great degrees to make your statement/assumption about "having to pay to be a good musician". I, for one, have spent hours composing music per day since about the age of 15 practicing hard and have played guitar since the age of 11. I haven't considered music school largely because of the great amount of learning I can do by reading lists like this one and informative musical web sites online. In short...I respect the idea of people's learning either through formal schooling or intense
research on their own time.
**************************************************************************************************
> "It should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer
programs or >reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and
"Phi" reaches anywhere near the >same level of expertise."
You are making random assumptions again. I never read any websites about PHI minus the links you guys gave me AFTER I created my scale (the definition of PHI and it's properties was something I remembered from high school). What I did read before was documents about the Mt Meru scales, methods for creation of MOS scales, methods for creation of mean-tone scales, and tons of documents about critical band (Plomp&Llevelt) and beating (Helmholtz), just to name a few. I took PHI and tried applying it to such constructs, NOT the other way around (IE trying to force those constructs around PHI). For example the whole PHI^Y/2^X formula used to make the tuning my scales are based on came from the idea of an exponential version of the "circle/spiral of 5ths" used to generate mean-tone tunings, not from some random document(s) about
PHI!
**************************************************************************************************
Rick> "The maths we musicians are using is not picked at random but encodes thousands >of years of experience and accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet understand."

Maybe I need to clarify something yet again. I respect JI and the single-toned/tonal nature of the harmonic series. I respect mean-tone and know how it is created. I respect MOS-scales and know how they are created. I respect the idea of using equal temperaments and swapping notes conditionally to purify intervals. I respect the laws of physics concerning critical band roughness and beating. Also, since Carl's recent posts...I understand why odd-limit and the idea of having each tone in the scale o-tonally related to at least two other tones is important when rating the level of
consonance between low rational-numbered fraction scales...and I no longer confused prime and odd limit.

Yet, somehow, despite this and more you dare to say I'm "not yet understanding" any of the dialogue on this list. Admittedly, I don't understand 100% and, for example, was recently corrected on confusing prime and odd limits. But I do understand exponentially more than someone who has just gone to school in diatonic music theory.

Once again, I will also say...that despite knowing all of the above I choose not to spend my time making JI scales. Yes, I know how to make JI scales (and have displayed scales such as the 12/11 * 11/10 * 10/9 * 9/8 * 12/11 * 11/10 * 10/9 JI tetra-chordal scale in the past)...but I simply think it's more interesting PERSONALLY to explore less-traveled paths such as noble-number generated scales (I do NOT work on such scales out of disrespect for you or anyone
else more interested in JI-type scales!).

So you can go on thinking I don't read any of or give a hoot about JI or anything else on this list, create music for social acceptance rather than personal fascination, and make mistakes mostly b/c I didn't do said formal schooling you mentioned above...I can't deprive you of your ignorance...but it does not change the fact my actual behavior by-and-large says otherwise.

If any one on this list aside from Rick honestly thinks I'm a guy trying to become famous musician and become "popular" rather than a guy interested in micro-tonal music out of personal fascination...please say "I".

-Michael

🔗djtrancendance@...

Mike B> "C Db Eb E F Ab C...that major 7 chord...stood out at me
>as soon as I heard it, although I heard some rumbly sounding stuff in
>the bottom end that didn't fit
"

Actually...I tried it myself and you are right (and on the pure basis
of listening test) and took out the 412 cent note from the PHI scale
for this test as you suggested. And, in short, I think you have a very good point: minus the weird rumbling the 12TET version has, it sounds an awful lot, in mood, like my ooriginal PHI scale.

Aside from your chord, the
one other chord I've found that sounds a bit like the PHI scale is C Db
Eb F Ab Bb C...actually I've been working on tons of combinations of
diatonic chords that best imitate the feel of the original PHI scale.
'*******************************************************************************
Indeed, both of these "12TET sounding like PHI" scales have a much the same feel emotionally as my old PHI scale despite having many ratios 30+ cents off of alignment with 12TET.
****************************************************************************

Thus, I consider it a lesson learned and went back to the drawing
board and tried to cut out the notes that caused the mood similarities
for the sake of making the scale sound and feel more original.

This is the scale I found from 12TET sounded best with 6 notes per octave and most like my old PHI scale (the chord is c c# d# e g# a# c)
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/c_cs_ds_e_gs_as_c.wav

And this is what my NEW/REVISED (as of today) PHI scale sounds like
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/abdegha.wav

And here are the values of the notes in the NEW PHI scale
1
0             cents (root)
1.071      118.75    cents (nearing 1/8th tone off)
1.192      304
cents (normal 4th...the only note mostly in common with 12TET)
1.275      420         cents (nearing 1/8th tone off)
1.373      548.79    cents (about 1/4th tone off)
1.454      648.03    cents (about 1/4th tone off)
1.618      833         cents (nearing 1/8th tone off)

     So (here we go into the testing loop again)...do
these still sound major to you (Mike B or any others) in any way?

I realize even notes this far from 12TET (the only note that really
almost matches 12TET is 1.192 AKA 304 cents) may still somehow sound diatonic...but I am
admittedly "stubborn" enough to keep testing until I am just about 100%
sure it is not possible. :-)

-Michael

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

Mike B> "This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And

furthermore, techno is great."

Thank you for backing me up there...
It's just funny reading all this... :-D
Especially since music is such a subjective thing and yet some people state it as being purely objective.

People give all sorts of detail why techno is terrible, hectic, and repetitive.
And why classical music is energy-less, rhythm-less, and pompous.
And why country music is has no rhythmic variation, is whiny, and uncreative
And why rock and punk music are the screeching product of over-grown high school bands.
And on and on and on....

