The "best" scale.

Michael,

first of all I don't think I ignored your question. I think the question was "any ideas on how to improve my scale?" and I thought my formulas incorporated into complex tones answered the question.

Have you read my book? (the latest corrected version is in the "Files" link to the left). If you haven't, check out chapters 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11.

You mentioned "TONS of symmetries" which was a huge criterion for me when I worked out my NPT scale. See how many symmetries occur with my scale and let me know what comes up.

As regards "the *best* scale", when I began in 1995 I was looking for the *single* best system possible for all instruments based on the following 3 ideas.

1. How many keys per octave? I play guitar and when I built my NPT guitar I figured that adding more notes (i.e. frets) would clutter the fretboard and it would be harder to play. I know there are some just guitars out there with 19 or 22 keys per octave but I feel that this is overkill and for me 12 is the golden mean between simplicity and complexity. Also the transition from 12TET to 12 tone NPT should be easy.

2. Choose the strongest notes paired with the tonic, or maximize the overall number of "good" intervals? I had to reach a compromise here to get the best of both worlds. This is outlined in chapter 7 of my book and my choices were well informed and seem very reasonable.

3. It seems to me that it is impossible to have a 12 key "just" tuning system where 1/1 (lower tonic) has the same strength as 2/1 (higher tonic). My notes again are:

1/1, 15/14, 9/8, 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, 7/5, 3/2, 8/5, 5/3, 9/5, 15/8, 2/1.

If you replace 15/14 with 16/15 (this is the standard JI scale, I call it "Natural Up") then if you are playing a melody then 'landing' on 1/1 is sweeter than 'landing' on 2/1. (i.e. 1/1 is stronger than 2/1).

Also "Natural Up" is mathematically (using my formula for quantifying the strength of a scale) 2% sytronger than NPT. However it's a bit one sided (asymmetrical). With only one strong tonic.

The inverse of the "Natural Up" scale is the same as NPT but with 45/32 instead of 7/5. I call it "Natural Down". In this case the tonic is 3/2. With this scale the *higher* tonic (3/1) is stronger than the lower tonic (3/2). Again, this scale is 2% stronger than NPT.

Which do we choose, Up or Down? Both have exactly equal strength but are not symmetrical. NPT however has *two* tonics of equal strength (1/1 and 3/2). One is better for ascending music and the other for descending music. NPT *is* symmetrical.

This is why I think it's the *best* but I must concede that this could be purely a matter of taste, some might prefer Natural Up to NPT although in my opinion NPT is the most versatile, particularly for chromatic (using all 12 keys) music.

All of the above is based on maths. So, if you can have a "best" system (according to 1, 2 and 3 above) for pure sine wave tones then surely you can have a "best" system (according to 1, 2 and 3 above) for complex tones.

John.

John,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@...> wrote:
> This is why I think it's the *best* but I must concede that this could be purely a matter of taste...

Nail, meet hammer. Prepare head for impact.

I'm using humor, please don't take that as a completely harsh rejoinder, but John, you aren't the first person in the last number of months to start posting to the tuning lists saying you've found some 'best' or 'perfect' solution to improving music through a new take on tuning.

There *is* no one, true, perfect system. Music is too big for that.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon,

for *me* it's the best (using only pure sine wave tones) for the three reasons I outlined, but I'm keeping an open mind about it.

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@> wrote:
> > This is why I think it's the *best* but I must concede that this could be purely a matter of taste...
>
> Nail, meet hammer. Prepare head for impact.
>
> I'm using humor, please don't take that as a completely harsh rejoinder, but John, you aren't the first person in the last number of months to start posting to the tuning lists saying you've found some 'best' or 'perfect' solution to improving music through a new take on tuning.
>
> There *is* no one, true, perfect system. Music is too big for that.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

I don't post here very often, and for good reason, but with this huge rash of JI discussion going on, all this talk of "ideal" and "perfect" tunings going on and very few voices offering counterpoint, I thought I should weigh in with some rather "heretical" proclamations just to make things interesting. A lot of you will probably find this insulting, because I'm about to dismiss the very things on which you've spent many years of your life working very intently. I understand that this will make you mad. Sorry, but I just can't keep my mouth shut any longer.

First I'd like to say that I think "simple" 5-limit JI scales meant to maximize consonance and "intuneness" are absolutely boring. I'll go so far as to say that I think that the pure fifth (i.e. 3/2 ratio or the third harmonic) is without a doubt the most hackneyed, tired, plain, over-used, washed-up, past-its-prime, boring, unexpressive interval in all of music. I believe that demanding a pure or nearly-pure fifth in a scale severely reduces the degree to which it is possible to make "new, fresh, interesting, unusual, idiosyncratic" music in that scale, and that the most exciting musical possibilities are truly to be found in scales that "mis-tune" the fifth by NO LESS than fifteen cents sharp OR flat.

I can say that in my experience as a musician, as someone who has indeed given JI and near-5-limit-JI systems like 31-tET a more-than-fair shake, the improvements these systems offer (in a 5-limit context) over 12-tone ET are utterly negligible. What is the POINT of everything being more in-tune? Are your ears so sensitive that you just can't bear hearing a major third that is 15¢ sharp? Okay, yeah, 5-limit JI "sounds nice", you can hold the notes forever and never hear them beat. The intervals are familiar and comforting and totally unobjectionable, like those ubiquitous Monet water-lily prints. When I'm in the mood for zenlike contemplation of the mystical oneness of the universe, or if I'm freaking out on some psychotropic and need something to calm me down, I might like to hear the sound of the first 6 partials of the harmonic series sustained at equal volume in pure sine waves for 20 minutes. But hey--you can hear the entire harmonic series in the sound of a single guitar string being plucked through a good overdrive pedal.

Honestly, all this talk about re-tuning classical music, trying to solve the puzzles of tuning JI, trying to find "the perfect scale" for Western music--you're all putting makeup on a corpse. I will even concede to you all that you've SUCCEEDED: congratulations, you did it, you found the BEST TUNING for western music. But guess what? This music goes back almost a thousand years--there is an utterly unfathomable library of music in the western tradition, all based on the same fundamental principles that you guys have FINALLY discovered and codified into a system. This system you guys have finally perfected is DEAD. Its lifeless zombie corpse has been shambling through concert halls and conservatories for GENERATIONS. All you've succeeded in doing is making the zombie PRETTIER. 12-tone-based western music has been UTTERLY systematized, totally mapped out, all the chord progressions, all the cadences, all the modulations: all studied, recorded, and quantified to DEATH. David Cope has written a computer program that can write western music: if a computer can do it, why should a human continue to bother with it?

Now, I'm the LAST person who would ever advocate serialism or atonality, but in a world married to a 12-tone scale wherein even the resources of chromatic harmony have been plumbed for CENTURIES, atonality sure must've seemed like the only place left to go. Some people have started exploring microtonality: 5-limit JI, 19- and 31-tone ETs, even quartertones, but only a HANDFUL have been willing to give up 3/2 as the basis for music. Bohlen and Pierce had the right idea but maybe not the right scale (though I'll take 13-EDT over 19-EDO any day). When you let the "fifth" slide far enough from 3/2, you open up all sorts of new structural possibilities, new consonances, new ways to make music that have been totally untapped. Why is there so little interest in this? Please, people, get over your "PERFECT TUNINGS", the musical community at large doesn't want them, and the specialists in this community will never agree on them, so unless YOU can WRITE (and probably PERFORM) something really compelling with them, what value do you really think they have?

And all this talk about mathematical evaluations of consonance...please. What are you gonna use it for, REALLY? You can call up any scale and hear how it sounds immediately with free computer software, so your EARS can tell you perfectly well whether something sounds consonant. WHY do you need a mathematical description? I just don't get it.

Good luck.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@> wrote:
> > This is why I think it's the *best* but I must concede that this could be purely a matter of taste...
>
> Nail, meet hammer. Prepare head for impact.
>
> I'm using humor, please don't take that as a completely harsh rejoinder, but John, you aren't the first person in the last number of months to start posting to the tuning lists saying you've found some 'best' or 'perfect' solution to improving music through a new take on tuning.
>
> There *is* no one, true, perfect system. Music is too big for that.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Igliashon,

There is wisdom in this I agree. I myself enjoyed the work Michael (and I)
did with Phi. I'm still getting my wings (after a year of fair consistent
micro composing) - what you are saying makes sense though.

Chris

Some people have started exploring microtonality: 5-limit JI, 19- and
31-tone ETs, even quartertones, but only a HANDFUL have been willing to give
up 3/2 as the basis for music. Bohlen and Pierce had the right idea but
maybe not the right scale (though I'll take 13-EDT over 19-EDO any day).
When you let the "fifth" slide far enough from 3/2, you open up all sorts of
new structural possibilities, new consonances, new ways to make music that
have been totally untapped.

John>"first of all I don't think I ignored your question. I think the
question was "any ideas on how to improve my scale?" and I thought my
formulas incorporated into complex tones answered the question."
Ah ok...seeing that you had wrote it in the other e-mails about your own scale already with no direct mention of the scale I derived from both of our scales...I was under the impression you were leaning toward advertising your own scale.

>"You mentioned "TONS of symmetries" which was a huge criterion for me
when I worked out my NPT scale. See how many symmetries occur with my
scale and let me know what comes up."
Good idea...I will. Already I know the notes it has in common with my latest scale are symmetrical about the octave.
>"check out chapters 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11."
Sure thing...you actually did get it right that x/y shows that critical band dissonance in most but not all cases gets less as an interval gets further away...but what is missing is that the measurement is curved...starting with dissonance as minimal at 1/1 and becoming more dissonant exponentially until it hits about 1.05 (IE 1.006 actually sounds quite consonant, almost like a chorus effect), then going down exponentially after that until about 5/4 or so where the exponential curve starts curving up. Again, Plomp and Llevelt already did this experiment...and the curve was certainly not the straight line implied by x/y.

You also said 16/15 (1.06666) is the most dissonant interval to your ear...but then (ironically) you use 15/14 and other intervals incredibly close to it as intervals in your scale. Note...so does diatonic JI...and that is one of the reasons I think diatonic JI can be improved upon...at least so far as critical band dissonance.
Not to be pushy but, why don't you move toward wider intervals such as 13/12 as I have if your ears indeed objects to 16/15 (as does mine)?

>"1. How many keys per octave? I play guitar and when I built my NPT
guitar I figured that adding more notes (i.e. frets) would clutter the
fretboard and it would be harder to play."
Right...short of a fretless guitar with marking for the right tones keeping track of a huge number of frets per octave would be a nightmare. I'd say anywhere from 9 to 14 is fairly ideal...and 12 is definitely within that range. Agreed...good choice. ;-)
>"2. Choose the strongest notes paired with the tonic, or maximize the
overall number of "good" intervals? I had to reach a compromise here to
get the best of both worlds."
Ah, so you do also use/admit that word "compromise"...glad to hear. :-) I will admit though, I lean toward maximizing the number of good intervals as I believe it gives the composer a stronger sense of what to expect in the range of consonance from best-to-worst intervals for all possible intervals in the scale is smaller. That's a reason why my scale merges toward 7TET, it's trying to "equalize" the power of possible tonics as much as possible without suffering much periodic dissonance (which 7TET has loads of).

>"3. It seems to me that it is impossible to have a 12 key "just" tuning
system where 1/1 (lower tonic) has the same strength as 2/1 (higher
tonic). My notes again are 1/1, 15/14, 9/8, 6/5, 5/4, 4/3, 7/5, 3/2, 8/5, 5/3, 9/5, 15/8, 2/1."
Pardon my impatience (though I'm sure I could find this out by reading your book for a long enough period of time...but what exactly would makes 1/1 and 2/1 have the "same strength"?

>"Also "Natural Up" is mathematically (using my formula for quantifying
the strength of a scale) 2% stronger than NPT. However it's a bit one
sided (asymmetrical) . With only one strong tonic"
Ah so (to you) symmetrical to, say, 1/1 means strength of all possible intervals relative to the tonic of 1/1? I tend to think one-sided-ness is best avoided, even if it results in "imperfect" intervals relative to the "strongest" tonic...that's where, in my mind, temperament comes in to try and make all intervals nearly "equally strong"...hopefully at least within 7 cents and definitely within 15 cents (anything beyond that I've found really starts to have periodicity issues).

>"NPT however has *two* tonics of equal strength (1/1 and 3/2). One is
better for ascending music and the other for descending music. NPT *is*
symmetrical."
Then I guess I'll just have to cast my vote for NPT. ;-)

>"All of the above is based on maths. So, if you can have a "best" system
(according to 1, 2 and 3 above) for pure sine wave tones then surely
you can have a "best" system (according to 1, 2 and 3 above) for
complex tones."
Exactly. But how do you plan to rate dissonance with complex tones when different combinations of tones (and yes, that includes all tones and not just the two "tonics" you mentioned) produce different overtone conflicts...unless you make split all possible chords into all possible intervals or make like Sethares and compare the dissonance all possible intervals period?
What you've said here you use to analyze "critical band dissonance" seems to only compare one ratio at a time...how do you plan to apply that to a scale with hundreds of possible intervals?

JonSzanto>"There *is* no one, true, perfect system. Music is too big for that."
Agreed. Different systems are better for different tasks. I ditched my Silver Scale system ages ago because of periodicity issues...but then saw some musicians resurrect it and actually use that "problem" to make their harmony's "clash in confident rhythms". I tend to stay away from scales like 53TET because of the hassle of moving notes up and down a step for purity, intentional dissonance, and/or emotional effect...but other musicians flock to it for that same reason (they like that 'hassle'...or just plain old think it's worth it).
Some musicians prefer scales that purify thirds because they like using thirds, or 12TET because they like using virtually perfect 5ths, or 1/4 comma mean-tone because they like having virtually every interval within a 1/4 comma of perfect though never quite perfect.
Every scale is going to swap the purity of one interval for some other type...it's mathematically impossible to, say, have a 7-note scale with all perfect intervals starting from all possible notes to all other notes. The question is, what type of purity and how much purity do you want and, say, how many notes and how much purity plus how much ease of use are you willing to fore-go to get more notes for tonal flexibility.

Tuning is a game of compromise...with several different possible peaks. You just have to decide which one you want to build or climb...and realize there will always be something on someone else's peak that your peak is missing and vice-versa.

