[tuning] [MMM] Melodyne retuned real trombone quartet playing Drei Equale in Tonal-JI on YouTube

The title pretty much sais it all :)
Melodyne retuned real trombone quartet playing Drei Equale in Tonal-JI
on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfI8tQ69zXY

Was finally able to finish it satisfactory after finding a good model
for tonality.
The piece is now entirely in the tonic of D (as Beethoven wrote it).
And if I may say so, it's sounding goood :)
Let me know what you think!

My JI transcription is here:
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI%29.png
It's very readable, I put the ratios next to the notes of the original
score image.

More files comming soon, including one where I play a D drone
throughout the piece to show tonality.

Marcel
www.develde.net

Ok here it goes.
I was yet again WRONG.

The tuning of the Drei Equale I posted was based on the assumption the
piece is in the tonic of D, as Beethoven seemed to have notated it.
But, after further insights into tonality and my harmonic model, I now
see this piece isn't in the tonid of D but likely in the tonic of F.
Yes, it starts with a D minor chord, and ends with a D major chord,
but D is 5/3 from F and 5/3 from the tonic is a harmonic model root of
itself.
Actually, this does make sense in the notation way, seemes like this
is no error of Beethoven or regular music theory or notation at all,
as D minor is equal to F major in notation.
In any case, to see the tonic as F makes a lot of sense in this piece.
The "fundamental basses" (something very similar to my harmonic model
roots) indicate clearly a structure that has F as the true tonic of
the entire piece. The piece actually seems to use all 5 harmonic roots
present in 6-limit tonality, namely 1/1, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, and 5/3 (F, A,
Bb, C, and D), amazing.
The Drei Equale has never made as much sense to me as it does now.
So give it a week or so and I'll have the new version ready.

Marcel

On 7 April 2010 07:07, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> The title pretty much sais it all :)
> Melodyne retuned real trombone quartet playing Drei Equale in Tonal-JI
> on YouTube.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfI8tQ69zXY
>
> Was finally able to finish it satisfactory after finding a good model
> for tonality.
> The piece is now entirely in the tonic of D (as Beethoven wrote it).
> And if I may say so, it's sounding goood :)
> Let me know what you think!
>
> My JI transcription is here:
> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI%29.png
> It's very readable, I put the ratios next to the notes of the original
> score image.
>
> More files comming soon, including one where I play a D drone
> throughout the piece to show tonality.
>
> Marcel
> www.develde.net
>

D is the relative minor of F Major. You'd be months faster if you learned these things, but I personally approve of your going through the whole thing on your own.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Ok here it goes.
> I was yet again WRONG.
>
> The tuning of the Drei Equale I posted was based on the assumption the
> piece is in the tonic of D, as Beethoven seemed to have notated it.
> But, after further insights into tonality and my harmonic model, I now
> see this piece isn't in the tonid of D but likely in the tonic of F.
> Yes, it starts with a D minor chord, and ends with a D major chord,
> but D is 5/3 from F and 5/3 from the tonic is a harmonic model root of
> itself.
> Actually, this does make sense in the notation way, seemes like this
> is no error of Beethoven or regular music theory or notation at all,
> as D minor is equal to F major in notation.
> In any case, to see the tonic as F makes a lot of sense in this piece.
> The "fundamental basses" (something very similar to my harmonic model
> roots) indicate clearly a structure that has F as the true tonic of
> the entire piece. The piece actually seems to use all 5 harmonic roots
> present in 6-limit tonality, namely 1/1, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, and 5/3 (F, A,
> Bb, C, and D), amazing.
> The Drei Equale has never made as much sense to me as it does now.
> So give it a week or so and I'll have the new version ready.
>
> Marcel
>
>
> On 7 April 2010 07:07, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> > The title pretty much sais it all :)
> > Melodyne retuned real trombone quartet playing Drei Equale in Tonal-JI
> > on YouTube.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfI8tQ69zXY
> >
> > Was finally able to finish it satisfactory after finding a good model
> > for tonality.
> > The piece is now entirely in the tonic of D (as Beethoven wrote it).
> > And if I may say so, it's sounding goood :)
> > Let me know what you think!
> >
> > My JI transcription is here:
> > http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI%29.png
> > It's very readable, I put the ratios next to the notes of the original
> > score image.
> >
> > More files comming soon, including one where I play a D drone
> > throughout the piece to show tonality.
> >
> > Marcel
> > www.develde.net
> >
>

>
> D is the relative minor of F Major. You'd be months faster if you learned
> these things, but I personally approve of your going through the whole thing
> on your own.
>

Thanks :)
Also thanks for not beeing hard on me. Feel ashamed of admitting yet again I
was wrong.

But indeed, relative minor is much much nicer than to do minor on the major
tonic.
It's the best harmonizing minor relative to the major tonic.
5/3 2/1 5/2 minor relative to 1/1 5/4 3/2 major tonic chord, instead of 1/1
6/5 3/2 minor relative to 1/1 5/4 3/2 major tonic chord.
Also the harmonic roots of 1/1, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2 and 5/3 as seen from the true
major tonic, become 1/1, 6/5, 3/2, 8/5 and 9/5 relative to the minor.
Much nicer way to do minor than the way I was seeing it before.