You know if everyone had that attitude...someone who had never heard music who only learned about it by reading papers would likely think: "wow, such convincing arguments...I really should avoid listening to any and all MUSIC...it sounds like it must be something made by the devil b/c every genre has WAY too many problems" (LOL)
***********************************************************************************
My firm opinion is that any form of music that can satisfy a group of people (and not just the artist who made it) is well worth keeping around for what it is rather than what people may say it isn't.

I listen to techno very much for its energy...it fits my lifestyle as a runner. I also like that is does types of clever and trance-y overtone melding that I feel you just can't hear in acoustic instrumentals. Also it has lots of subtle effects...which means even something that may seem simple often has thousands of skillful edits (BT's "Somnambulist" has the Guiness Book of World Records record with over 3000 vocal effect edits!
BTW, if any of you think all techno has no rests...you should try listening to Frou Frou's works, particularly "Let Go". Just because very commerical techno like Aqua (which for the record, I don't like at all) sounds a certain way doesn't mean all dance-related must also sound that way.

!!!! BTW, for those who didn't know, Marcus Satellite makes fantastic electronica (anything from Brian Eno style soft tunes to all out frentic dance tracks to middle-ground breakbeat tracks) using Wilson's MOS scales...is also one of the best the best micro-tonal musicians I've ever heard!!!!

And I also know there are always things that defy the heck out of genre stereotypes. Think rock is all about overgrown high-school bands? Listen to Joe Satriani or the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Think blues is all about the same simple chord progressions and easy-going guitar solos? Try Stevie Ray Vaughn. Think all electronic music is fast and hectic? Try Brian Eno.
The examples go on and on....

But one thing is for sure. Even if someone, say, likes hip-hop (which I can't stand)...I'm at least not so ignorant that I won't say his taste in that genre means automatically means he knows nothing about music and "if he learned more, he would like something else".

I just figure...it's much better to respect things for what they are and the fact they can manage to be good enough for some people to like them...than bash them over the head for what they are not/

-Michael
--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Michael's Ultimate Goal
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 2:20 PM

> What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like

> "pigeon holing", "re-molding" , going against "societies rules", and other

> general rock n' roll high school cliches, and yet your email address says

> "DJdanceandtrance" ! So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved

> making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable, heavily

> formularized, manneristic, commercially oriented and bottom-line form of

> "music" that ever existed on the planet. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the

> fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or

> self reflection only seems to confirm this overall impression. Did you

> honestly think you could put us off the scent by accusing us of what you

> demonstrate?

This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And

furthermore, techno is great.

> So let me be absolutely clear: it takes years and years of practice and

> study to become a musician or musical scholar, not to mention tens of

> thousands of dollars. Much of what we learn is knowing what to leave out. It

> should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer programs

> or reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and "Phi" reaches

> anywhere near the same level of expertise. The maths we musicians are using

> is not picked at random but encodes thousands of years of experience and

> accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet

> understand.

Please. Techno artists know exactly what they're doing, plenty of the time.

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like
> > "pigeon holing", "re-molding", going against "societies rules", and other
> > general rock n' roll high school cliches, and yet your email address says
> > "DJdanceandtrance"! So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved
> > making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable, heavily
> > formularized, manneristic, commercially oriented and bottom-line form of
> > "music" that ever existed on the planet. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the
> > fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or
> > self reflection only seems to confirm this overall impression. Did you
> > honestly think you could put us off the scent by accusing us of what you
> > demonstrate?
>
> This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And
> furthermore, techno is great.

Hi Mike (Battaglia),

How can you say this is irrelevant? Haven't you been reading? Michael's posts have been for the most part nothing but ad hominem attacks, accusing anyone and everyone of stereotyping, pidgeon holing etc...as if we're all representative of the stuffy old academy stuck in our ways. And as for techno, I was hired for a techno (house) gig last night. Did the DJ know what he was doing? Yes, because the keyboard player/programmer and myself taught him things like "don't speed up the record because the pitch increases"...der, or "don't mix two records in together which are in different keys". And no, he is a very typical representative.

"techno is great" is a bit of a broad statement. Most, and I really do mean most, of what I hear sounds like exactly what it is: some guy on a computer using other peoples samples or programs like reason and covering up mistakes with an over-compressed simulated bass drum and high hat on the off beat. In fact a musician friend of mine actually put this to the test. He 'wrote' a whole lot of random tracks on reason, recorded it onto his ipod as a continuous stream, and pretended to play records and mix beats. When it finished he started over again. No one, including the so-called 'experts' in techno, knew any different and in fact hired him for a whole lot of gigs. So why go through the bother of using a DJ at all? Why not just write a program to 'create' music...and while we're at it, create another program to 'enjoy' the music in our stead. Then we can forget about music altogether and take jobs at microsoft.

-Rick
>
> > So let me be absolutely clear: it takes years and years of practice and
> > study to become a musician or musical scholar, not to mention tens of
> > thousands of dollars. Much of what we learn is knowing what to leave out. It
> > should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer programs
> > or reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and "Phi" reaches
> > anywhere near the same level of expertise. The maths we musicians are using
> > is not picked at random but encodes thousands of years of experience and
> > accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet
> > understand.
>
> Please. Techno artists know exactly what they're doing, plenty of the time.
>

🔗djtrancendance@...

Rick> "Michael's posts have been for the most part nothing but ad hominem
attacks, accusing anyone and everyone of stereotyping, pigeon holing
etc...as if we're all representative of the stuffy old academy stuck in
our ways."

Well, Rick, if you don't like me accusing you of doing that then please stop doing it. :-)   Virtually every post you've replied to that I've posted contains things like "you're saying 1000+ years of musical research is wrong"...and your last post made a huge point of saying it takes $10000+ of training in a musical school to know anything about music.

   I don't think the entire community here is "stuffy old academic"...I just hate it when people go out on a limb to bastardize everyone else's musical efforts like you just did.