CityofAsleep>"First I'd like to say that I think "simple" 5-limit JI scales meant to
maximize consonance and "intuneness" are absolutely boring."
Agreed. I typically start at around 9-limit and have been known to go above 13-limit. ;-)

>"I'll go so far as to say that I think that the pure fifth (i.e. 3/2
ratio or the third harmonic) is without a doubt the most hackneyed,
tired, plain, over-used, washed-up, past-its-prime, boring,
unexpressive interval in all of music."
Which is why you'll see many of my scales don't jump through hoops to purify fifths...they go for purifying the smallest intervals first and work their way up. If I have to drop a pure fifth for a pure third or a pure third for a "super-particular" pure second...I'll do it in a heartbeat. Hence my scales are chalk-full of super-particular seconds.
Also, from a harmonic standpoint, the fifth basically just strengthens the root rather than add emotion to it...it's almost as non-emotion-adding as playing a note and an octave above it (which doesn't really change the mood at all and simply alters the "timbre" of the root tone by stacking a much louder first overtone on top of it").

>"the improvements these systems offer (in a 5-limit context) over 12-tone ET are utterly negligible. "
Right, 12TET is at most about 13-cents off, which isn't noticeable to most people. But one thing that IS very hard to use in 12TET in chords is consecutive minor seconds. Why? Because (look at Plomp and Llevelt's curves) critical dissonance peaks at about 1.05 and the minor second in 12TET is 1.05999 (pretty lousy interval for chords)! So I say to hell with that "standard" and use 13/12 and 12/11 as a new type of minor second and find (GASP!) that I can finally make chords that are considered illegal in 12TET using minor seconds work. Aha...something new! In the meantime most all other intervals in the scale are within 13 cents of pure. Aha...new advantage with little disadvantage...I figure, why would many musicians not be able to appreciate such an option?
>"All you've succeeded in doing is making the zombie PRETTIER."
For several types of purifications, I actually agree with you. But look closely at what people like Sethares, myself, and Erv Wilson are doing. We are often using intervals not present in common practice.
>"but only a HANDFUL have been willing to give up 3/2 as the basis for music."
Same goes for that, none of said above people use 3/2 and the "circle of fifths" as the basis. Ptolemy used tetra-chords instead of circles. I actually like even Ptolemy's early systems much better than Pythagorus's.
Heck, I refuse to use the circle of thirds, fourths, etc. either. My PHI and Silver scales were defined by sections, not exponential powers of an interval over 2^x (octaves). My new scales are defined by both sections and super-particular symmetries.

>"And all this talk about mathematical evaluations of consonance..
.please. What are you gonna use it for, REALLY? You can call up any
scale and hear how it sounds immediately with free computer software,
so your EARS can tell you perfectly well whether something sounds
consonant. WHY do you need a mathematical description? I just don't get
it."
This is the one thing I actually don't agree with. Agreed it's VERY easy to find the consonance of any given dyad...that's what Plomp and Llevelt accomplished ages ago with their dissonance curve. But, guess what...a scale can have any COMBINATION of intervals. Want all possible intervals far enough to be recognizable to the ear as different? Try counting them 1.005 1.010 1.015...thousands if not millions of them!
And if you have 3 notes in the scale, you have 3 possible dyads, not too bad. 5 notes? Try more like 10. 12 notes? Don't ask. And guess what...if you purify one interval, you can easily make 4 of the others go sour...often more than 13 cents sour and to the point it's notice-able. You can compare all notes to all other notes as sets of dyads using a computer program...that's exactly what Sethares did. But even he neglected the fact that chords have an added factor: they often produce sound-waves that don't repeat and this repeating produces a second type of "periodic" dissonance. So 1.1066 may sound fine to you as a single note but not in a chord. If you look up how mp3's are compressed they use temporal masking and ignore sound changes that happen within a tenth of a second. Guess what happens when your precious chord doesn't repeat/isn't-periodic-at every 10th of a second or less? Your ear has trouble processing it, regardless of
how well each interval works by itself.

And such, consonance because an "optimization" game with not one but several factors...all of which have a habit of breaking a leak in one place when you patch another. That's what makes it such a challenge. What I think is cool about micro-tonality is that if you can "hack" that, you can open up chords and intervals to work that just weren't there before without killing everything else to make them work.

12TET is fine for common practice music, IMVHO. The reason I like micro-tonality is I can approach choosing what parts of it I want to keep and dump...and then throw in completely new concepts.

_,_._,___

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

> First I'd like to say that I think "simple" 5-limit JI scales meant to maximize consonance and "intuneness" are absolutely boring. I'll go so far as to say that I think that the pure fifth (i.e. 3/2 ratio or the third harmonic) is without a doubt the most hackneyed, tired, plain, over-used, washed-up, past-its-prime, boring, unexpressive interval in all of music.

Yeah, let's get rid of the dominant-tonic relationship already, and start over. I can show you how--I can retune your music for you so that your pure fifth is now something completely different, and yet the resulting chords still make a new kind of harmonic sense.

Of course, the music is now not the same music, and fails to achieve the same effect. Could it be this is just another form of the search for the "perfect" scale?

I believe that demanding a pure or nearly-pure fifth in a scale severely reduces the degree to which it is possible to make "new, fresh, interesting, unusual, idiosyncratic" music in that scale, and that the most exciting musical possibilities are truly to be found in scales that "mis-tune" the fifth by NO LESS than fifteen cents sharp OR flat.

So transform your music into a mavilla version, and perform it with sixteen equal steps to the octave and not twelve. Don't let me stop you, but also don't assume most people will like it better that way.

> I can say that in my experience as a musician, as someone who has indeed given JI and near-5-limit-JI systems like 31-tET a more-than-fair shake, the improvements these systems offer (in a 5-limit context) over 12-tone ET are utterly negligible.

I can you have a tin ear if you have performed that test on suitable music, such as Renaissance polyphony, and still noticed no difference. If you noticed no difference will Milton Babbitt, I won't argue.

> What is the POINT of everything being more in-tune? Are your ears so sensitive that you just can't bear hearing a major third that is 15¢ sharp?

Depends on the style of music, but personally I think it sounds fairly rancid even with "At the Hop", not to mention "Missa Tu es Petrus." For other styles of music, not so big a deal.

>Bohlen and Pierce had the right idea but maybe not the right scale (though I'll take 13-EDT over 19-EDO any day).

It's an interesting concept. The results, in my opinion, not so much. I think higher limit harmony WITH 2 and 3 is far more interesting, but then I write in systems like octoid temperament, which most people feel involves too many notes.

>When you let the "fifth" slide far enough from 3/2, you open up all sorts of new structural possibilities, new consonances, new ways to make music that have been totally untapped.

Blah blah blah. This sermon would be far more interesting if presented with some musical examples. Having generated my own examples, I don't find myself convinced by them. Can you do better?

> I don't post here very often, and for good reason, but with this huge rash of JI discussion going on, all this talk of "ideal" and "perfect" tunings going on and very few voices offering counterpoint, I thought I should weigh in with some rather "heretical" proclamations just to make things interesting. A lot of you will probably find this insulting, because I'm about to dismiss the very things on which you've spent many years of your life working very intently. I understand that this will make you mad. Sorry, but I just can't keep my mouth shut any longer.

I'm already mad.

> First I'd like to say that I think "simple" 5-limit JI scales meant to maximize consonance and "intuneness" are absolutely boring. I'll go so far as to say that I think that the pure fifth (i.e. 3/2 ratio or the third harmonic) is without a doubt the most hackneyed, tired, plain, over-used, washed-up, past-its-prime, boring, unexpressive interval in all of music.

:-(

> I believe that demanding a pure or nearly-pure fifth in a scale severely reduces the degree to which it is possible to make "new, fresh, interesting, unusual, idiosyncratic" music in that scale, and that the most exciting musical possibilities are truly to be found in scales that "mis-tune" the fifth by NO LESS than fifteen cents sharp OR flat.

So you're a fan of mavila then.

> I can say that in my experience as a musician, as someone who has indeed given JI and near-5-limit-JI systems like 31-tET a more-than-fair shake, the improvements these systems offer (in a 5-limit context) over 12-tone ET are utterly negligible. What is the POINT of everything being more in-tune? Are your ears so sensitive that you just can't bear hearing a major third that is 15¢ sharp?

I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is
awesome). But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no
love on this list. Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great
tuning.

That being said... if I ever become the king of a new world order, it
will be a crime to hate on 31-tet as you have done here.

> Okay, yeah, 5-limit JI "sounds nice", you can hold the notes forever and never hear them beat. The intervals are familiar and comforting and totally unobjectionable, like those ubiquitous Monet water-lily prints. When I'm in the mood for zenlike contemplation of the mystical oneness of the universe, or if I'm freaking out on some psychotropic and need something to calm me down, I might like to hear the sound of the first 6 partials of the harmonic series sustained at equal volume in pure sine waves for 20 minutes. But hey--you can hear the entire harmonic series in the sound of a single guitar string being plucked through a good overdrive pedal.

Or played clean.

And if you're on something psychotropic, you need to get to the 7th
harmonic AT LEAST, or it's all hopeless. Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.

> Honestly, all this talk about re-tuning classical music, trying to solve the puzzles of tuning JI, trying to find "the perfect scale" for Western music--you're all putting makeup on a corpse. I will even concede to you all that you've SUCCEEDED: congratulations, you did it, you found the BEST TUNING for western music. But guess what? This music goes back almost a thousand years--there is an utterly unfathomable library of music in the western tradition, all based on the same fundamental principles that you guys have FINALLY discovered and codified into a system. This system you guys have finally perfected is DEAD. Its lifeless zombie corpse has been shambling through concert halls and conservatories for GENERATIONS. All you've succeeded in doing is making the zombie PRETTIER. 12-tone-based western music has been UTTERLY systematized, totally mapped out, all the chord progressions, all the cadences, all the modulations: all studied, recorded, and quantified to DEATH. David Cope has written a computer program that can write western music: if a computer can do it, why should a human continue to bother with it?

Wait, what is it? what's the best tuning? Did I miss it? Is it
quarter-comma meantone?

> Now, I'm the LAST person who would ever advocate serialism or atonality, but in a world married to a 12-tone scale wherein even the resources of chromatic harmony have been plumbed for CENTURIES, atonality sure must've seemed like the only place left to go. Some people have started exploring microtonality: 5-limit JI, 19- and 31-tone ETs, even quartertones, but only a HANDFUL have been willing to give up 3/2 as the basis for music. Bohlen and Pierce had the right idea but maybe not the right scale (though I'll take 13-EDT over 19-EDO any day). When you let the "fifth" slide far enough from 3/2, you open up all sorts of new structural possibilities, new consonances, new ways to make music that have been totally untapped. Why is there so little interest in this? Please, people, get over your "PERFECT TUNINGS", the musical community at large doesn't want them, and the specialists in this community will never agree on them, so unless YOU can WRITE (and probably PERFORM) something really compelling with them, what value do you really think they have?

Jesus, why do you hate 3/2 all that much?

> And all this talk about mathematical evaluations of consonance...please. What are you gonna use it for, REALLY? You can call up any scale and hear how it sounds immediately with free computer software, so your EARS can tell you perfectly well whether something sounds consonant. WHY do you need a mathematical description? I just don't get it.

We want to figure out how music works!

Sincerely,
The Peanut Gallery

Yo Michael...hope you didn't think I was lumping you in with the "find the perfect scale for western music" crowd. You're in a class by yourself, IMHO! I guess I do see your point about why you want to find good mathematical formulae to predict consonance, though...it seems like you have a very specific goal in mind for scales you want to create, and JI is so infinite that kludging through all the different possibilities would be pretty tiresome. I guess that's why I'm an EDO guy...well, that and the fact that I like the roughness of tempered intervals.

I really do like your approach of using intervals smaller than a major second in chords. Some of my favorite EDOs work well for this approach too, like 18 and 20 and 23. In 13-EDO, I think chords made of stacked major and minor seconds are the pinnacle of consonance (in that metatuning at least), and work quite well. Though FWIW I don't find stacked minor 2nds all that offensive in 12-tET, in the right context. Like the chord G-B-C-D-E-F-F#...complex but not offensive to my ears.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> CityofAsleep>"First I'd like to say that I think "simple" 5-limit JI scales meant to
> maximize consonance and "intuneness" are absolutely boring."
> Agreed. I typically start at around 9-limit and have been known to go above 13-limit. ;-)
>
> >"I'll go so far as to say that I think that the pure fifth (i.e. 3/2
> ratio or the third harmonic) is without a doubt the most hackneyed,
> tired, plain, over-used, washed-up, past-its-prime, boring,
> unexpressive interval in all of music."
> Which is why you'll see many of my scales don't jump through hoops to purify fifths...they go for purifying the smallest intervals first and work their way up. If I have to drop a pure fifth for a pure third or a pure third for a "super-particular" pure second...I'll do it in a heartbeat. Hence my scales are chalk-full of super-particular seconds.
> Also, from a harmonic standpoint, the fifth basically just strengthens the root rather than add emotion to it...it's almost as non-emotion-adding as playing a note and an octave above it (which doesn't really change the mood at all and simply alters the "timbre" of the root tone by stacking a much louder first overtone on top of it").
>
> >"the improvements these systems offer (in a 5-limit context) over 12-tone ET are utterly negligible. "
> Right, 12TET is at most about 13-cents off, which isn't noticeable to most people. But one thing that IS very hard to use in 12TET in chords is consecutive minor seconds. Why? Because (look at Plomp and Llevelt's curves) critical dissonance peaks at about 1.05 and the minor second in 12TET is 1.05999 (pretty lousy interval for chords)! So I say to hell with that "standard" and use 13/12 and 12/11 as a new type of minor second and find (GASP!) that I can finally make chords that are considered illegal in 12TET using minor seconds work. Aha...something new! In the meantime most all other intervals in the scale are within 13 cents of pure. Aha...new advantage with little disadvantage...I figure, why would many musicians not be able to appreciate such an option?
> >"All you've succeeded in doing is making the zombie PRETTIER."
> For several types of purifications, I actually agree with you. But look closely at what people like Sethares, myself, and Erv Wilson are doing. We are often using intervals not present in common practice.
> >"but only a HANDFUL have been willing to give up 3/2 as the basis for music."
> Same goes for that, none of said above people use 3/2 and the "circle of fifths" as the basis. Ptolemy used tetra-chords instead of circles. I actually like even Ptolemy's early systems much better than Pythagorus's.
> Heck, I refuse to use the circle of thirds, fourths, etc. either. My PHI and Silver scales were defined by sections, not exponential powers of an interval over 2^x (octaves). My new scales are defined by both sections and super-particular symmetries.
>
> >"And all this talk about mathematical evaluations of consonance..
> .please. What are you gonna use it for, REALLY? You can call up any
> scale and hear how it sounds immediately with free computer software,
> so your EARS can tell you perfectly well whether something sounds
> consonant. WHY do you need a mathematical description? I just don't get
> it."
> This is the one thing I actually don't agree with. Agreed it's VERY easy to find the consonance of any given dyad...that's what Plomp and Llevelt accomplished ages ago with their dissonance curve. But, guess what...a scale can have any COMBINATION of intervals. Want all possible intervals far enough to be recognizable to the ear as different? Try counting them 1.005 1.010 1.015...thousands if not millions of them!
> And if you have 3 notes in the scale, you have 3 possible dyads, not too bad. 5 notes? Try more like 10. 12 notes? Don't ask. And guess what...if you purify one interval, you can easily make 4 of the others go sour...often more than 13 cents sour and to the point it's notice-able. You can compare all notes to all other notes as sets of dyads using a computer program...that's exactly what Sethares did. But even he neglected the fact that chords have an added factor: they often produce sound-waves that don't repeat and this repeating produces a second type of "periodic" dissonance. So 1.1066 may sound fine to you as a single note but not in a chord. If you look up how mp3's are compressed they use temporal masking and ignore sound changes that happen within a tenth of a second. Guess what happens when your precious chord doesn't repeat/isn't-periodic-at every 10th of a second or less? Your ear has trouble processing it, regardless of
> how well each interval works by itself.
>
> And such, consonance because an "optimization" game with not one but several factors...all of which have a habit of breaking a leak in one place when you patch another. That's what makes it such a challenge. What I think is cool about micro-tonality is that if you can "hack" that, you can open up chords and intervals to work that just weren't there before without killing everything else to make them work.
>
> 12TET is fine for common practice music, IMVHO. The reason I like micro-tonality is I can approach choosing what parts of it I want to keep and dump...and then throw in completely new concepts.
>
>
>
> _,_._,___
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>I guess that's why I'm an EDO guy...well, that and the fact that I like the roughness of tempered intervals.