But it does leave me with one puzzling question.
While normal music theory doesn't do JI, it does seem to get all of these
things "right".. but how??
How did normal music theory get things this right without JI? I don't get
it.
By the ears of many people over many centuries?

Marcel

Marcel>"How did normal music theory get things this right without JI? I don't
get it. By the ears of many people over many centuries?"
I'm strongly under the impression that the simplest fractions and super-particular ratios were understood quickly simply because they are so easy to come across and build in instruments. Even the Greeks understood the concept of things like tetra-chords because that's the style of sounds they got when they provided the same simple fractions often used in architecture to fretting/dissecting string lengths to play their instruments.

What's "new" about JI then, in my opinion, is the ability to handle more complex fractions and still get chords nearly as understandable as their simpler counter-parts. So, to me, the "future" lies in extended JI while non-extended JI seems to me more of a clever way to explain the past and purify its roots IE "make it what it should have been".

Same goes with critical band dissonance. I think it's obvious to most people that sounds fairly close together begin to sound more dissonant yet that sounds that are extremely close tend to blur into a chorus/like phasing effect rather than dissonance, but now we have curves explaining how quickly these "fades" happen and how much extra musical flexibility we can stretch out of a chord or scale without it becoming significantly more hard to listen to.

And if you look at ancient instruments and their timbres....you'll notice they align pretty well with the scales designed for them so far as performing Sethares' dyadic tuning/timbre match tests on them. But, on the other hand, such matching can produce even better instrument timbre/tuning matches than the ancient instruments did. Most of the new tuning theories follow in many ways from what people in history noted as beautiful in both music/by-ear and in art...but now that we have it in many ways down to a certain degree of science we can "cut around corners" and make the ear hear much more with little more effort.
------------------------------------------------
Music has always progressed (for the most part in history) from less to more dissonant, each step of the way trying to get more value in added expression/flexibility than it loses in added dissonance. Case in point: 12TET's prominence over several often more pure mean-tone tunings for the added flexibility of modulation. And we certainly aren't stuck with just Gregorian Chant or some form of music that says intervals like seconds and 7ths are "dissonant works of the devil"...and I dare anyone to say music has gotten "worse" since then simply because we use less pure ratios even though we also use more different ratios.

In fact if you are saying you want to purify chords in scales rather than add more, you are in a way going more toward the past than the future. The good news is we have much more theories floating around about how to get more musical flexibility than ever with minimal gain in dissonance...and I hope more people will start to work in that direction.

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

>
> But it does leave me with one puzzling question.
> While normal music theory doesn't do JI, it does seem to get all of >these
> things "right".. but how??
> How did normal music theory get things this right without JI? I don't get
> it.

"normal" theory, and I don't mean the chords-in-12-tET kind, but historically... evolved? theory, is actually based a great deal on quarter-comma meantone. And quarter-comma meantone basically *IS* an application of Just Intonation, when it is used as a theoretical framework for instruments with flexible pitch (and it is damn close to JI even on a tempered instruments).

Quarter-comma basically closes at 31 tones to the octave, so you can use 31-equal as the notational skeleton as well. I'd recommend setting up either 31 tones of quarter-comma meantone or 31-equal in Scala and choosing the "Pythagorean names for 31" option, note names based on chains of fifths, and using that as your notational frame of reference. So, you won't get into confusing an Ab with a G# and other 12-tET bogosities, you'll retain the incidental intervals you wind up with in your systems such as 32/25, you'll see where "common practice" can perfectly naturally go to the seventh or even 11th partial (or not).

You're covered as far as notation and theoretical framework for huge amounts of music past present and future. Sure you can break this going into late Romantics or whatever, but this is a great foundation.
Remember that I'm suggesting a theoretical/notational framework, not that you use 31-et or quarter-comma meantone literally. You can keep using your Just intervals: if you read old literature you'll see it written plain as day things like "unlike the viols, which play purely, the organ...etc". The tempered notation is not a hinderance to Just execution.

Others are going to recommend notation based on 53-et. This is entirely valid and what Tanaka did, and probably better for late 19th century music, but IMO not for what you are currently doing, because Beethoven and Lasso and all that, that is still clearly
meantone-based.

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

> While normal music theory doesn't do JI, it does seem to get all of these
> things "right".. but how??
> How did normal music theory get things this right without JI? I don't get
> it.
> By the ears of many people over many centuries?

The tuning started out Pythagoean, but shifted to meantone at the start of the Renaissance. To understand common practice terminology and notation, you really need to go back and look at things from the meantone point of view, so that for instance an augmented second is not the same thing as a minor third and may be regarded as an approximate 7/6 rather than an approximate 6/5.

Marcel, please see this document

http://www.zentao.com/guitar/theory/relative-minor.html

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Ok here it goes.
> I was yet again WRONG.
>
> The tuning of the Drei Equale I posted was based on the assumption the
> piece is in the tonic of D, as Beethoven seemed to have notated it.
> But, after further insights into tonality and my harmonic model, I now
> see this piece isn't in the tonid of D but likely in the tonic of F.
> Yes, it starts with a D minor chord, and ends with a D major chord,
> but D is 5/3 from F and 5/3 from the tonic is a harmonic model root of
> itself.
> Actually, this does make sense in the notation way, seemes like this
> is no error of Beethoven or regular music theory or notation at all,
> as D minor is equal to F major in notation.
>