Rick> "No one, including the so-called 'experts' in techno, knew any different and in fact hired him for a whole lot of gigs."
Ok, dude. First of all DJ's are not electronic music composers/producers. Your mistaking one for the other seems to say you do not really know what you are talking about in the first
place.

Rick> (it's all about...) "covering up mistakes with an over-compressed simulated bass drum and high hat on the off beat"
Unless you are doing break-beat or ambient or trip hop or d&b or down-tempo...where you can't use a kick-drum and high-hat to back you up. Even in trance, anyone who stays alive in the scene for more than a year at least knows the same rule composer "Concept" from mp3.com told me: "if you beat/breaks sound empty without the kick and hi-hat going...your beat s*cks". And if you look at the amount of polish behind the work of long-running groups like Ocean-lab or Way Out West (who love dropping the hi-hats and kicks out of the mix at once during break-downs to show off the subtleties of their break-beats)...you'll realize and orchestra-like amount of layering, subtle reverb and vibrato, pitch-bends, and tons of little touches go in to making those breaks feel so
human.

>"Why not just write a program to 'create' music"
BMG music group actually tried to make such a program to compose chord progressions for pop songs. And now Microsoft has it's own variation: "Microsoft song-smith". But BMG is ever nearing bankruptcy and not a single hired musician has his/her songs auto-composed in song-smith. Honestly I think you might be projecting...you seem a lot more interested in the idea of sitting on your butt and making money from fabricated music than the rest of us...despite your random accusations toward my supposed "doing it for popularity". Dude, please...get a grip.

-Michael

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
> Rick> "What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like "pigeon holing", "re-molding"..."
> Well first I simply said "my scale is not the same" about 20 different times (often with sound and mathematical examples) and you apparently just didn't get it and kept sending posts irrelevant to the topic as replies to my examples. It's like you were telling the piston designer the shape of his piston (which needs to be that shape to work) is wrong b/c it doesn't look pretty...it may be true but it's a tangent useless to the productivity of a discussion.
> Anyhow, I figured how could I make it more obvious to you than using such obvious terms as "pigeon holed" to describe your stereotyping.
> I've noticed certain scale creators like
> Wilson make a huge point of saying (paraphrased) "don't trust sources other than myself for any authentic versions/rationale behind my scales"..and now I know why: attitudes like yours distorting both authors work. There's nothing "high school" about that...people distorting
> and badly communicating other people's work is a real issue...in academia, the work place, and beyond. Charles Lucy, Carl Lumma, and others have also had their share of trouble with people making mis-transcribed versions of their scales and theories...sometimes by accident sometimes not; but even good intentions often don't help slow the distortion. If it weren't a huge issue I wouldn't be bothering to write all this.

Michael, I wasn't involved in that conversation so have distorted nothing. I know it gets confusing here sometimes but we're not all one person. I don't get cranky so much at the large amount of posts (this could be just inspiration) or the fact that many don't seem to make sense (which could be just difficulty in communication), but at your constant digs at what you see as the "officialdom". You say yourself below that what would we be doing on this list? If someone is an expert in, say, diatonic tuning from the Renaissance period and defends it, it doesn't make them a merchant banker on wall street.
> ***************************************************************************************************
> > "yet your email address says "DJdanceandtrance""
> > "So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable"
> Man you are being a bastard. This is so FAR out of context.
>
> The reason I have that name on my yahoo account is because it's an old address I've for my old musical artist name had since I was about 15
> (and, for example, changing to a new one would require losing my list of old yahoo contacts).
> And I figured most people would be able to figure out by how I write, for example, that I'm a 3.8GPA graduate school graduate. Of course...there's always going to be the occasional blind-sighted person being a bastard and saying (paraphrased) "haha...your name is djtrancendance" as if I had just created the account.

Ok fair enough, I apologise. But perhaps if you stopped doing yourself and your education a disservice and refrained from phrases like "blind-sighted person being a bastard" we would eventually figure out that you're a 3.8GPA graduate school graduate.
>
> You know, if some really wanted to be popular and socially acceptable, they wouldn't even think of touching micro-tonal music and certainly wouldn't be playing weird layered abstract-ambient break-beat tracks. They'd be doing same more simplified hip-hop tracks or commercial rock), sending out flyers everywhere, they'd be contacting DJ's and labels day and night, trying to get their music in video games, putting their tracks out on I-tunes, getting a degree from Berkeley School of Music to
> "prove their professional-ity" ...
> It doesn't take a genius to figure out...if I've made the above "strides toward social acceptance" or not...good luck at finding a paper trail of any attempts to sell music in mass quantities.

Yes, good point. I suspected that you were some DJ who just logged onto this site to teach us "fogies" a lesson, and got defensive when you found it not so easy. But as I said, you should take some responsibility for this because your insults did help create that (albeit false) impression.
> **************************************************************************************************
> Rick> "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or self reflection"
> I think I'll simply let other people on the forum be the judge as to if you are stereotyping or not...

Well to this I'll say that I am not stereotyping anything that has not stereotyped itself into a corner already. I am just describing.
> *************************************************************************************************
> >"it takes years and years of practice and study to become a musician or
> musical scholar, >not to mention tens of thousands of dollars."
> Haha...wait a minute...a thought you were making the argument about why I was some musician grasping for social acceptability and taking common paths...and here you are telling me I must take the socially acceptable path toward musicianship. Conflicting suggestions? :-D

Not at all. Speaking generally (not against you), there is a great deal of difference between a minority of truly creative and individual musicians, many of whom have been alienated by fake marketing, and those in the majority who profit enormously by simulated music and, what's worse, cover their public sycophantry with simulated rebellion. But by the same token, I think its also important not to over-react against and throw the baby out with the bath water, as I fear many avant-garde "artistes" run the risk of doing. As I've said before, even the most basic diatonic music can be still quite fascinating when looked at from, say, a wave theoretical level. In other words, advanced calculus is not a more important branch of mathematics than arithmetic, just because it is harder to understand.
>
> BTW, there are too many good musicians out there without great degrees to make your statement/assumption about "having to pay to be a good musician". I, for one, have spent hours composing music per day since about the age of 15 practicing hard and have played guitar since the age of 11. I haven't considered music school largely because of the great amount of learning I can do by reading lists like this one and informative musical web sites online. In short...I respect the idea of people's learning either through formal schooling or intense
> research on their own time.