Igs = EDO. Can we make fun of *you* now? (that's a joke)

Really, whatever happened to 'to each his own'? I'm solidly behind your right to rant, but in my eyes it doesn't end up feeling much different to get your Taliban-like vitriol against the 3/2 than it does hearing some JI moonie waxing rhapsodic over a beatless nirvana.

I'm sure you get my drift.

Cheers,
Jon

>"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is awesome). But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this list. Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great tuning."

Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"...each interval stays constant in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained ear. In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure than 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a very balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as purity of a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for many if not most.
4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and play
--------all in all it's very good for most common practice music...but not beyond.
*******************************************
.....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with common-practice intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and non-tuning-related issues used for composition). True, you can get some extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave as the repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals after these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11,13/12 are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to approach the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET has a dissonant and often harmonically/chord-wise hard to use half-step around 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there are so many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords possible it forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of, say, just a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding anywhere from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many years to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the 12TET system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many parts of it to sound confident and "in key".
5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an advantage when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument even in real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or many wind instruments...and get an infinite number of perfect extra transpositions instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight through the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there seems much less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.

__,_._,__

Hi Gene. I figured you'd be one of the people most likely to take umbrage with my post, so let's talk. But first let me establish that I do deeply respect you, your work, and your knowledge of tuning theory. You've been at it a long time, and are a long-standing and well-respected member of this community, so I don't want to incite too much of your rancor. My point of view is not a common one, nor is my musical background, so really I'm just trying to keep this discussion from being too one-sided.

>(regarding music retuned to eliminate the tonic-dominant relationship)
> Of course, the music is now not the same music, and fails to achieve the same effect. >Could it be this is just another form of the search for the "perfect" scale?

Okay, first of all: I have no interest in "retuning" existing music, especially to such a drastic degree. Occasionally on a lark it can be a fun endeavor, but I don't think there's anything to be gained except a satisfaction of some idle curiosity. To date I have retuned ONE piece of music, a surf-rock song called "Pipeline", and that was just for shits'n'giggles. Writing NEW music is the only thing that really concerns me. SO: Is this another form of the search for the perfect scale? Well, NO. It's a search for ANY scale that forces the composer to take a completely novel approach, not merely to "add on" to or "modify" the age-old common practice.

> So transform your music into a mavilla version, and perform it with sixteen equal steps >to the octave and not twelve. Don't let me stop you, but also don't assume most people >will like it better that way.

Again, I don't think "retuning" existing music from 12 to 16 is helpful...but trying to WRITE in mavila? I don't see why not! That temperament has some definite strengths and is definitely capable of doing things you can't do in 12...sure, it's not pretty and nice, but I've heard some MIGHTY compelling stuff in 16.

> I can you have a tin ear if you have performed that test on suitable music, such as >Renaissance polyphony, and still noticed no difference. If you noticed no difference will >Milton Babbitt, I won't argue.

I didn't say I couldn't notice a difference, I said the difference was NEGLIGIBLE. And truth be told, I can't say I prefer the JI. I've listened to most of the retuned music that gets posted here, and (especially in the case of Drei Equale) I frankly prefer the 12. I don't like having more than a couple Just intervals in a tuning because I find that slight beating gives the sound "life", and helps chords sound distinct instead of blurring into a harmonic wall.

> Depends on the style of music, but personally I think it sounds fairly rancid even with "At > the Hop", not to mention "Missa Tu es Petrus." For other styles of music, not so big a >deal.

Well, you've got a sharper ear than probably 95% of humanity, me included. So I won't begrudge you your JI retunements...if I was that sensitive to temperament, I'd probably be retuning things like mad, too. But please recognize that your sensitivity is an exception, not the rule...elsewise we'd never have had temperament in the first place!

>>Bohlen and Pierce had the right idea but maybe not the right scale (though I'll take >>13-EDT over 19-EDO any day).
>
> It's an interesting concept. The results, in my opinion, not so much. I think higher limit >harmony WITH 2 and 3 is far more interesting, but then I write in systems like octoid >temperament, which most people feel involves too many notes.

Like I said: right idea, maybe not the right scale. Erlich's triple-BP is much better, though I still don't find 3:5:7 a good basis for tonality. Even 11:13:15 works better.

> Blah blah blah. This sermon would be far more interesting if presented with some >musical examples. Having generated my own examples, I don't find myself convinced by >them. Can you do better?

I am well aware of how hollow my words ring without music behind them. Fortunately, I actually HAVE used a great many tunings with very poor fifths on my album "Map of an Internal Landscape", which I presume you haven't heard. It's available for free on www.cityoftheasleep.com, no information required. However, I fear that my mathy techno-pop is not on the level of complexity you're looking for. Cameron Bobro's "The Coalminer's Guardian Angel", which is on the xenharmonic.ning.com site is a pretty quality example of what one can do in a tuning with no "fifth". I might also suggest some of Dan Stearns' music, if you haven't already.

>"Really, whatever happened to 'to each his own'? I'm solidly behind your
right to rant, but in my eyes it doesn't end up feeling much different
to get your Taliban-like vitriol against the 3/2 than it does hearing
some JI moonie waxing rhapsodic over a beatless nirvana."

I can see both sides. The only "vicious" type conflict I've ever had with those who support 3/2 is the type where those people say "if you don't believe in it, it's just because you don't know it and need to learn it". I (for one) have fairly trained ears and I can tell the difference between a pure and 13-cent un-pure 5th fairly well and, even though it's not important to me, I can appreciate the works of those who tweak that sort of thing sort long as they don't call me "psycho or un-educated" for working on developing totally different sorts on scales and tunings. ;-)
Marcel and John on this list I believe have made great strides in "making a prettier zombie" from common practice music interval-based scales (lol). I'm happy they are doing so because even though I can't use that type of improvement much, I realize many other musicians can.
And, hey...it's the least I can do as I hope they will help me with suggestions for my "crazy scales", which they can argue has frighteningly little historical basis to justify it just as easily as I could say "this is so much like history it's not moving forward". I may even say "I don't see much of a point in it myself" and, at the same time, say "I support it anyhow because I see it's improving toward its goal and think others could still find it useful".

Point is...whether it's useful for US or not...if people are finding a use for it IMVHO, it definitely still deserves support to be developed further. Even if guys like us both whole-heartedly agree it's not the sort of thing we'd be interested in using for our own songs....

>"I don't like having more than a couple Just intervals in a tuning
because I find that slight beating gives the sound "life", and helps
chords sound distinct instead of blurring into a harmonic wall."

Interesting point....what I think you may be hearing is "periodicity buzz" caused by stacked intervals often low in the harmonic series IE 7:8:9:10. Some people love it and try to actively maximize it as it points to the root tone with excellent clarity...if it works for them and their work creating it pleases others then great...for my ears personally view it is a grinding around a fixed frequency "difference" tone between two notes that sounds mechanical and lifeless.

>"Well, you've got a sharper ear than probably 95% of humanity, me included. So I won't begrudge you your JI retunements. "
I can see why those with "perfect pitch" hearing often love JI. Personally I can hear a difference, but just barely, as if I have to stare at something in the distance to see any of the extra detail.

Hi Jon,

> Really, whatever happened to 'to each his own'? I'm solidly behind your right to rant, but in >my eyes it doesn't end up feeling much different to get your Taliban-like vitriol against the >3/2 than it does hearing some JI moonie waxing rhapsodic over a beatless nirvana.
>
> I'm sure you get my drift.

Oh, indeed I do. Indeed I do. But whereas this forum is crowded with "JI moonies", my perspective seems to be under-represented. I know I'm not likely to "convert" anyone because there is quite an element of religiosity when it comes to tuning. I'm just venting, really. Frankly, I have no authority here, so my vitriol is entirely impotent.

Truth be told, I expect my knowledge to grow through this process of argument and debate. Fighting is important. Being adversarial with people allows for a level of brutal honesty that rarely surfaces among comrades, and can be quite instructive for those open to it. Heck, I'd love to be persuaded by anyone here that there IS some merit to continuing to plumb the exhausted depths of near-perfect-fifth-based tonality. I'd also love it if anyone here took pause from my ranting and thought, "maybe I SHOULD employ my awesome intellect and musical prowess in tackling the challenge of a tonality that lacks a good fifth." There is SO MUCH talent and intellect here, and I'd love to see it directed in other directions beyond "perfecting" and/or expanding western 12-tone music.

I mean, I have next to NO musical training, and my musical skill is moderate at best...so I don't expect to be able to demonstrate the potential of fifthless tunings as well as the (multitude of) trained and accomplished musicians in this forum could if they were so inclined. I'm sure as hell gonna TRY, but forgive me for being frustrated that I seem to be one of the precious few interested in this endeavor.

Hi Mike, thanks for the humor! ;-> I know I sound all hot and bothered but really I don't take myself seriously enough to take offense at anything. I'm an untrained guitarist in a forum of conservatory-trained math PhDs, what's my opinion REALLY worth?

> So you're a fan of mavila then.

Quite quite, though I'm not convinced I've heard anyone find its strong point in a composition yet.

> I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is
> awesome). But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no
> love on this list. Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great
> tuning.
>
> That being said... if I ever become the king of a new world order, it
> will be a crime to hate on 31-tet as you have done here.

Hey, I am not HATING on 31-tET, and I'm not even hating on 12-tET. They're both FABULOUS. I make music in 12 all the damn time, even though I know I'm just basically rehashing the same ol' tired licks, because it sounds good and it's fun (though it gets boring pretty fast these days). And 31 can be used for some really far-out detuned-fifth stuff, just try the scale 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 (or 0-5-7-12-17-19-24-29-31 steps...oh whoa, that's totally the same as the series of good-fifth EDOs! Crazy). That scale-shape can be found in 13, 18, and 23-EDO as well. I'm more hating on 31 as being used as a "more in-tune 12"...because 12's not bad enough (to my ears) to warrant such a replacement. If I want to sound like common-practice, I'll stick with 12.

> Wait, what is it? what's the best tuning? Did I miss it? Is it
> quarter-comma meantone?

Heh heh.

> Jesus, why do you hate 3/2 all that much?

I don't HATE 3/2...it's an interval, a mathematic abstraction even! It sounds as perfectly pleasant as one could ask! I'm just BORED STIFF of it and I think that after 1,000 years, it's time to move on to new intervals on which to base western music. I don't advocate anyone to give up on that tradition, because it's FULL of AMAZING MUSIC! I am GLAD that orchestras continue to play Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Debussy...I am GLAD there are still bands out there playing good ol' 12-tone ROCK'N'ROLL because it's FUN. But it's a theoretical dead-end; the loose ends have been tied up, the music has been reduced to a FORMULA (or at least FORMULAE).

> We want to figure out how music works!

Why, so you can find a formula to write music for you? There's always gonna be messy dirty stuff that defies such formulae, music written with intervals that theoretically should sound terrible but somehow sound compelling. And vice-versa: music written that perfectly avoids all dissonance but sounds TERRIBLE. "Consonance" is always going to be trumped by aesthetic preference, and there's never going to be a formula written that can predict THAT. The whole point of my writing this post is to demonstrate a case--namely, myself--of a person to whom theoretically-consonant music is UNPLEASANT; I don't LIKE perfect 3/2s, I don't LIKE 5-limit JI. How would all your formulae apply to ME? Note that there are others like me, but they lack the obsessive-masochistic streak to argue the point on this forum.

Hi Igliashon,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
> > I'm sure you get my drift.
>
> Oh, indeed I do. Indeed I do. But whereas this forum is crowded with "JI moonies", my perspective seems to be under-represented.

Well, here's the funny thing: like many things in the big universe we reside in, some things are cyclical. There was a time on this very tuning list that anyone discussing anything having to do with JI was pretty much a pariah. ETs/EDOs floated around like flecks of gold in some girlie liqueur. I should know, because at times I had to fend off parries and thrusts against the Holy Grail of Tunings, Partch's diamond-like JI scheme.

I took some time away from the lists. I've been doing other things, one of which was getting involved in non-musical communities for extended discussion. It reminded me - even in the midst of what goes down as a 'flame war' around here - how tame the tuning lists are. But it also shined a light on how far one can push in an opposite direction, and with what degree of vehemence, before one simply starts being ignored as a wall of white noise. Sound and fury, as it were (which works well in some styles of music; in discourse, not so much).

I've walked the line on propriety myself around here, so I'm hardly one to preach, but just bear in mind that if fruitful discussion is what you are after, don't step on everyone's Johnson in the first post or two of a topical thrust.

Best,
Jon

CityofAsleep>""Consonance" is always going to be trumped by aesthetic preference, and there's never going to be a formula written that can predict THAT."
Of course such formulae (I think there are several good ones...) can't substitute for aethestic preference. But I do think that if you take an excellent musician and teach that music a highly consonant scale and a highly dissonant one (each with at least 7 very unique tones available) and take 50 listeners at random...at least 80% of them will instantly gravitate toward the consonant scale based pieces given the musician is equally skilled at each scale.
It works the same way as men looking at women...sure we have our preferences (blond vs. brunette, petite vs. tall, etc.)...but some features work in general and tend to dominate regardless of personal preference (IE skinny is usually preferable, smooth skin is almost always preferable, "busty-ness" is etc.) Sure it's often the odd features that catch you as being one-of-a-kind...but if one of the "dominant" features is wrong it can kill everything.