Me too. I'm from Australia where education used to be free provided you had aptitude and talent. But since we adopted (what we call) the "American" system of paying as you go, controversy has arisen as only rich kids can now afford formal education, and they of course are not necessarily bright or talented. The problem is that, by and large, their parents don't think the arts relevant to the "real world" i.e. their real world which they have created, so uni's cut art funding and give it all to business, politics and economics. I too have done most of my work without pay. So we're on the same page there.
> **************************************************************************************************
> > "It should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer
> programs or >reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and
> "Phi" reaches anywhere near the >same level of expertise."
> You are making random assumptions again. I never read any websites about PHI minus the links you guys gave me AFTER I created my scale (the definition of PHI and it's properties was something I remembered from high school). What I did read before was documents about the Mt Meru scales, methods for creation of MOS scales, methods for creation of mean-tone scales, and tons of documents about critical band (Plomp&Llevelt) and beating (Helmholtz), just to name a few. I took PHI and tried applying it to such constructs, NOT the other way around (IE trying to force those constructs around PHI). For example the whole PHI^Y/2^X formula used to make the tuning my scales are based on came from the idea of an exponential version of the "circle/spiral of 5ths" used to generate mean-tone tunings, not from some random document(s) about
> PHI!
> **************************************************************************************************
> Rick> "The maths we musicians are using is not picked at random but encodes thousands >of years of experience and accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet understand."
>
> Maybe I need to clarify something yet again. I respect JI and the single-toned/tonal nature of the harmonic series. I respect mean-tone and know how it is created. I respect MOS-scales and know how they are created. I respect the idea of using equal temperaments and swapping notes conditionally to purify intervals. I respect the laws of physics concerning critical band roughness and beating. Also, since Carl's recent posts...I understand why odd-limit and the idea of having each tone in the scale o-tonally related to at least two other tones is important when rating the level of
> consonance between low rational-numbered fraction scales...and I no longer confused prime and odd limit.
>
> Yet, somehow, despite this and more you dare to say I'm "not yet understanding" any of the dialogue on this list. Admittedly, I don't understand 100% and, for example, was recently corrected on confusing prime and odd limits. But I do understand exponentially more than someone who has just gone to school in diatonic music theory.
>
> Once again, I will also say...that despite knowing all of the above I choose not to spend my time making JI scales. Yes, I know how to make JI scales (and have displayed scales such as the 12/11 * 11/10 * 10/9 * 9/8 * 12/11 * 11/10 * 10/9 JI tetra-chordal scale in the past)...but I simply think it's more interesting PERSONALLY to explore less-traveled paths such as noble-number generated scales (I do NOT work on such scales out of disrespect for you or anyone
> else more interested in JI-type scales!).
>
> So you can go on thinking I don't read any of or give a hoot about JI or anything else on this list, create music for social acceptance rather than personal fascination, and make mistakes mostly b/c I didn't do said formal schooling you mentioned above...I can't deprive you of your ignorance...but it does not change the fact my actual behavior by-and-large says otherwise.
>
> If any one on this list aside from Rick honestly thinks I'm a guy trying to become famous musician and become "popular" rather than a guy interested in micro-tonal music out of personal fascination...please say "I".
>
> -Michael
>
You see, that made sense. You managed to write 5 paragraphs with only one self-defensive insult (about diatonic music theory) which I will take on the chin for the sake of fairness.

Take care

Rick

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Mike B> "This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And
>
> furthermore, techno is great."
>
> Thank you for backing me up there...
> It's just funny reading all this... :-D
> Especially since music is such a subjective thing and yet some people state it as being purely objective.
>
> People give all sorts of detail why techno is terrible, hectic, and repetitive.
> And why classical music is energy-less, rhythm-less, and pompous.
> And why country music is has no rhythmic variation, is whiny, and uncreative
> And why rock and punk music are the screeching product of over-grown high school bands.
> And on and on and on....
>
> You know if everyone had that attitude...someone who had never heard music who only learned about it by reading papers would likely think: "wow, such convincing arguments...I really should avoid listening to any and all MUSIC...it sounds like it must be something made by the devil b/c every genre has WAY too many problems" (LOL)
>
Very funny. Like the line from dirty Harry, "Harry's not prejudice, he hates everybody". But seriously, I grew up in one of the biggest guitar shops in Sydney, so am quite familiar with Mahavishnu, Brian Eno, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Satriani etc... I agree with you completely about keeping all forms of music around. (Although I would prefer to say that all music is basically made of the same "stuff'). But that's just what concerns me, people sampling old music, quantizing it to high hell, putting it to "that" beat, and then creating a list of "genres" for repackaging basically the same thing over and over (No that's not electro, it's electronica!). Sure there are some great electronic musicians around: the worlds first PC was invented by an English musician in the 50's (forget his name). But digital technology/human nature being what it is, there are many more electronic non-musicians who ride on the cred of those hard working few. And as for being "bashed over the head", well that's what I feel allot of techno does, aesthetically bludgeons bad dancers into submission, so forgive me for defending myself.