>"The whole point of my writing this post is to demonstrate a
case--namely, myself--of a person to whom theoretically- consonant
music is UNPLEASANT;"
I'd actually argue that to you, what's really unpleasant is predictability and that 5-limit music tends to fall into that trap more often than not because a huge majority of its intervals are "common practice" ones.
I assure you there are plenty of ways to make consonant music with intervals that are nothing like common practice ones. For starters, try the Ptolemy Homalon tunings in the Scala archive (which are around 11-limit but very consonant) and tell me if you think those still sound predictable to the point of being unpleasant. ;-)

Go Ig-man go! Hahaha! Glad to see you're enjoying yourself. :-)

I've got too much to say in reply, but no time any more for thoughtful replies, arg.

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. My wife hates most 5-limit JI. She says it sounds like
"church music", which is literally true here, or was true until 25 years ago. The folk music used to be strongly JI too, pretty impressive, but now most everything is die Neue Polka crap like everywhere else in Europe (doontz-doontz, autotuned to 12-tET).

2. Don't kid yourself: 12-tET is the true love of most microtonalists. I'm probably the only true hater of 12-tET here. :-)

3. 31-tET is crap. Quarter-comma meantone is the holy grail for
tons of microtonal musicians, but it's so obvious that it is invisible. It's the Purloined Letter of tunings. And, it sounds gorgeous in a completely conventional and easily palatable way, which makes it
an overwhelming threat to the works of the gods, that is, theatrical
athletes of the establishment. Therefore unacceptable. What
would a young jazz pianist do if he discovered in half an hour
with a generalized keyboard, Pianoteq, and quarter-comma meantone
that nothing that all his 12-tET heroes ever did can touch what's popping out from his fingers? Change majors to fast-order cook: no
sane person has the foolhardiness to talk about the emporer's clothes,
no unbroken heart can bear the tragic thought of such vast horizons
untrod by such able feet, of such chains of the soul borne
unknowningly by such noble souls.

heh, gotta go!
take care

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Of course such formulae (I think there are several good ones...) can't substitute for >aethestic preference. But I do think that if you take an excellent musician and teach that >music a highly consonant scale and a highly dissonant one (each with at least 7 very >unique tones available) and take 50 listeners at random...at least 80% of them will >instantly gravitate toward the consonant scale based pieces given the musician is equally >skilled at each scale.

I'm curious how the 11-EDO scale of 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 (or 0¢-218¢-436¢-545¢-763¢-872¢-1091¢-1200¢) would be evaluated by these consonance formulae. I wonder because I've made music with that scale--triadic music, no less--which has garnered extremely favorable responses (especially from unschooled musicians). Honestly, a few years back I came around this forum asking for the theoretical MAXIMUM of dissonance scales, and out of all the recommendations the only one I found actually unpleasant-sounding was 8-EDO. Oh, and how about the 8-note 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 scale from 18-EDO, i.e. 0-200-267-467-667-733-933-1133-1200? One of the nicest scales I've ever heard, to be honest...is it "theoretically" consonant?

> It works the same way as men looking at women...sure we have our preferences (blond >vs. brunette, petite vs. tall, etc.)...but some features work in general and tend to >dominate regardless of personal preference (IE skinny is usually preferable, smooth skin >is almost always preferable, "busty-ness" is etc.) Sure it's often the odd features that >catch you as being one-of-a-kind...but if one of the "dominant" features is wrong it can >kill everything.

Oh man, let's not go there. Let's just NOT.

> I assure you there are plenty of ways to make consonant music with intervals that are >nothing like common practice ones. For starters, try the Ptolemy Homalon tunings in the >Scala archive (which are around 11-limit but very consonant) and tell me if you think >those still sound predictable to the point of being unpleasant. ;-)

Definitely less predictable, sure, but I still prefer either of the above-mentioned scales. I don't doubt that one can make music that is theoretically relatively-consonant and still unpredictable and interesting; but I do believe that the "theoretical maxima" of consonance
do no justice to aesthetic preference. "Consonance" is really no more than a measure of "unobtrusiveness" or "unobjectionableness", which IMHO means "low cognitive stimulation". Of course there's a balance to be struck, if you've heard my music you know I'm not inclined toward aesthetic dissonance most of the time ;-> I just prefer to avoid the theoretical maxima of consonance in favor of lower-level intervals. I'll take 21/16 to 4/3 any day of the week!

> Hey, I am not HATING on 31-tET, and I'm not even hating on 12-tET. They're both FABULOUS. I make music in 12 all the damn time, even though I know I'm just basically rehashing the same ol' tired licks, because it sounds good and it's fun (though it gets boring pretty fast these days). And 31 can be used for some really far-out detuned-fifth stuff, just try the scale 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 (or 0-5-7-12-17-19-24-29-31 steps...oh whoa, that's totally the same as the series of good-fifth EDOs! Crazy). That scale-shape can be found in 13, 18, and 23-EDO as well. I'm more hating on 31 as being used as a "more in-tune 12"...because 12's not bad enough (to my ears) to warrant such a replacement. If I want to sound like common-practice, I'll stick with 12.

I agree that to view 31-tet as just a "better tuned 12" is pretty
limiting, but it does have a lot of use as a "expanded 12." It's still
a meantone but has 7 and 11 limit stuff. And although I love JI in
theory, I think meantone is pretty central to most western music so
far. So it's a good "stepping stone" onto something new.

> I don't HATE 3/2...it's an interval, a mathematic abstraction even! It sounds as perfectly pleasant as one could ask! I'm just BORED STIFF of it and I think that after 1,000 years, it's time to move on to new intervals on which to base western music. I don't advocate anyone to give up on that tradition, because it's FULL of AMAZING MUSIC! I am GLAD that orchestras continue to play Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Debussy...I am GLAD there are still bands out there playing good ol' 12-tone ROCK'N'ROLL because it's FUN. But it's a theoretical dead-end; the loose ends have been tied up, the music has been reduced to a FORMULA (or at least FORMULAE).

When you say that 3/2 is the basis for all western music, you're
talking about root movement by 3/2 and such?

> Why, so you can find a formula to write music for you? There's always gonna be messy dirty stuff that defies such formulae, music written with intervals that theoretically should sound terrible but somehow sound compelling. And vice-versa: music written that perfectly avoids all dissonance but sounds TERRIBLE. "Consonance" is always going to be trumped by aesthetic preference, and there's never going to be a formula written that can predict THAT. The whole point of my writing this post is to demonstrate a case--namely, myself--of a person to whom theoretically-consonant music is UNPLEASANT; I don't LIKE perfect 3/2s, I don't LIKE 5-limit JI. How would all your formulae apply to ME? Note that there are others like me, but they lack the obsessive-masochistic streak to argue the point on this forum.

Just because we want to know how it works. I dunno. I don't think it's
possible to write a formula that writes music (although I wouldn't be
surprised if a computer can do it well for "the average American
listener" in a few years). But we're just curious how it works
because, I dunno, what else are we supposed to be doing here on earth?

It's just an exercise in using both halves of the brain. You write
with the one half, then you use the other half to figure out what you
did, then by doing that you find new things to do, then you go back to
the other half and learn how to use those intuitively (and throw some
out), then you go back to the other other half, and so on. All of this
is legal!

-Mike

>

> 3. 31-tET is crap. Quarter-comma meantone is the holy grail for
> tons of microtonal musicians, but it's so obvious that it is invisible. It's the Purloined Letter of tunings. And, it sounds gorgeous in a completely conventional and easily palatable way, which makes it
> an overwhelming threat to the works of the gods, that is, theatrical
> athletes of the establishment. Therefore unacceptable.

I'm going to write exclusively in that temperament that Petr posted a
while ago with the ridiculous comma pump. You can't get much more
bizarre than that. I assume that you aren't saying that Quarter-comma
meantone is superior to 31-tet (but that what it seems like).

> What would a young jazz pianist do if he discovered in half an hour
> with a generalized keyboard, Pianoteq, and quarter-comma meantone
> that nothing that all his 12-tET heroes ever did can touch what's popping out from his fingers?

I don't know, but if anyone would like to donate some sort of
microtonal MIDI controller to me in the name of science, I'd be happy
to conduct this experiment!

> Change majors to fast-order cook: no
> sane person has the foolhardiness to talk about the emporer's clothes,
> no unbroken heart can bear the tragic thought of such vast horizons
> untrod by such able feet, of such chains of the soul borne
> unknowningly by such noble souls.

I was thinking more along the lines of international finance.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

>
> I'm going to write exclusively in that temperament that Petr posted >a
> while ago with the ridiculous comma pump. You can't get much more
> bizarre than that.

Hahaha! go for it.

>I assume that you aren't saying that Quarter-comma
> meantone is superior to 31-tet (but that what it seems like).

Oh but I am saying that. Quarter-comma meantone is gorgeous. And it circulates at 31 in "real life". 31 is nice of course too, it's just not as sweet as 31 tones of 1/4-comma.
>
> > What would a young jazz pianist do if he discovered in half an hour
> > with a generalized keyboard, Pianoteq, and quarter-comma meantone
> > that nothing that all his 12-tET heroes ever did can touch what's popping out from his fingers?
>
> I don't know, but if anyone would like to donate some sort of
> microtonal MIDI controller to me in the name of science, I'd be >happy
> to conduct this experiment!

Save up! That thing Carlo has isn't remotely as expensive as an acoustic piano.

>
> > Change majors to fast-order cook: no
> > sane person has the foolhardiness to talk about the emporer's >clothes,
> > no unbroken heart can bear the tragic thought of such vast >horizons
> > untrod by such able feet, of such chains of the soul borne
> > unknowningly by such noble souls.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of international finance.

That's the spirit- if you can't beat the problem, BECOME the problem! Yeah! Say, then you'd be able to afford a 31-tone keyboard no sweat. :-)

> >I assume that you aren't saying that Quarter-comma
> > meantone is superior to 31-tet (but that what it seems like).
>
> Oh but I am saying that. Quarter-comma meantone is gorgeous. And it circulates at 31 in "real life". 31 is nice of course too, it's just not as sweet as 31 tones of 1/4-comma.

Uh, can you hear the difference? :)

Are you saying that you like 1/4 comma meantone "conceptually," and
that 31-tet is a great implementation of that? They're so close that I
can't tell them apart, and if I found some subtle way to tell them
apart I probably wouldn't care too much :)

> > > What would a young jazz pianist do if he discovered in half an hour
> > > with a generalized keyboard, Pianoteq, and quarter-comma meantone
> > > that nothing that all his 12-tET heroes ever did can touch what's popping out from his fingers?
> >
> > I don't know, but if anyone would like to donate some sort of
> > microtonal MIDI controller to me in the name of science, I'd be >happy
> > to conduct this experiment!
>
> Save up! That thing Carlo has isn't remotely as expensive as an acoustic piano.

The thing that Carlo has...?

> > I was thinking more along the lines of international finance.
>
> That's the spirit- if you can't beat the problem, BECOME the problem! Yeah! Say, then you'd be able to afford a 31-tone keyboard no sweat. :-)

We'll defeat them from the inside!

-Mike

>

cityoftheasleep>"Consonance" is really no more than a measure of "unobtrusiveness" or
"unobjectionablenes s", which IMHO means "low cognitive stimulation" .
I wouldn't take it that far. To me the sense of shifting to different root or virtual tones can imply tonal depth just as well as dissonance can, but without the difficulties. Even taking a note out of a chord can make a different root tone (or tones!) implied. The sad thing is that many consonant scales seem to fall into the trap of referencing just a handful of possible root tones, especially those with only three small interval sizes or less (IE diatonic JI has 3, MOS has 2).

Things like 11TET (which you mentioned) are interesting because they hit cool semi-periodic intervals that don't exist in Western music, like 1.37035, which nears the non-common-practice 11-limit interval of 11/8. But heck, Ptolemy's Homalon scale also uses 11/8. And 11/10. And many other intervals that hint at weird and new root tones. My point is many of these "dissonant" intervals you love can be rounded to "consonant" approximations without losing their feel and/or the characteristic of sounding completely unlike 12TET.

Actually I very much like how 11TET and 10TET sound using sine waves...but the grating of overtone dissonance gets to me because I have trouble telling where the root tones are (IE even though there are many new beautiful ones implied, they are all covered by "muck"). Maybe your brain can parse through that muck better than most of ours...who knows. Anyhow, I think 10 and 11TET can be public accessible IF spectral alignment (ALA Sethares) is used to resolve these clashing overtones...the root tones in 10 and 11TET themselves have a lot of interesting potential. Even with "Setharesian" alignment though, you still have lack of periodicity distorting the sense of tones a bit (though much less)...and my personal opinion is why not try for a cool new scale with those non-standard intervals that has better periodicity?

>"I just prefer to avoid the theoretical maxima of consonance in favor
of lower-level intervals. I'll take 21/16 to 4/3 any day of the week!"
On the note 27/25 is one of my favorite intervals. And, actually 21/16 is very near 17/13 and not far at all from 13/10...so "even" it isn't that anti-periodic or "JI-unfittable". One of my favorite techniques is to try to find fairly periodic intervals that point to the same more complex root tone patterns that scales like the TET temperaments you like imply.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > >I assume that you aren't saying that Quarter-comma
> > > meantone is superior to 31-tet (but that what it seems like).
> >
> > Oh but I am saying that. Quarter-comma meantone is gorgeous. And it circulates at 31 in "real life". 31 is nice of course too, it's just not as sweet as 31 tones of 1/4-comma.
>
> Uh, can you hear the difference? :)
>
> Are you saying that you like 1/4 comma meantone "conceptually," and
> that 31-tet is a great implementation of that? They're so close that I
> can't tell them apart, and if I found some subtle way to tell them
> apart I probably wouldn't care too much :)

Conceptually. Big piles of Just intervals doesn't mean much without a red thread/structure, and quarter-comma meantone extended to (appropriate and smoothly occuring!) 7 and 11 limit is just that for 31. Like 26 is a killer 7 + 13 meantone.
>
> > > > What would a young jazz pianist do if he discovered in half an hour
> > > > with a generalized keyboard, Pianoteq, and quarter-comma meantone
> > > > that nothing that all his 12-tET heroes ever did can touch what's popping out from his fingers?
> > >
> > > I don't know, but if anyone would like to donate some sort of
> > > microtonal MIDI controller to me in the name of science, I'd be >happy
> > > to conduct this experiment!
> >
> > Save up! That thing Carlo has isn't remotely as expensive as an acoustic piano.
>
> The thing that Carlo has...?

Carlos, sorry. The Chameleon generalized keyboard!
>
> > > I was thinking more along the lines of international finance.
> >
> > That's the spirit- if you can't beat the problem, BECOME the problem! Yeah! Say, then you'd be able to afford a 31-tone keyboard no sweat. :-)
>
> We'll defeat them from the inside!

Famous last words!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
> Hi Gene. I figured you'd be one of the people most likely to take umbrage with my post, so let's talk. ...
>
> > [Gene:]
> > It's an interesting concept. The results, in my opinion, not so much. I think higher limit >harmony WITH 2 and 3 is far more interesting, but then I write in systems like octoid >temperament, which most people feel involves too many notes.
>
> Like I said: right idea, maybe not the right scale. Erlich's triple-BP is much better, though I still don't find 3:5:7 a good basis for tonality. Even 11:13:15 works better.

Hi Igs,

Nice to see you back here.

I thought that you might be interested to know that 11:13:15 was suggested by Erv Wilson as a possible basis for tonality more than 30 years ago. Details are in my message (A harmonically-based Pelogic temperament, posted 21 Jan 2004):
/tuning/topicId_51743.html#52023

Here's a Scala listing for the 11-tone MOS scale of the tuning that I constructed, following Erv's suggestion:

! pelog11i.scl
!
George Secor's isopelogic scale with ~537.84194 generator and just 13/11
11
!
40.57749
164.89361
13/11
413.52583
537.84194
662.15806
702.73555
827.05166
951.36778
1075.68389
2/1

Since you seem to prefer EDO's, you should also note my observation that this is rather close to a subset of 29-equal.

Since I believe that there are many "better" options on which to base tonality (just my personal opinion; I have neither the time nor desire to argue the matter), I have never written any music using this tuning. Thus it has remained only a curious footnote in my journey through the world of alternative tunings and microtonality. (To put this into perspective, I should also mention that the minimax tuning of the Miracle temperament was another option that I chose not to pursue in the 1970's.)

It is good that our paths have crossed at this point, and since I have greatly enjoyed listening to your music, I would be interested to know whether you have written any music based on triads of 11:13:15 (and if so, in what tuning).

In closing, may I offer a word to those who are seeking the "best" scale or tuning: it's all a matter of your requirements and priorities regarding intonation, harmonic limit, modulation, transposability, complexity, versatility, and other trade-offs. My personal conclusion is that neither JI, nor EDO's, nor regular rank 2 temperaments fulfill my requirements nearly as well as a few irregular temperaments that I have devised (in which the intonation varies according to the key). But it's all a personal decision. If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your point is to write some music.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > >I assume that you aren't saying that Quarter-comma
> > > meantone is superior to 31-tet (but that what it seems like).
> >
> > Oh but I am saying that. Quarter-comma meantone is gorgeous. And it circulates at 31 in "real life". 31 is nice of course too, it's just not as sweet as 31 tones of 1/4-comma.
>
> Uh, can you hear the difference? :)

You gotta love this group. One guy says the difference between 12 and 31 is trivial, and another says the gap between 31 and 1/4 comma is huge.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>(To put this into perspective, I should also mention that the >minimax tuning of the Miracle temperament was another option that I >chose not to pursue in the 1970's.)

Which remains awesome, even so. I keep wanting to come back to it, which got in the way of y project to keep exploring new regular temperaments. Now that I need to knock the rust off, maybe...

> In closing, may I offer a word to those who are seeking the "best" scale or tuning: it's all a matter of your requirements and priorities regarding intonation, harmonic limit, modulation, transposability, complexity, versatility, and other trade-offs. My personal conclusion is that neither JI, nor EDO's, nor regular rank 2 temperaments fulfill my requirements nearly as well as a few irregular temperaments that I have devised (in which the intonation varies according to the key). But it's all a personal decision. If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your point is to write some music.

I've had great fun tuning things to irregular circulating temperaments, but I can't wrap my head around composing in one, because of the way that I work. I need a regular structure; it's how I think about chord relationships.

--- "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

> I am well aware of how hollow my words ring without music behind
> them. Fortunately, I actually HAVE used a great many tunings
> with very poor fifths on my album "Map of an Internal Landscape",
> which I presume you haven't heard. It's available for free on
> www.cityoftheasleep.com, no information required. However, I
> fear that my mathy techno-pop is not on the level of complexity
> you're looking for.

Your mathy techno-pop is among my favorite microtonal music
ever. Sorry if I keep saying this.

For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament

2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]

or if you wanna get a 7 in,

2.5.7.11.13 <37 86 104 128 137]

At least, I think those both point to the same rank 2
temperament.

-Carl

>"If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your
point is to write some music."
chords with good consonance. It does this My proof is up-and-coming on Sevish's compilation album...to the best of my knowledge. If it doesn't make the album I'll just post it here. And (of course) it's not a "perfect scale"...it's one designed with special minor 2nd-ish chords to enable new chords with small intervals to be possible and very few harmonic sour spots IE hard to make sour chords...which also enabled it to make very huge/"tall" at the expense of things like pure 5ths and other larger intervals.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

> >(regarding music retuned to eliminate the tonic-dominant relationship)
> > Of course, the music is now not the same music, and fails to achieve the same effect. >Could it be this is just another form of the search for the "perfect" scale?
>
> Okay, first of all: I have no interest in "retuning" existing music, especially to such a drastic degree.

I think it brings out possibilities which would otherwise be overlooked.

Occasionally on a lark it can be a fun endeavor, but I don't think there's anything to be gained except a satisfaction of some idle curiosity.

I think there's greater understanding to be gained. Various people, including you, have composed in 22 equal, but I've never heard anything like Night on Porcupine Mountain to emerge from it. Yet 22 can tune such things. Who knew?

> I am well aware of how hollow my words ring without music behind them. Fortunately, I actually HAVE used a great many tunings with very poor fifths on my album "Map of an Internal Landscape", which I presume you haven't heard.

I've been out of things for a while and haven't heard anyone's recent stuff. I haven't heard this either, because I can't find it on your site.

>Cameron Bobro's "The Coalminer's Guardian Angel", which is on the xenharmonic.ning.com site is a pretty quality example of what one can do in a tuning with no "fifth".

That I would have downloaded already, if I could have found a download link.

I wrote:
> For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament
>
> 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]

That is, if you want octaves. If you're willing to go nonoctave
you can't beat

5.11.13.17 <96 143 153 169]

which is nonetheless something you can have in 41-ET.

George Secor wrote:
> I thought that you might be interested to know that 11:13:15
> was suggested by Erv Wilson as a possible basis for tonality
> more than 30 years ago. Details are in my message (A
> harmonically-based Pelogic temperament, posted 21 Jan 2004):
> /tuning/topicId_51743.html#52023

According to me, 11:13:15 is best served by <201 215 227],
which you can get in 58-ET.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament
>
> 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
>
> or if you wanna get a 7 in,
>
> 2.5.7.11.13 <37 86 104 128 137]
>
> At least, I think those both point to the same rank 2
> temperament.

They have to point to some rank 2 temperament, and in fact point to one with an ~11/8 generator, great for 11 fans.

87 tempers out 2200/2197 and 1830125/1827904, and so does 37. However, they must differ somewhere, and in fact 87 tempers out 858203125/857435524 and 37 doesn't.
> -Carl
>

Hi George, thanks for joining in the discussion! You always have something helpful to add. As to 11:13:15, I intend to explore it more in-depth in the coming months, once I have a 20-EDO guitar at my disposal. In 20, as Dan Stearns pointed out to me, there is a 9-note MOS of 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2, or 0-120-300-420-540-660-780-960-1080-1200, which is based on a chain of 11:15's and consistently (if imperfectly) approximates 11:13:15 (though I believe it can also be seen to approximate 11:14:16 about as well). I'd be interested to know if anyone has followed up on Wilson's suggestion and made any music based on an 11:13:15 tonality?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@> wrote:
> > Hi Gene. I figured you'd be one of the people most likely to take umbrage with my post, so let's talk. ...
> >
> > > [Gene:]
> > > It's an interesting concept. The results, in my opinion, not so much. I think higher limit >harmony WITH 2 and 3 is far more interesting, but then I write in systems like octoid >temperament, which most people feel involves too many notes.
> >
> > Like I said: right idea, maybe not the right scale. Erlich's triple-BP is much better, though I still don't find 3:5:7 a good basis for tonality. Even 11:13:15 works better.
>
> Hi Igs,
>
> Nice to see you back here.
>
> I thought that you might be interested to know that 11:13:15 was suggested by Erv Wilson as a possible basis for tonality more than 30 years ago. Details are in my message (A harmonically-based Pelogic temperament, posted 21 Jan 2004):
> /tuning/topicId_51743.html#52023
>
> Here's a Scala listing for the 11-tone MOS scale of the tuning that I constructed, following Erv's suggestion:
>
> ! pelog11i.scl
> !
> George Secor's isopelogic scale with ~537.84194 generator and just 13/11
> 11
> !
> 40.57749
> 164.89361
> 13/11
> 413.52583
> 537.84194
> 662.15806
> 702.73555
> 827.05166
> 951.36778
> 1075.68389
> 2/1
>
> Since you seem to prefer EDO's, you should also note my observation that this is rather close to a subset of 29-equal.
>
> Since I believe that there are many "better" options on which to base tonality (just my personal opinion; I have neither the time nor desire to argue the matter), I have never written any music using this tuning. Thus it has remained only a curious footnote in my journey through the world of alternative tunings and microtonality. (To put this into perspective, I should also mention that the minimax tuning of the Miracle temperament was another option that I chose not to pursue in the 1970's.)
>
> It is good that our paths have crossed at this point, and since I have greatly enjoyed listening to your music, I would be interested to know whether you have written any music based on triads of 11:13:15 (and if so, in what tuning).
>
> In closing, may I offer a word to those who are seeking the "best" scale or tuning: it's all a matter of your requirements and priorities regarding intonation, harmonic limit, modulation, transposability, complexity, versatility, and other trade-offs. My personal conclusion is that neither JI, nor EDO's, nor regular rank 2 temperaments fulfill my requirements nearly as well as a few irregular temperaments that I have devised (in which the intonation varies according to the key). But it's all a personal decision. If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your point is to write some music.
>
> --George
>

11/8 has to be one of my favorite odd/"non-common-practice" intervals. Ptolemy's Homalon scale system and virtually all of my new scales use it and so (I believe) as a very close interval in 11TET...in which one of my favorite micro-tonal pieces ever, Sethares' "Blue Dabo Girl" is composed.

BTW I'm not good with the ?"vector"? notation used....how do you translate
> 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
into actual cent or fractional values?

________________________________
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, April 16, 2010 3:11:52 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament
>
> 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
>
> or if you wanna get a 7 in,
>
> 2.5.7.11.13 <37 86 104 128 137]
>
> At least, I think those both point to the same rank 2
> temperament.

They have to point to some rank 2 temperament, and in fact point to one with an ~11/8 generator, great for 11 fans.

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

> BTW I'm not good with the ?"vector"? notation used....how do you translate
> > 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
> into actual cent or fractional values?

*It isn't giving cents, but a mapping. If you assume pure octaves, a single step will be 1200/87 cents, and then the mapping tells you that 5 is mapped to 202 * 1200/87 cents and so forth. But the step size can be anything sufficiently close to 1200/87 cents.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:

>My personal conclusion is that neither JI, nor EDO's, nor regular rank 2 temperaments fulfill my requirements nearly as well as a few irregular temperaments that I have devised (in which the intonation varies according to the key). But it's all a personal decision. If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your point is to write some music.
>
> I've had great fun tuning things to irregular circulating temperaments, but I can't wrap my head around composing in one, because of the way that I work. I need a regular structure; it's how I think about chord relationships.

What would be the irregular temperament with more than 12 notes to an octave you would most like to see a maniac like me attempt to compose in?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
> >(To put this into perspective, I should also mention that the >minimax tuning of the Miracle temperament was another option that I >chose not to pursue in the 1970's.)
>
> Which remains awesome, even so. I keep wanting to come back to it, which got in the way of y project to keep exploring new regular temperaments. Now that I need to knock the rust off, maybe...
>
> > In closing, may I offer a word to those who are seeking the "best" scale or tuning: it's all a matter of your requirements and priorities regarding intonation, harmonic limit, modulation, transposability, complexity, versatility, and other trade-offs. My personal conclusion is that neither JI, nor EDO's, nor regular rank 2 temperaments fulfill my requirements nearly as well as a few irregular temperaments that I have devised (in which the intonation varies according to the key). But it's all a personal decision. If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your point is to write some music.
>
> I've had great fun tuning things to irregular circulating temperaments, but I can't wrap my head around composing in one, because of the way that I work. I need a regular structure; it's how I think about chord relationships.

I didn't intend to imply that you couldn't evaluate one temperament vs. another, for example, and offer an opinion as to which one is better at approximating simple rational intervals, without composing music for each one (although a listening test would be helpful).

I was intending to address universal statements such as: X-tuning is the BEST tuning (by implication, better than any other) or just intonation is the best intonation (to which I respond that a microtemperament can be better in certain instances)!

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament
> >
> > 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
>
> That is, if you want octaves. If you're willing to go nonoctave
> you can't beat
>
> 5.11.13.17 <96 143 153 169]
>
> which is nonetheless something you can have in 41-ET.
>
> George Secor wrote:
> > I thought that you might be interested to know that 11:13:15
> > was suggested by Erv Wilson as a possible basis for tonality
> > more than 30 years ago. Details are in my message (A
> > harmonically-based Pelogic temperament, posted 21 Jan 2004):
> > /tuning/topicId_51743.html#52023
>
> According to me, 11:13:15 is best served by <201 215 227],
> which you can get in 58-ET.
>
> -Carl

Take a closer look, and you'll see that 11:13:15 in 29-ET and 58-ET are exactly the same, hence the result will sound exactly alike. Since 29 is less complex than 58, it is better.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:

> > According to me, 11:13:15 is best served by <201 215 227],
> > which you can get in 58-ET.
> > -Carl
>
> Take a closer look, and you'll see that 11:13:15 in 29-ET and
> 58-ET are exactly the same, hence the result will sound exactly
> alike. Since 29 is less complex than 58, it is better.

Not quite. Note that the numbers in the val I gave aren't
divisible by 2. -Carl

Gene wrote:

> > For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament
> >
> > 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
> >
> > or if you wanna get a 7 in,
> >
> > 2.5.7.11.13 <37 86 104 128 137]
> >
> > At least, I think those both point to the same rank 2
> > temperament.
>
> They have to point to some rank 2 temperament,

Two vals normally do, but definition. But these don't sit in
the same space... how does that work?