Regards

Rick ***********************************************************************************
> My firm opinion is that any form of music that can satisfy a group of people (and not just the artist who made it) is well worth keeping around for what it is rather than what people may say it isn't.
>
>
> I listen to techno very much for its energy...it fits my lifestyle as a runner. I also like that is does types of clever and trance-y overtone melding that I feel you just can't hear in acoustic instrumentals. Also it has lots of subtle effects...which means even something that may seem simple often has thousands of skillful edits (BT's "Somnambulist" has the Guiness Book of World Records record with over 3000 vocal effect edits!
> BTW, if any of you think all techno has no rests...you should try listening to Frou Frou's works, particularly "Let Go". Just because very commerical techno like Aqua (which for the record, I don't like at all) sounds a certain way doesn't mean all dance-related must also sound that way.
>
> !!!! BTW, for those who didn't know, Marcus Satellite makes fantastic electronica (anything from Brian Eno style soft tunes to all out frentic dance tracks to middle-ground breakbeat tracks) using Wilson's MOS scales...is also one of the best the best micro-tonal musicians I've ever heard!!!!
>
> And I also know there are always things that defy the heck out of genre stereotypes. Think rock is all about overgrown high-school bands? Listen to Joe Satriani or the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Think blues is all about the same simple chord progressions and easy-going guitar solos? Try Stevie Ray Vaughn. Think all electronic music is fast and hectic? Try Brian Eno.
> The examples go on and on....
>
> But one thing is for sure. Even if someone, say, likes hip-hop (which I can't stand)...I'm at least not so ignorant that I won't say his taste in that genre means automatically means he knows nothing about music and "if he learned more, he would like something else".
>
> I just figure...it's much better to respect things for what they are and the fact they can manage to be good enough for some people to like them...than bash them over the head for what they are not/
>
> -Michael
> --- On Sat, 4/18/09, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Michael's Ultimate Goal
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 2:20 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like
>
> > "pigeon holing", "re-molding" , going against "societies rules", and other
>
> > general rock n' roll high school cliches, and yet your email address says
>
> > "DJdanceandtrance" ! So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved
>
> > making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable, heavily
>
> > formularized, manneristic, commercially oriented and bottom-line form of
>
> > "music" that ever existed on the planet. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the
>
> > fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or
>
> > self reflection only seems to confirm this overall impression. Did you
>
> > honestly think you could put us off the scent by accusing us of what you
>
> > demonstrate?
>
>
>
> This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And
>
> furthermore, techno is great.
>
>
>
> > So let me be absolutely clear: it takes years and years of practice and
>
> > study to become a musician or musical scholar, not to mention tens of
>
> > thousands of dollars. Much of what we learn is knowing what to leave out. It
>
> > should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer programs
>
> > or reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and "Phi" reaches
>
> > anywhere near the same level of expertise. The maths we musicians are using
>
> > is not picked at random but encodes thousands of years of experience and
>
> > accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet
>
> > understand.
>
>
>
> Please. Techno artists know exactly what they're doing, plenty of the time.
>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

Rick> "If someone is an expert in, say, diatonic tuning from the Renaissance
period and defends it, it doesn't make them a merchant banker on wall
street."

Of course it doesn't, but, of course, it also doesn't give them the right to say everyone else's theories must be not just bad but corrupt and knowledge-less simply b/c he's an expert on one well established theories. I don't mind when people find faults with things like my theories, but I do mind when they view them in "black and white" absolutes (IE either everything is right or everything is wrong). I sure as heck don't do that to anyone else's theories and I ask for the same respect back
.
To note: Mike B's recent posts on my theory are a perfect example of "critical but productive" b/c he's harsh, critical, and honest without resorting to "black and white". Which I know is often a tricky line to follow for virtually anyone in a heated discussion, myself included, of course. His posts manage not to just say what's wrong but also ponder possibilities to find what could work or what partly works that could be improved. That apparent effort makes a huge difference in my mind.
***************************************************************
Rick> "Ok fair enough, I apologise."
Rick> "Yes, good point. I suspected that you were some DJ who just logged onto
this site to teach us "fogies" a lesson"

(BTW...haha...there's no way that would ever happen: I've been on here for a couple of years and I certainly didn't just show up overnight to ignorantly raid this place :-D)

As for the apology: thank you. :-)

Rick> "But perhaps if you stopped doing yourself and your education a
disservice and >refrained from phrases like "blind-sighted person being
a bastard" we would eventually >figure out that you're a 3.8GPA graduate
school graduate."
I don't use those phrases often. I don't consider it "unsophisticated either"; most people who are educated and not push-overs eventually have to exercise harsh forms of self-respect. I didn't say you were a bastard, I said you were being one as in choosing to be one. If someone asked me to take a dare to steal food for them from the break-room at my office, I would probably say something similar...and with good reason. Again, there's a huge difference.
BTW, when you apologized, I took it as "I'm sorry for being such a bastard...I'm usually not like that". And I can respect that you aren't...if you can respect that I am not either.
*********************************************************************************************
Rick> "But as I said, you should take some
responsibility for this because your insults did help create that
(albeit false) impression."

I can't take credit for that though. I simply posted threads on my new theories...and, believe me, you insulted me as "not understanding a thing" several times before I even reacted the first time. And, no, I don't think you are a genuinely mean person, but I do still get the impression you think you are helping the quality of the list somehow by bullying me and calling me an "insulter" when I simply won't take your crap.
I highly suggest we both back off...these little "dog fights" really are not productive, although I feel to some extent I have to participate to make it obvious to you and others...that I am far from a push-over.
*********************************************************************
Rick> "there is a great deal of difference between a minority of truly
creative and individual >musicians, many of whom have been alienated by
fake marketing, and those in the >majority who profit enormously by
simulated music."
Right, and I agree with you...it's a terrible phenomena. For every new hip-hop record, for example, some public awareness that could catch on to some other great composers (IE Neil Haverstick or Marcus Satellite) is sucked away and many ultimately more innovative composers are left in the dark for almost no one to see.