-Carl

You'll also have the 11-note MOS scale in 20-EDO. One concern I would have about 20-EDO is that the 13 in 11:13:15 is off by 8 to 11 cents, causing the difference tones to diverge somewhat. It's the coincidence of the first-order difference tones that gives a near-just 11:13:15 triad its consonant quality. (I expect that I'm going to hear some contrary opinions regarding this, but I'm not going to argue about the acoustical or physiological reasons for this -- just give it a listen in these tunings, and if you have another explanation, then okay.)

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Hi George, thanks for joining in the discussion! You always have something helpful to add. As to 11:13:15, I intend to explore it more in-depth in the coming months, once I have a 20-EDO guitar at my disposal. In 20, as Dan Stearns pointed out to me, there is a 9-note MOS of 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2, or 0-120-300-420-540-660-780-960-1080-1200, which is based on a chain of 11:15's and consistently (if imperfectly) approximates 11:13:15 (though I believe it can also be seen to approximate 11:14:16 about as well). I'd be interested to know if anyone has followed up on Wilson's suggestion and made any music based on an 11:13:15 tonality?
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@> wrote:
> > > Hi Gene. I figured you'd be one of the people most likely to take umbrage with my post, so let's talk. ...
> > >
> > > > [Gene:]
> > > > It's an interesting concept. The results, in my opinion, not so much. I think higher limit >harmony WITH 2 and 3 is far more interesting, but then I write in systems like octoid >temperament, which most people feel involves too many notes.
> > >
> > > Like I said: right idea, maybe not the right scale. Erlich's triple-BP is much better, though I still don't find 3:5:7 a good basis for tonality. Even 11:13:15 works better.
> >
> > Hi Igs,
> >
> > Nice to see you back here.
> >
> > I thought that you might be interested to know that 11:13:15 was suggested by Erv Wilson as a possible basis for tonality more than 30 years ago. Details are in my message (A harmonically-based Pelogic temperament, posted 21 Jan 2004):
> > /tuning/topicId_51743.html#52023
> >
> > Here's a Scala listing for the 11-tone MOS scale of the tuning that I constructed, following Erv's suggestion:
> >
> > ! pelog11i.scl
> > !
> > George Secor's isopelogic scale with ~537.84194 generator and just 13/11
> > 11
> > !
> > 40.57749
> > 164.89361
> > 13/11
> > 413.52583
> > 537.84194
> > 662.15806
> > 702.73555
> > 827.05166
> > 951.36778
> > 1075.68389
> > 2/1
> >
> > Since you seem to prefer EDO's, you should also note my observation that this is rather close to a subset of 29-equal.
> >
> > Since I believe that there are many "better" options on which to base tonality (just my personal opinion; I have neither the time nor desire to argue the matter), I have never written any music using this tuning. Thus it has remained only a curious footnote in my journey through the world of alternative tunings and microtonality. (To put this into perspective, I should also mention that the minimax tuning of the Miracle temperament was another option that I chose not to pursue in the 1970's.)
> >
> > It is good that our paths have crossed at this point, and since I have greatly enjoyed listening to your music, I would be interested to know whether you have written any music based on triads of 11:13:15 (and if so, in what tuning).
> >
> > In closing, may I offer a word to those who are seeking the "best" scale or tuning: it's all a matter of your requirements and priorities regarding intonation, harmonic limit, modulation, transposability, complexity, versatility, and other trade-offs. My personal conclusion is that neither JI, nor EDO's, nor regular rank 2 temperaments fulfill my requirements nearly as well as a few irregular temperaments that I have devised (in which the intonation varies according to the key). But it's all a personal decision. If you must argue the matter, then the very best way to prove your point is to write some music.
> >
> > --George
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> > They have to point to some rank 2 temperament,
>
> Two vals normally do, but definition. But these don't sit in
> the same space... how does that work?

I was ignoring the 7, as it wasn't in both.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> For tunings with no 3:2, it's hard to beat Petr's temperament
>
> 2.5.11.13 <87 202 301 322]
>
> or if you wanna get a 7 in,
>
> 2.5.7.11.13 <37 86 104 128 137]
>
> At least, I think those both point to the same rank 2
> temperament.

If you want to extend to a complete linear temperament, 224&311 works:

<<27 8 -67 -1 5 ...

All the study of tuning and microtonality has really just made me appreciate
the interesting qualities of 12EDO. In addition to the obvious endless
modulation and small cardinality for an recognizable 5-limit harmony, I like
how quartal/quintal harmony in 12EDO blends so seamlessly with 5-limit
triadic harmony. In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this
harmonic style harder to use and less seamless, and to my ear I like a
favoring of the 3 limit over the 5 limit because their more accurate tuning
puts them on a more even level with the more familiar 5-limit triadic
harmonies. There is also, of course, the many possibilities presented by the
even divisibility of 12 into 2, 3, 4, and 6.

The problem really is that it is taken as an exclusive standard, whereas
it's certainly not the only pitch resource worth using. I think there's
truth to the idea that 12EDO more-or-less exhausted for new harmonic
language, although I certainly think truly original music can be written in
it. I also think that it would improve musicianship if JI or maybe extended
meantone was understood in the context of ensemble playing with flexible or
continuous pitched instruments.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> >"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is awesome).
> But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this list.
> Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great tuning."
>
> Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
> 1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"...each interval stays constant
> in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
> 2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of
> perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained ear.
> In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure than
> 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
> 3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a very
> balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as purity of
> a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for many if
> not most.
> 4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and play
> --------all in all it's very good for most common practice music...but not
> beyond.
> *******************************************
> .....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
> 1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with common-practice
> intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
> 2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and
> non-tuning-related issues used for composition). True, you can get some
> extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave as the
> repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals after
> these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
> 3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11,13/12
> are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to approach
> the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET has a
> dissonant and often harmonically/chord-wise hard to use half-step around
> 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
> 4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in
> #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there are so
> many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords possible it
> forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of, say, just
> a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding anywhere
> from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many years
> to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the 12TET
> system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many parts of
> it to sound confident and "in key".
> 5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an advantage
> when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument even in
> real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or many wind
> instruments...and get an infinite number of perfect extra transpositions
> instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight through
> the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there seems much
> less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.
>
> __,_._,__
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
>
> > > According to me, 11:13:15 is best served by <201 215 227],
> > > which you can get in 58-ET.
> > > -Carl
> >
> > Take a closer look, and you'll see that 11:13:15 in 29-ET and
> > 58-ET are exactly the same, hence the result will sound exactly
> > alike. Since 29 is less complex than 58, it is better.
>
> Not quite. Note that the numbers in the val I gave aren't
> divisible by 2. -Carl

That's irrelevant.

If you view the approximated 11:13:15 triad as consisting of 1/1, ~13/11, & ~15/11 and calculate the number of cents for ~13/11 and ~15/11 in each EDO, you'll find that they're exactly the same.

--George

There are special ratios such as 13/11 and 15/11 whose relative
frequencies have a repetitive numerical pattern:

12/11
1.090909090909091

13/11
1.181818181818182

15/11
1.363636363636364

Can a list of these relevant to scale construction be made?

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Apr 17, 2010, at 1:00 AM, gdsecor wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
>>
>>>> According to me, 11:13:15 is best served by <201 215 227],
>>>> which you can get in 58-ET.
>>>> -Carl
>>>
>>> Take a closer look, and you'll see that 11:13:15 in 29-ET and
>>> 58-ET are exactly the same, hence the result will sound exactly
>>> alike. Since 29 is less complex than 58, it is better.
>>
>> Not quite. Note that the numbers in the val I gave aren't
>> divisible by 2. -Carl
>
> That's irrelevant.
>
> If you view the approximated 11:13:15 triad as consisting of 1/1,
> ~13/11, & ~15/11 and calculate the number of cents for ~13/11 and
> ~15/11 in each EDO, you'll find that they're exactly the same.
>
> --George
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On 16 April 2010 20:47, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Are you saying that you like 1/4 comma meantone "conceptually," and
> that 31-tet is a great implementation of that? They're so close that I
> can't tell them apart, and if I found some subtle way to tell them
> apart I probably wouldn't care too much :)

Ah, but there's one crucial difference. If you take 1/4 comma
meantone out to 31 steps, you get a "wolf" fifth of 702.6 cents, which
is almost identical to JI. We all know that 3:2 is the most important
interval within the octave, and the the biggest defect of 31-tet is
its poor approximation of that interval. Well, tune to 1/4 comma
meantone and one of the fifths is as good as they come!

I haven't checked the whole thread, but I'm sure everybody will agree
with me here. ;-)

Graham

On 17 April 2010 02:00, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Take a closer look, and you'll see that 11:13:15 in 29-ET and
>> > 58-ET are exactly the same, hence the result will sound exactly
>> > alike.  Since 29 is less complex than 58, it is better.
>>
>> Not quite.  Note that the numbers in the val I gave aren't
>> divisible by 2.  -Carl
>
> That's irrelevant.

Well, it should be relevant, because the val gives the mapping into
equally tempered steps. If an interval maps to an odd number of
steps, you can't divide it by two.

So what's happening here is that <201 215 227] contains *only* odd
numbers. The interval between any pair of these harmonics is an even
number of steps, and so the chord belongs in 29-ET but the phantom 1:1
doesn't. Think of it as <201 201 201] + <0 14 26]. The laws of
arithmetic are restored and we can all sleep soundly at our desks.

The same thing's true in mystery temperament. Primes 2 and 3 belong
on the "home" 29-ET scale. Higher primes up to 13 belong on the
"away" scale. So 11:13:15 is all "away" and tuned to 29-ET.

Graham

On 17 April 2010 06:34, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> There are special ratios such as 13/11 and 15/11 whose relative
> frequencies have a repetitive numerical pattern:

> Can a list of these relevant to scale construction be made?

The patterns are artifacts of the decimal system, and I don't believe
any of them are relevant to scale construction.

Graham

Would artifacts resulting from taking into account the binary system
be considered as relevant to scale construction in retrospect?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Graham Breed wrote:

> On 17 April 2010 06:34, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> wrote:
>> There are special ratios such as 13/11 and 15/11 whose relative
>> frequencies have a repetitive numerical pattern:
>
>> Can a list of these relevant to scale construction be made?
>
> The patterns are artifacts of the decimal system, and I don't believe
> any of them are relevant to scale construction.
>
>
> Graham
>

On 17 April 2010 09:06, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> Would artifacts resulting from taking into account the binary system
> be considered as relevant to scale construction in retrospect?

I suppose it has the advantage that all odd primes give a recurring
fraction. Decimals are deceptive because ratios like 7/5 come out
exact. The length of the repeating part in binary would also, I
guess, be related to the complexity of the interval. But there are
more direct ways of measuring these things.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > > >I assume that you aren't saying that Quarter-comma
> > > > meantone is superior to 31-tet (but that what it seems like).
> > >
> > > Oh but I am saying that. Quarter-comma meantone is gorgeous. And it circulates at 31 in "real life". 31 is nice of course too, it's just not as sweet as 31 tones of 1/4-comma.
> >
> > Uh, can you hear the difference? :)
>
> You gotta love this group. One guy says the difference between 12 >and 31 is trivial, and another says the gap between 31 and 1/4 comma >is huge.
>

Someone said there's a big difference between 31 adn 1/4 comma? Wow- someone with actual understanding! :-P

One is a big pile of intervals on a grid, the other is a modality. Yes, there is a very big difference. Another example is 26. If you're looking for a big pile of good 5-limit approximations, it's a disaster. But it works splendidly as a 1/5 comma meantone (where the comma is the tridecimal major diesis!).

Why aren't temperament systems like Miracle widely known and used in spite of their excellent properties?

Because there is a big difference between a set of intervals and a modality. Miracle requires specific modalities.

If you would listen to people who know what they're talking about instead of scoffing at them, you'd have a better chance of getting your temperaments implemented in practice.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
>
> You'll also have the 11-note MOS scale in 20-EDO. One concern I >would have about 20-EDO is that the 13 in 11:13:15 is off by 8 to 11 >cents, causing the difference tones to diverge somewhat. It's the >coincidence of the first-order difference tones that gives a near-just >11:13:15 triad its consonant quality. (I expect that I'm going to >hear some contrary opinions regarding this, but I'm not going to argue >about the acoustical or physiological reasons for this -- just give it >a listen in these tunings, and if you have another explanation, then >okay.)
>
> --George

The validity of the idea that differential coherence can establish a kind of "consonance" is easily demonstrated as viable, and has been done so for years. (Dudon, Grady. And Burt I believe...)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> I suppose it has the advantage that all odd primes give a recurring
> fraction. Decimals are deceptive because ratios like 7/5 come out
> exact. The length of the repeating part in binary would also, I
> guess, be related to the complexity of the interval. But there are
> more direct ways of measuring these things.

Not really. The length of the repeating part of 32/31 is just five; there are lots of simpler intervals which look much more complex in base two.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> If you would listen to people who know what they're talking about instead of scoffing at them, you'd have a better chance of getting your temperaments implemented in practice.

If you could explain how one of 31 and 1/4 comma meantone is a mere big pile of intervals and the other is a modality, and the difference is something cosmicaly vast, when as Graham just got done pointing out 1/4 comma meantone circulates at 31 just fine, with a "wolf" which is all of 0.692 cents sharp, you would have less chance of having your remarks dismissed as incoherent rubbish from a mathematical ignoramus. And no, I don't have trouble getting temperaments implemented in practice, as I am happy do it myself. If I waited for someone with his head stuck in his copy of Piston to pull it out and take a shot at composing in a microtemperament, I would probably wait forever.

Still waiting for those exploding heads.

Well it's no imposter, the real Gene is back!

First of all, I'm the one who said that 1/4 comma circulates at 31, prior to Graham's post, and some weeks ago when telling Marcel he should use meantone note names, some months ago when disussing the Fokker organ with musicians in the audience at one of my shows... anyone can figure out that I'm speaking conceptually, Mike did immediately.

Anyway: are you seriously going to tell me that miracle temperament is the same thing as 72-et? That schismatic, hanson, and orwell temperaments are all just 53-et?

No, these are all modalities. This in fact is a fundamental understanding that must be, and be pointed out, in order not to have your entire body of work dismissed by the entirely commonsense question of hey, why use this huge pile of approximations instead of the actual ratios I want, after all it's a huge pile either way!

Cut the ad hominem crap via ludicrous sophistries with me, there's no way you're composing in microtempaments without understanding this. And, I'm showing you how you better explain what you do: explaining for example miracle as an efficient modality of 72 is an excellent introduction, without resorting to local jargon or invoking eye-glaze with "wedgies" and such.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > If you would listen to people who know what they're talking about instead of scoffing at them, you'd have a better chance of getting your temperaments implemented in practice.
>
> If you could explain how one of 31 and 1/4 comma meantone is a mere big pile of intervals and the other is a modality, and the difference is something cosmicaly vast, when as Graham just got done pointing out 1/4 comma meantone circulates at 31 just fine, with a "wolf" which is all of 0.692 cents sharp, you would have less chance of having your remarks dismissed as incoherent rubbish from a mathematical ignoramus. And no, I don't have trouble getting temperaments implemented in practice, as I am happy do it myself. If I waited for someone with his head stuck in his copy of Piston to pull it out and take a shot at composing in a microtemperament, I would probably wait forever.
>
> Still waiting for those exploding heads.
>

Ozan>"There are special ratios such as 13/11 and 15/11 whose relative
frequencies have a repetitive numerical pattern:"
There are many many of those rational fractional.
For example
15/11 = 1.3636363
16/11 = 1.4545454
35/22 = 1.5909090 (actually almost any x/11 or x/22 fraction does this)
4/3 = 1.33333333
10/9 = 1.111111111
13/9 = 1.44444444 (almost any x/3 or x/9 fraction)

This is true with many many fractions (not even sure if there's a constant pattern to determine which fractions work vs. don't), in fact, even
3124/2145 = 1.45641025641025...
...with the 641025 repeating

Perhaps more surprising is that if you take
10/9 * 10/9 = 100/81 approximately = 10/8 = 5/4 and more closely = 16/13 (also fairly low-limit)
11/10 * 11/10 = 121/100. approximately = 12/10 = 6/5 and more closely = 23/19
11/9 * 11/9 = 121/81 approximately = 12/8 = 3/2

So you can take about
10/9 * 10/9 * 11/10 * 11/10 = 1.493827
.............and thus arrive at about 1.5 via squared super-particular fractions

_,_._,___

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Well it's no imposter, the real Gene is back!

Did you indulge in an unprovoked personal attack as a means of testing that hypothesis?

> First of all, I'm the one who said that 1/4 comma circulates at 31, prior to Graham's post, and some weeks ago when telling Marcel he should use meantone note names, some months ago when disussing the Fokker organ with musicians in the audience at one of my shows... anyone can figure out that I'm speaking conceptually, Mike did immediately.

I guessed that was what you might mean, but you were so incoherent it was hard to tell.

> Anyway: are you seriously going to tell me that miracle temperament is the same thing as 72-et? That schismatic, hanson, and orwell temperaments are all just 53-et?

Excuse me, but you were roasting me for ignorance on this topic. It so happens that I am the one here with a lot of experience in microtempering using very large scales, and I can tell you two things: you can use the structue of the temperament as a guidepost
to organizing harmonic relations, but the scale itself will not magically induce a sense of tonality. If you want a tonic, you have to work it, and even so it will be hard because there are so damned many chords. Meantone[7] helps define tonality by its very structure. This is less true of Meantone[12], and as for Meantone[31], the quantity of harmonic relationships and the sheer size of the scale are so large that your apparent expectation that some kind of audible order or tonal sense will fall magically out of the sky because it isn't an alleged mere collection of notes, but has a linear MOS structure is sheer delusion.

> No, these are all modalities.

This is based on experience? I havrn't heard any music with giganto scales in microtemperaments other than mine, and I'd really like to.

>This in fact is a fundamental understanding that must be, and be pointed out, in order not to have your entire body of work dismissed by the entirely commonsense question of hey, why use this huge pile of approximations instead of the actual ratios I want, after all it's a huge pile either way!

You've wandered away from the claim that there is some cosmic difference between 31 notes of 1/4 comma meantone and 31 notes of equal temperament. Either one can b sorted out by relationships of a fifth. Neither gives just intonation.

> Cut the ad hominem crap via ludicrous sophistries with me, there's no way you're composing in microtempaments without understanding
this.

Of course I understand how it works, which is why your unprovoked ad hominem attack made zero sense. I DO have experience in this area, Buster.

On 17 April 2010 19:35, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> No, these are all modalities. This in fact is a fundamental understanding
> that must be, and be pointed out, in order not to have your entire
> body of work dismissed by the entirely commonsense question of
> hey, why use this huge pile of approximations instead of the
> actual ratios I want, after all it's a huge pile either way!

What's a modality?

> Cut the ad hominem crap via ludicrous sophistries with me, there's
> no way you're composing in microtempaments without understanding
> this. And, I'm showing you how you better explain what you do:
> explaining for example miracle as an efficient modality of 72 is an
> excellent introduction, without resorting to local jargon or invoking
> eye-glaze with "wedgies" and such.

If it's such a good way of explaining things, why can't those of us
who already understand the subject understand what you're saying about
it? Anyway, my introduction to miracle is here:

http://x31eq.com/miracle.htm

You can explain how replacing local jargon with "efficient modalities"
would make it easier to understand if you like.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Well it's no imposter, the real Gene is back!
>
> Did you indulge in an unprovoked personal attack as a means of >testing that hypothesis?

Certainly not. Perhaps you've been working too much in Orwell temperament, you're engaging in Doublespeak. But black isn't white, and if any unprovoked personal attacks were made, they certainly weren't by me.

>
> Excuse me, but you were roasting me for ignorance on this topic.

No I most certainly was not. You were engaging in a personal attack,
mockery by using a ludicrous strawman interpretation of something I said. I was suprised by this, because I assumed my meaning would be clear to anyone who is NOT ignorant of the topic.

>It so happens that I am the one here with a lot of experience in >microtempering using very large scales, and I can tell you two >things: you can use the structue of the temperament as a guidepost
> to organizing harmonic relations, but the scale itself will not >magically induce a sense of tonality.

Obviously.

>If you want a tonic, you have to work it, and even so it will be >hard because there are so damned many chords. Meantone[7] helps d>efine tonality by its very structure. This is less true of >Meantone[12], and as for Meantone[31], the quantity of harmonic >relationships and the sheer size of the scale are so large that your >apparent expectation that some kind of audible order or tonal sense >will fall magically out of the sky because it isn't an alleged mere >collection of notes, but has a linear MOS structure is sheer >delusion.

That absurd idea is not my "apparent expectation" at all. If you were wise, you'd read what I write. Then you'd know that I have more than once pointed out that even the common practice scheme of rooted triads doesn't "magically induce a sense of tonality".

>
> > No, these are all modalities.
>
> This is based on experience?

Of course.

>I havrn't heard any music with giganto >scales in microtemperaments >other than mine, and I'd really like to.

You don't need a huge microtemperament to experience this. As soon as there are too many notes for fingers, so to speak, you're faced with either a big pile of intervals, or creating a structure that brings the whole thing back under the fingers (so to speak).

>
> >This in fact is a fundamental understanding that must be, and be >pointed out, in order not to have your entire body of work dismissed >by the entirely commonsense question of hey, why use this huge pile >of approximations instead of the actual ratios I want, after all >it's a huge pile either way!
>

> You've wandered away from the claim that there is some cosmic >difference between 31 notes of 1/4 comma meantone and 31 notes of >equal temperament. Either one can b sorted out by relationships of a >fifth. Neither gives just intonation.

Wrong. When you sort by relationships of whatever interval, you no longer just have 31, or however many, intervals. You've established a structure.

And by the way 1/4 comma meantone is not really based on a fifth, but on the fourth root of 5. It can actually be considered a kind of JI, and is mentioned as such in some texts, in MGG for example if I recall correctly. This is easily demonstrated: how would you tune twelve tones of 1/4 comma on a stringed instrument?

-Cameron Bobro

> No I most certainly was not. You were engaging in a personal attack,
> mockery by using a ludicrous strawman interpretation of something I said. I was suprised by this, because I assumed my meaning would be clear to anyone who is NOT ignorant of the topic.

I was pretty confused too :)

> And by the way 1/4 comma meantone is not really based on a fifth, but on the fourth root of 5. It can actually be considered a kind of JI, and is mentioned as such in some texts, in MGG for example if I recall correctly. This is easily demonstrated: how would you tune twelve tones of 1/4 comma on a stringed instrument?

OK so, by that same logic, so is 31-et.

> -Cameron Bobro
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

>
> OK so, by that same logic, so is 31-et.

Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31 is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of-5, mod2. Perhaps everything would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much better term in this case.

> Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31 is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of-5, mod2. Perhaps everything would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much better term in this case.

31-et is the 21st root of 2, so by your definition it would be like
"2-limit" JI or something.

-Mike

>
>

Nicely put Cody,

I'd just like to add that other cultures besides the west have their set tunings and ways of doing things which are treated by ethnomusiclologists with the utmost respect. My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?). IOW rediscovering history.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cody Hallenbeck <codyhallenbeck@...> wrote:
>
> All the study of tuning and microtonality has really just made me appreciate
> the interesting qualities of 12EDO. In addition to the obvious endless
> modulation and small cardinality for an recognizable 5-limit harmony, I like
> how quartal/quintal harmony in 12EDO blends so seamlessly with 5-limit
> triadic harmony. In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this
> harmonic style harder to use and less seamless, and to my ear I like a
> favoring of the 3 limit over the 5 limit because their more accurate tuning
> puts them on a more even level with the more familiar 5-limit triadic
> harmonies. There is also, of course, the many possibilities presented by the
> even divisibility of 12 into 2, 3, 4, and 6.
>
> The problem really is that it is taken as an exclusive standard, whereas
> it's certainly not the only pitch resource worth using. I think there's
> truth to the idea that 12EDO more-or-less exhausted for new harmonic
> language, although I certainly think truly original music can be written in
> it. I also think that it would improve musicianship if JI or maybe extended
> meantone was understood in the context of ensemble playing with flexible or
> continuous pitched instruments.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is awesome).
> > But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this list.
> > Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> > question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great tuning."
> >
> > Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
> > 1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"...each interval stays constant
> > in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
> > 2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of
> > perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained ear.
> > In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure than
> > 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
> > 3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a very
> > balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as purity of
> > a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for many if
> > not most.
> > 4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and play
> > --------all in all it's very good for most common practice music...but not
> > beyond.
> > *******************************************
> > .....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
> > 1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with common-practice
> > intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
> > 2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and
> > non-tuning-related issues used for composition). True, you can get some
> > extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave as the
> > repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals after
> > these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
> > 3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11,13/12
> > are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to approach
> > the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET has a
> > dissonant and often harmonically/chord-wise hard to use half-step around
> > 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
> > 4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in
> > #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there are so
> > many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords possible it
> > forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of, say, just
> > a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding anywhere
> > from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many years
> > to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the 12TET
> > system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many parts of
> > it to sound confident and "in key".
> > 5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an advantage
> > when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument even in
> > real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or many wind
> > instruments...and get an infinite number of perfect extra transpositions
> > instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight through
> > the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there seems much
> > less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.
> >
> > __,_._,__
> >
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 17 April 2010 19:35, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> > No, these are all modalities. This in fact is a fundamental understanding
> > that must be, and be pointed out, in order not to have your entire
> > body of work dismissed by the entirely commonsense question of
> > hey, why use this huge pile of approximations instead of the
> > actual ratios I want, after all it's a huge pile either way!
>
> What's a modality?

Look it up and figure it out.
>
> > Cut the ad hominem crap via ludicrous sophistries with me, there's
> > no way you're composing in microtempaments without understanding
> > this. And, I'm showing you how you better explain what you do:
> > explaining for example miracle as an efficient modality of 72 is >an
> > excellent introduction, without resorting to local jargon or >invoking
> > eye-glaze with "wedgies" and such.
>
> If it's such a good way of explaining things, why can't those of us
> who already understand the subject understand what you're saying >about
> it?

Beats me- apparently you don't take the usual objection to the regular temperament seriously. The objection was my first reaction, and I find that it is the normal reaction of practicing musicians out here in the physical world. So I wasn't surprised to find it spelled out by Kyle Gann:

http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html

(see reason 1 and the penultimate paragraph)

>Anyway, my introduction to miracle is here:
>
> http://x31eq.com/miracle.htm
>
> You can explain how replacing local jargon with "efficient >modalities"
> would make it easier to understand if you like.

Yes I've read your introduction, it is very good. But it doesn't explain what I'm talking about, and as far as I know the tuning group has never explained that the regular temperaments function as efficient modalities of large equal divisions of the octave. For example, when you say:

"31, 41 and 72 note equal temperaments are all part of the Miracle family."

Well, normal people so to speak (that's jokingly said but you know what I mean) are going to see 31 as something that is usually implemented as meantone, 41 as something usually implemented as tetrachords on a grid, and 72 as something that is implemented via the modalities of Sims, moria, or superduperserialism (or whatever it's called). Those are all modalities.

If you explain that regular temperaments function as efficient modalities of numerous large equal divisions, the objection of "too many notes" suddenly loses ground.

"Miracle temperament functions as an efficient modality of 31, 41 and 72 note equal temperaments. It can be applied to these equal divisions as a relatively small subset or extended, maintaining its structure and regular mapping throughout".

The tempering out of commas also implies modalities, by the way. A random walk through the pitches wouldn't really temper out anything except on paper.

Now is anybody going to have the common decency to concede that what I'm saying is thoughtful, sensible, and informed, rather than finding yet more sophistries in order to sneer and scoff? History tells us no. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

Nope. There is more than a single modality for any equal division (or any other non-trivial collection of pitches, afaik).

That's the main point. The "regular temperament paradigm" cannot function without this basic fact.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31 is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of-5, mod2. Perhaps everything would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much better term in this case.
>
> 31-et is the 21st root of 2, so by your definition it would be like
> "2-limit" JI or something.
>
> -Mike
>
> >
> >
>

On 18.04.2010, at 11:42, cameron wrote:
> > What's a modality?
>
> Look it up and figure it out.

????

Best wishes,
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

>"Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31
is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of-5, mod2. Perhaps everything
would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much
better term in this case."

Quick comment.

How come almost any thread here, over time, will turn into an argument comparing two historic tuning systems and/or songs and virtually never stay on any "futurist" tuning topic?

This thread (for those of you who saw it start) was originally about the idea of if there is a "best" scale or temperament based on John's work my own and others or, more realistically, what scales are best for what things. Scales meaning, from any time period, including ones being developed NOT just classic ones.

However, here we are talking about how a 1/4 comma approximation under 31TET is generated vs. 1/4 comma mean-tone...and virtually nothing even about their advantages/disadvantages as scales. And even people exchanging insults and border-line name calling. It's quite frustrating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not that I have anything against those who engage in such "how is x historic scale generated?" type discussions...but having your thread just stepped on and its topic demolished is just incredibly frustrating. Can't we ever have a thread that's not about "classic" tunings that manages to stay on topic?

----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 4:44:53 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.

31-et is the 21st root of 2, so by your definition it would be like
"2-limit" JI or something.