>"I think its also important not to over-react against and throw the baby
out with the bath >water, as I fear many avant-garde "artistes" run the
risk of doing."
True, and this is why I "at least" try to focus on 9-or-less note scales with good consonance and adherence to basic critical-band related psycho-acoustics (even if they may not sound much like 12TET)...to at least somewhat maintain accessibility to the public. I stay far away from tunings like 53TET personally b/c I figure most musicians and instrument designers would have a very tricky time using it. I try very hard not to be too "avant-grade"...even if it doesn't look like it on the surface.

Rick> "As I've said before, even the most basic diatonic music can be still
quite fascinating >when looked at from, say, a wave theoretical level.
In other words, advanced calculus is not >a more important branch of
mathematics than arithmetic, just because it is harder to >understand."
Right...and it IS fascinating. :-) Only it's so well researched and with so many experts...it makes me think "I'd make very little difference in such a well-researched and perfected field...why not find another one less-perfected where I can make more of a difference"?
So while on the surface it may look like I "don't respect" these fields, on the contrary, I respect them to the point I think I have little to add far as making good original JI-type scales that are not like hundreds of scales already created and mastered by the experts.

>"The problem is that, by and large, their parents don't think the arts
relevant to the "real >world" i.e. their real world which they have
created, so uni's cut art funding and give it all to >business, politics
and economics. I too have done most of my work without pay. So we're >on
the same page there.
   Exactly...it's a real pain. :-D
     My personal perspective is that if people learned to enjoy and improve art (IE compose music/paint/etc.)...they would receive a sense of satisfaction that would make them want to stay at home and learn more music rather than, say, buy huge cars and homes to show them off to their friends. And just feel more fulfilled and happier in general...instead of sweating day and night over Wall-Street.
   As you noted...we're on the same page here...and I also am doing this as a labor of love knowing well there is a 99% chance I will not get paid a cent for it. Which is fine, minus the part where I need a full-time day job that takes up time I could be learning and discovering more about music.

Rick> "You see, that made sense. You managed to write 5 paragraphs with only
one self-defensive insult (about diatonic music theory) which I will
take on the chin for the sake of fairness."
Thanks...for the record that "self-defensive insult" was just my way of saying "yes, I do respect JI despite the fact I haven't worked with it recently". But I think we're now both on the same page far as knowing what I actually think of JI and why I (or should I see way) do this "crazy unpaid labor" also known as deriving scales and composing music. :-)

-Michael

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

Rick> "But digital technology/human nature being what it is, there are many
more electronic non-musicians who ride on the cred of those hard
working few. And as for being "bashed over the head", well that's what
I feel allot of techno does, aesthetically bludgeons bad dancers into
submission, so forgive me for defending myself."

Hard-working few, eh?
You know, in some ways I know how it goes. For every 200 records I search through I find maybe 3 I actually like. Not that I actually play live anymore...now I just collect vinyls for a hobby and try to find undiscovered talent (b/c, I think we can agree, the major labels produce TERRIBLE techno). BTW, I have always been VERY VERY against sampling...and, actually, hip-hop is FAR more guilty of that than techno...even though "dance remixes" are a nasty business (which is why I neither buy nor listen to those remixes).

In a way, I consider this a dare and wonder how much electronica you've heard minus the very very annoying commercial-dance type of techno.

Some here are about 5 very intelligent songs you should at least give a chance
A) Way Out West: their songs "The Gift" and "Fear"
B) Paul Van Dyk: the song "Together We Will Conquer"
C) Dragor: the song "Twilight"
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=720988
D) Marcus Satellite: "Trading Tykes the Magic Worlds" (and it's MICRO-TONAL! (uses Wilson's ''Six Hexanes" MOS scale))
http://cdbaby.com/cd/marcussatellite2
E) Brian Transeau: "Running Down The Way Up"

I'm very eager to hear, what you think of these...

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/19/09, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:

From: rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Michael's Ultimate Goal
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 5:10 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

> Mike B> "This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And

> furthermore, techno is great."

> Thank you for backing me up there...

> It's just funny reading all this... :-D

> Especially since music is such a subjective thing and yet some people state it as being purely objective.

> People give all sorts of detail why techno is terrible, hectic, and repetitive.

> And why classical music is energy-less, rhythm-less, and pompous.

> And why country music is has no rhythmic variation, is whiny, and uncreative

> And why rock and punk music are the screeching product of over-grown high school bands.

> And on and on and on....

> You know if everyone had that attitude...someone who had never heard music who only learned about it by reading papers would likely think: "wow, such convincing arguments... I really should avoid listening to any and all MUSIC...it sounds like it must be something made by the devil b/c every genre has WAY too many problems" (LOL)

Very funny. Like the line from dirty Harry, "Harry's not prejudice, he hates everybody". But seriously, I grew up in one of the biggest guitar shops in Sydney, so am quite familiar with Mahavishnu, Brian Eno, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Satriani etc... I agree with you completely about keeping all forms of music around. (Although I would prefer to say that all music is basically made of the same "stuff'). But that's just what concerns me, people sampling old music, quantizing it to high hell, putting it to "that" beat, and then creating a list of "genres" for repackaging basically the same thing over and over (No that's not electro, it's electronica! ). Sure there are some great electronic musicians around: the worlds first PC was invented by an English musician in the 50's (forget his name). But digital technology/human nature being what it is, there are many more electronic non-musicians who ride on the cred of those hard working few. And as for being "bashed
over the head", well that's what I feel allot of techno does, aesthetically bludgeons bad dancers into submission, so forgive me for defending myself.

Regards

Rick ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********

> My firm opinion is that any form of music that can satisfy a group of people (and not just the artist who made it) is well worth keeping around for what it is rather than what people may say it isn't.

> I listen to techno very much for its energy...it fits my lifestyle as a runner. I also like that is does types of clever and trance-y overtone melding that I feel you just can't hear in acoustic instrumentals. Also it has lots of subtle effects...which means even something that may seem simple often has thousands of skillful edits (BT's "Somnambulist" has the Guiness Book of World Records record with over 3000 vocal effect edits!

> BTW, if any of you think all techno has no rests...you should try listening to Frou Frou's works, particularly "Let Go". Just because very commerical techno like Aqua (which for the record, I don't like at all) sounds a certain way doesn't mean all dance-related must also sound that way.

> !!!! BTW, for those who didn't know, Marcus Satellite makes fantastic electronica (anything from Brian Eno style soft tunes to all out frentic dance tracks to middle-ground breakbeat tracks) using Wilson's MOS scales...is also one of the best the best micro-tonal musicians I've ever heard!!!!

> And I also know there are always things that defy the heck out of genre stereotypes. Think rock is all about overgrown high-school bands? Listen to Joe Satriani or the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Think blues is all about the same simple chord progressions and easy-going guitar solos? Try Stevie Ray Vaughn. Think all electronic music is fast and hectic? Try Brian Eno.

> The examples go on and on....

> But one thing is for sure. Even if someone, say, likes hip-hop (which I can't stand)...I'm at least not so ignorant that I won't say his taste in that genre means automatically means he knows nothing about music and "if he learned more, he would like something else".

> I just figure...it' s much better to respect things for what they are and the fact they can manage to be good enough for some people to like them...than bash them over the head for what they are not/

> -Michael

> --- On Sat, 4/18/09, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ ...> wrote:

> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ ...>

> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Michael's Ultimate Goal

> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com

> Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 2:20 PM

> > What I don't get is that on the one hand you like to use statements like

> > "pigeon holing", "re-molding" , going against "societies rules", and other

> > general rock n' roll high school cliches, and yet your email address says

> > "DJdanceandtrance" ! So judging by this, you appear to be deeply involved

> > making money by appealing to the most socially acceptable, heavily

> > formularized, manneristic, commercially oriented and bottom-line form of

> > "music" that ever existed on the planet. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the

> > fact that your posts, like "techno" itself, lacks any form of silence or

> > self reflection only seems to confirm this overall impression. Did you

> > honestly think you could put us off the scent by accusing us of what you

> > demonstrate?

> This is irrelevant. Leave the stupid ad hominem attacks at home. And

> furthermore, techno is great.

> > So let me be absolutely clear: it takes years and years of practice and

> > study to become a musician or musical scholar, not to mention tens of

> > thousands of dollars. Much of what we learn is knowing what to leave out. It

> > should go without saying that playing records, using a few computer programs

> > or reading a couple of websites about "Noble medians" and "Phi" reaches

> > anywhere near the same level of expertise. The maths we musicians are using

> > is not picked at random but encodes thousands of years of experience and

> > accumulated knowledge. We are having a conversation which you don't yet

> > understand.

> Please. Techno artists know exactly what they're doing, plenty of the time.

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

🔗djtrancendance@...

Rick> "Although I live in a quite neighbourhood, last night a car bomb went
off in our back lane. There were gale force winds, flames and thick
black smoke everywhere,the trees caught alight and our house almost
caught alight too."

To put it shortly...wow, glad to see you're alright: no one deserves to have their own "back yard" turn into a middle-eastern-warfare-style bomb site. To have those sorts of winds the night of a major fire as well blowing the flames every which way...sounds quite tricky.

-Michael
--- On Sun, 4/19/09, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:

From: rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Michael's Ultimate Goal
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 9:36 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

> Rick> "But digital technology/human nature being what it is, there are many

> more electronic non-musicians who ride on the cred of those hard

> working few. And as for being "bashed over the head", well that's what

> I feel allot of techno does, aesthetically bludgeons bad dancers into

> submission, so forgive me for defending myself."

> Hard-working few, eh?

> You know, in some ways I know how it goes. For every 200 records I search through I find maybe 3 I actually like. Not that I actually play live anymore...now I just collect vinyls for a hobby and try to find undiscovered talent (b/c, I think we can agree, the major labels produce TERRIBLE techno). BTW, I have always been VERY VERY against sampling...and, actually, hip-hop is FAR more guilty of that than techno...even though "dance remixes" are a nasty business (which is why I neither buy nor listen to those remixes).

> In a way, I consider this a dare and wonder how much electronica you've heard minus the very very annoying commercial-dance type of techno.

> Some here are about 5 very intelligent songs you should at least give a chance

> A) Way Out West: their songs "The Gift" and "Fear"

> B) Paul Van Dyk: the song "Together We Will Conquer"

> C) Dragor: the song "Twilight"

> http://www.soundcli ck.com/bands/ default.cfm? bandID=720988

> D) Marcus Satellite: "Trading Tykes the Magic Worlds" (and it's MICRO-TONAL! (uses Wilson's ''Six Hexanes" MOS scale))

> http://cdbaby. com/cd/marcussat ellite2

> E) Brian Transeau: "Running Down The Way Up"

> I'm very eager to hear, what you think of these...

> -Michael

> Thanks Michael, I'll check them out (I've come across Marcus Satellite somewhere already and remember quite liking it, though I look forward to hearing the micro-tonal stuff). Although I live in a quite neighbourhood, last night a car bomb went off in our back lane. There were gale force winds, flames and thick black smoke everywhere,the trees caught alight and our house almost caught alight too. Apparently the police said it was used in a major crime and forensics were everywhere this morning. Very scary. So give me a day so I can give them my best, I've hardly slept.

Regards

Ricardo

-Rick

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
> Rick> "Although I live in a quite neighbourhood, last night a car bomb went
> off in our back lane. There were gale force winds, flames and thick
> black smoke everywhere,the trees caught alight and our house almost
> caught alight too."
>
> To put it shortly...wow, glad to see you're alright: no one deserves to have their own "back yard" turn into a middle-eastern-warfare-style bomb site. To have those sorts of winds the night of a major fire as well blowing the flames every which way...sounds quite tricky.
>
> -Michael

Thanks Michael. Yes very scary. It was actually a stolen car used in a 3 million dollar heist so lucky I didn't confront them. It was the leading story on the national (Australian) news. Biggest robbery of its type here in oz apparently.

As for the tracks you sent I quite liked them all, but "Trading Tykes" (what is a tyke?) and the stuff by BT were my favourites. As you said, Marcus uses some very interesting alternate tunings and scales (what did you say, Wilson's MOS? Don't know what MOS is, meantone octave sampler, malevolent octopus smuggler). Have to look into that. Thanks for the heads up. Btw, you mention phi^x/2^y. Are x and y whole numbers?

-Rick
> --- On Sun, 4/19/09, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:
>
> From: rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Michael's Ultimate Goal
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, April 19, 2009, 9:36 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Rick> "But digital technology/human nature being what it is, there are many
>
> > more electronic non-musicians who ride on the cred of those hard
>
> > working few. And as for being "bashed over the head", well that's what
>
> > I feel allot of techno does, aesthetically bludgeons bad dancers into
>
> > submission, so forgive me for defending myself."
>
> >
>
> > Hard-working few, eh?
>
> > You know, in some ways I know how it goes. For every 200 records I search through I find maybe 3 I actually like. Not that I actually play live anymore...now I just collect vinyls for a hobby and try to find undiscovered talent (b/c, I think we can agree, the major labels produce TERRIBLE techno). BTW, I have always been VERY VERY against sampling...and, actually, hip-hop is FAR more guilty of that than techno...even though "dance remixes" are a nasty business (which is why I neither buy nor listen to those remixes).
>
> >
>
> > In a way, I consider this a dare and wonder how much electronica you've heard minus the very very annoying commercial-dance type of techno.
>
> >
>
> > Some here are about 5 very intelligent songs you should at least give a chance
>
> > A) Way Out West: their songs "The Gift" and "Fear"
>
> > B) Paul Van Dyk: the song "Together We Will Conquer"
>
> > C) Dragor: the song "Twilight"
>
> > http://www.soundcli ck.com/bands/ default.cfm? bandID=720988
>
> > D) Marcus Satellite: "Trading Tykes the Magic Worlds" (and it's MICRO-TONAL! (uses Wilson's ''Six Hexanes" MOS scale))
>
> > http://cdbaby. com/cd/marcussat ellite2
>
> > E) Brian Transeau: "Running Down The Way Up"
>
> >
>
> > I'm very eager to hear, what you think of these...
>
> >
>
> > -Michael
>
> >
>
> > Thanks Michael, I'll check them out (I've come across Marcus Satellite somewhere already and remember quite liking it, though I look forward to hearing the micro-tonal stuff). Although I live in a quite neighbourhood, last night a car bomb went off in our back lane. There were gale force winds, flames and thick black smoke everywhere,the trees caught alight and our house almost caught alight too. Apparently the police said it was used in a major crime and forensics were everywhere this morning. Very scary. So give me a day so I can give them my best, I've hardly slept.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Ricardo
>
>
>
> -Rick
>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

Rick> "As for the tracks you sent I quite liked them all, but "Trading Tykes" (what is a tyke?) and the stuff by BT were my favourites."

Glad you enjoyed them. :-) Actually, those are probably the two most versatile artists of the bunch: they do a bit of everything. In case you haven't heard of it/them yet...BT is actually also somewhat famous for his cinematic and experimental ambient scores as well (think the soundtrack for the movie "Monster" and his latest experimental album "This Binary Universe").

BTW, yes, before I said that Marcus Satellite uses MOS scales AKA "Moment of Symmetry"...which, if I have it right, means they overlap the octave after a certain number of tones and have two and only two distinct interval sizes. For more info you can try reading http://www.robertinventor.com/software/tunesmithy/help/hypermos.htm (I found it much easier to read than Erv Wilson's documentation on the subject).

Btw, you mention phi^x/2^y. Are x and y whole numbers?
Yes. Basically plugging in different values for x and y so the result is between zero and PHI (1.618034) give possible values for PHI scales and my scales are subsets of those.

But, just tonight, I had a revelation that the above formula doesn't split the 2/1 octave into fractions very well (IE it works ok for finding 1.618034 and 1.30902...but loses accuracy beyond that). It turns out this "PHI mean-tone" type generation is actually fairly inaccurate for certain intervals IE giving 1.208 for one interval tone that should be 1.236 and 1.46808 instead of 1.44957!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How/why did mean-tone generation fail to meet the mark? If you look at wikipedia's definition of the golden ratio you'll notice how each part of the drawing here
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fibonacci_spiral_34.svg keeps on splitting itself into smaller areas. So the phi^x/2^y mean-tone-type formula doesn't preserve the relationship very accurately more than a few levels down (the equivalent of smaller and smaller squares in the drawing).

So my new formula became. result = (higher-lower)*(1.618034/2.0)+lower. For example to find the PHI value between 0.618034 (1/PHI) and 1.618034 we get (1.618034-0.618034)*(1.618034/2.0)+0.618034 = 1.236068. And then with 1.618034 and our new value 1.236068 as the lower value we get 1.545078. Keep on mixing and matching these results and splitting in different ways and you can obtain the "REAL" PHI scale:

1
1.118
1.236068
1.30902
1.4495788
1.54507
1.618034 (period/"PHI-octave)
---------------
1.80896 (1.618034 * 1.118)
2 (1.618034 * 1.236068)
etc.
************************************************
This time around, the scale will perfectly preserve the 2/1 overtone much as JI-does and higher overtones/harmonics will be estimated closely though a bit less accurately as you go up. For the most part...you get a purer-sounding version of the PHI^X/2^Y scale which does a much better job of "playing nice" with the harmonic series (definitely a plus) while still preserving the more pleasant (at least to my ears) beating synchronous-ity of PHI mean-tone which had drawn me to it in the first place.

-Michael