-Mike

>
>

------------------------------------

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
Yahoo! Groups Links

We're not discussing historic tuning systems, but fundamental concepts. Over at the .ning I've got chromatic pieces in 14-root-of-7/4, 18 unequal geometrical divisions of Pi, and 23-edo. What I'm saying here directly applies to these things as well.

BUT- should have changed the thread title, my apologies!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31
> is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of-5, mod2. Perhaps everything
> would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much
> better term in this case."
>
> Quick comment.
>
> How come almost any thread here, over time, will turn into an argument comparing two historic tuning systems and/or songs and virtually never stay on any "futurist" tuning topic?
>
> This thread (for those of you who saw it start) was originally about the idea of if there is a "best" scale or temperament based on John's work my own and others or, more realistically, what scales are best for what things. Scales meaning, from any time period, including ones being developed NOT just classic ones.
>
> However, here we are talking about how a 1/4 comma approximation under 31TET is generated vs. 1/4 comma mean-tone...and virtually nothing even about their advantages/disadvantages as scales. And even people exchanging insults and border-line name calling. It's quite frustrating.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not that I have anything against those who engage in such "how is x historic scale generated?" type discussions...but having your thread just stepped on and its topic demolished is just incredibly frustrating. Can't we ever have a thread that's not about "classic" tunings that manages to stay on topic?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 4:44:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.
>
>
> 31-et is the 21st root of 2, so by your definition it would be like
> "2-limit" JI or something.
>
> -Mike
>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

>"In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this harmonic style harder to use and less seamless"
Agreed...actually most of my new scales near TET tunings (IE 7TET) for this reason. At least in my case, I start with approaching scales TET in terms of JI and then try my best temper out the remaining commas...until the error is within about 10 cents IE virtually unnoticable.

>"My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is
'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma
problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW
rediscovering history."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET at all. I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the amusing less-commonly-used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords utilizing semi-tones like C E F A or C E F B.
But, at the same time, I think other scales, specifically those using carefully calculated temperament around JI and not "strict JI", can reap a majority of 12TET's benefits and allow flexibility/options that are impossible in 12TET. Plus it can help us get away from the fact a huge majority of the possible tricks in 12TET have been discovered throughout history and making truly fresh/original sounding songs in it is becoming increasingly hard to do...IMVHO this is why so much of new music is based on tricks in phrasing, arrangement, effects...and not actual new melodies and chords, just things like adjusting the phrasing/effects of/over existing ones.

________________________________
From: rick <rick_ballan@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 5:36:59 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Love vs. Hate of 12TET

Nicely put Cody,

I'd just like to add that other cultures besides the west have their set tunings and ways of doing things which are treated by ethnomusiclologists with the utmost respect. My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW rediscovering history.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cody Hallenbeck <codyhallenbeck@ ...> wrote:
>
> All the study of tuning and microtonality has really just made me appreciate
> the interesting qualities of 12EDO. In addition to the obvious endless
> modulation and small cardinality for an recognizable 5-limit harmony, I like
> how quartal/quintal harmony in 12EDO blends so seamlessly with 5-limit
> triadic harmony. In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this
> harmonic style harder to use and less seamless, and to my ear I like a
> favoring of the 3 limit over the 5 limit because their more accurate tuning
> puts them on a more even level with the more familiar 5-limit triadic
> harmonies. There is also, of course, the many possibilities presented by the
> even divisibility of 12 into 2, 3, 4, and 6.
>
> The problem really is that it is taken as an exclusive standard, whereas
> it's certainly not the only pitch resource worth using. I think there's
> truth to the idea that 12EDO more-or-less exhausted for new harmonic
> language, although I certainly think truly original music can be written in
> it. I also think that it would improve musicianship if JI or maybe extended
> meantone was understood in the context of ensemble playing with flexible or
> continuous pitched instruments.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is awesome).
> > But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this list.
> > Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> > question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great tuning."
> >
> > Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
> > 1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"... each interval stays constant
> > in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
> > 2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of
> > perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained ear.
> > In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure than
> > 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
> > 3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a very
> > balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as purity of
> > a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for many if
> > not most.
> > 4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and play
> > --------all in all it's very good for most common practice music...but not
> > beyond.
> > ************ ********* ********* ********* ****
> > .....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
> > 1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with common-practice
> > intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
> > 2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and
> > non-tuning-related issues used for composition) . True, you can get some
> > extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave as the
> > repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals after
> > these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
> > 3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11, 13/12
> > are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to approach
> > the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET has a
> > dissonant and often harmonically/ chord-wise hard to use half-step around
> > 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
> > 4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in
> > #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there are so
> > many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords possible it
> > forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of, say, just
> > a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding anywhere
> > from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many years
> > to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the 12TET
> > system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many parts of
> > it to sound confident and "in key".
> > 5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an advantage
> > when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument even in
> > real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or many wind
> > instruments. ..and get an infinite number of perfect extra transpositions
> > instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight through
> > the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there seems much
> > less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.
> >
> > __,_._,__
> >
> >
>

You don't "have" to navigate commas in JI. You can take wolves in stride, perfectly lovely if that's in the nature of the music, you can let commas shift (so what?), you can work over a drone or in a tetrachordal system with an extremely limited pythagorean frame but infinite variation therein (like maqam)... you can play in JI til the cows come home without worrying about commas.

Michael you complained about turning every conversation into one about historical tunings- do you realize that the assumption that JI is going to cause comma problems is in effect turning everything into a discussion about triadic circle-of-fifths music?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this harmonic style harder to use and less seamless"
> Agreed...actually most of my new scales near TET tunings (IE 7TET) for this reason. At least in my case, I start with approaching scales TET in terms of JI and then try my best temper out the remaining commas...until the error is within about 10 cents IE virtually unnoticable.
>
> >"My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is
> 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma
> problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW
> rediscovering history."
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET at all. I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the amusing less-commonly-used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords utilizing semi-tones like C E F A or C E F B.
> But, at the same time, I think other scales, specifically those using carefully calculated temperament around JI and not "strict JI", can reap a majority of 12TET's benefits and allow flexibility/options that are impossible in 12TET. Plus it can help us get away from the fact a huge majority of the possible tricks in 12TET have been discovered throughout history and making truly fresh/original sounding songs in it is becoming increasingly hard to do...IMVHO this is why so much of new music is based on tricks in phrasing, arrangement, effects...and not actual new melodies and chords, just things like adjusting the phrasing/effects of/over existing ones.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: rick <rick_ballan@...>
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 5:36:59 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Love vs. Hate of 12TET
>
>
> Nicely put Cody,
>
> I'd just like to add that other cultures besides the west have their set tunings and ways of doing things which are treated by ethnomusiclologists with the utmost respect. My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW rediscovering history.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cody Hallenbeck <codyhallenbeck@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > All the study of tuning and microtonality has really just made me appreciate
> > the interesting qualities of 12EDO. In addition to the obvious endless
> > modulation and small cardinality for an recognizable 5-limit harmony, I like
> > how quartal/quintal harmony in 12EDO blends so seamlessly with 5-limit
> > triadic harmony. In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this
> > harmonic style harder to use and less seamless, and to my ear I like a
> > favoring of the 3 limit over the 5 limit because their more accurate tuning
> > puts them on a more even level with the more familiar 5-limit triadic
> > harmonies. There is also, of course, the many possibilities presented by the
> > even divisibility of 12 into 2, 3, 4, and 6.
> >
> > The problem really is that it is taken as an exclusive standard, whereas
> > it's certainly not the only pitch resource worth using. I think there's
> > truth to the idea that 12EDO more-or-less exhausted for new harmonic
> > language, although I certainly think truly original music can be written in
> > it. I also think that it would improve musicianship if JI or maybe extended
> > meantone was understood in the context of ensemble playing with flexible or
> > continuous pitched instruments.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is awesome).
> > > But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this list.
> > > Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> > > question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great tuning."
> > >
> > > Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
> > > 1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"... each interval stays constant
> > > in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
> > > 2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of
> > > perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained ear.
> > > In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure than
> > > 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
> > > 3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a very
> > > balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as purity of
> > > a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for many if
> > > not most.
> > > 4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and play
> > > --------all in all it's very good for most common practice music...but not
> > > beyond.
> > > ************ ********* ********* ********* ****
> > > .....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
> > > 1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with common-practice
> > > intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
> > > 2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and
> > > non-tuning-related issues used for composition) . True, you can get some
> > > extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave as the
> > > repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals after
> > > these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
> > > 3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11, 13/12
> > > are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to approach
> > > the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET has a
> > > dissonant and often harmonically/ chord-wise hard to use half-step around
> > > 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
> > > 4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in
> > > #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there are so
> > > many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords possible it
> > > forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of, say, just
> > > a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding anywhere
> > > from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many years
> > > to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the 12TET
> > > system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many parts of
> > > it to sound confident and "in key".
> > > 5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an advantage
> > > when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument even in
> > > real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or many wind
> > > instruments. ..and get an infinite number of perfect extra transpositions
> > > instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight through
> > > the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there seems much
> > > less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.
> > >
> > > __,_._,__
> > >
> > >
> >
>

>"We're not discussing historic tuning systems, but fundamental concepts.
Over at the .ning I've got chromatic pieces in 14-root-of-7/ 4, 18
unequal geometrical divisions of Pi, and 23-edo. What I'm saying here
directly applies to these things as well."
Ah ok so, if I have it right, that would follow along the lines of "new scales generated by fundamental concepts". Although IMVHO any scale that takes a root of a number or just any number to the x and divided it by the octave ALA (0.5^x)/(2^y) (0.5 for mean-tone and I assume 1.0407 for your for your 14th root of 7/4 tuning)...is still historically based as you are basically plugging different parameters into historical functions.

>"BUT- should have changed the thread title, my apologies!"
Thanks. :-)

________________________________
From: cameron <misterbobro@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 7:26:10 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.

We're not discussing historic tuning systems, but fundamental concepts. Over at the .ning I've got chromatic pieces in 14-root-of-7/ 4, 18 unequal geometrical divisions of Pi, and 23-edo. What I'm saying here directly applies to these things as well.

BUT- should have changed the thread title, my apologies!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
>
> >"Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31
> is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of- 5, mod2. Perhaps everything
> would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much
> better term in this case."
>
> Quick comment.
>
> How come almost any thread here, over time, will turn into an argument comparing two historic tuning systems and/or songs and virtually never stay on any "futurist" tuning topic?
>
> This thread (for those of you who saw it start) was originally about the idea of if there is a "best" scale or temperament based on John's work my own and others or, more realistically, what scales are best for what things. Scales meaning, from any time period, including ones being developed NOT just classic ones.
>
> However, here we are talking about how a 1/4 comma approximation under 31TET is generated vs. 1/4 comma mean-tone... and virtually nothing even about their advantages/disadvan tages as scales. And even people exchanging insults and border-line name calling. It's quite frustrating.
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
>
> Not that I have anything against those who engage in such "how is x historic scale generated?" type discussions. ..but having your thread just stepped on and its topic demolished is just incredibly frustrating. Can't we ever have a thread that's not about "classic" tunings that manages to stay on topic?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ ...>
> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 4:44:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.
>
>
> 31-et is the 21st root of 2, so by your definition it would be like
> "2-limit" JI or something.
>
> -Mike
>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@ yahoogroups. com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@ yahoogroups. com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@ yahoogroups. com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@ yahoogroups. com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Well it's not about scales, but about tuning systems. And, simply dividing up a given interval into equal (logarithmic) sections without giving a hoot about generators or traditional approximations is not new, but it is hardly historical. Dividing using geometry is as old as the hills, IMO probably the very oldest conscious tuning scheme in the world.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"We're not discussing historic tuning systems, but fundamental concepts.
> Over at the .ning I've got chromatic pieces in 14-root-of-7/ 4, 18
> unequal geometrical divisions of Pi, and 23-edo. What I'm saying here
> directly applies to these things as well."
> Ah ok so, if I have it right, that would follow along the lines of "new scales generated by fundamental concepts". Although IMVHO any scale that takes a root of a number or just any number to the x and divided it by the octave ALA (0.5^x)/(2^y) (0.5 for mean-tone and I assume 1.0407 for your for your 14th root of 7/4 tuning)...is still historically based as you are basically plugging different parameters into historical functions.
>
> >"BUT- should have changed the thread title, my apologies!"
> Thanks. :-)
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: cameron <misterbobro@...>
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 7:26:10 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.
>
>
> We're not discussing historic tuning systems, but fundamental concepts. Over at the .ning I've got chromatic pieces in 14-root-of-7/ 4, 18 unequal geometrical divisions of Pi, and 23-edo. What I'm saying here directly applies to these things as well.
>
> BUT- should have changed the thread title, my apologies!
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > >"Nope, because then you've changed it into 1/4 comma meantone. 31
> > is not inherently a cycle of 4th-root-of- 5, mod2. Perhaps everything
> > would have been more immediately obvious if I'd said 31-edo, a much
> > better term in this case."
> >
> > Quick comment.
> >
> > How come almost any thread here, over time, will turn into an argument comparing two historic tuning systems and/or songs and virtually never stay on any "futurist" tuning topic?
> >
> > This thread (for those of you who saw it start) was originally about the idea of if there is a "best" scale or temperament based on John's work my own and others or, more realistically, what scales are best for what things. Scales meaning, from any time period, including ones being developed NOT just classic ones.
> >
> > However, here we are talking about how a 1/4 comma approximation under 31TET is generated vs. 1/4 comma mean-tone... and virtually nothing even about their advantages/disadvan tages as scales. And even people exchanging insults and border-line name calling. It's quite frustrating.
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> >
> > Not that I have anything against those who engage in such "how is x historic scale generated?" type discussions. ..but having your thread just stepped on and its topic demolished is just incredibly frustrating. Can't we ever have a thread that's not about "classic" tunings that manages to stay on topic?
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@ ...>
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 4:44:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The "best" scale.
> >
> >
> > 31-et is the 21st root of 2, so by your definition it would be like
> > "2-limit" JI or something.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> >
> > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> > tuning-subscribe@ yahoogroups. com - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com - leave the group.
> > tuning-nomail@ yahoogroups. com - turn off mail from the group.
> > tuning-digest@ yahoogroups. com - set group to send daily digests.
> > tuning-normal@ yahoogroups. com - set group to send individual emails.
> > tuning-help@ yahoogroups. com - receive general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

Cameron>"Michael you complained about turning every conversation into one about
historical tunings- do you realize that the assumption that JI is going
to cause comma problems is in effect turning everything into a
discussion about triadic circle-of-fifths music?"
I didn't bring up the idea of JI causing comma problems...and I only came in to counter that idea by trying to say "there are many ways to make commas less noticable in JI IF that's what you want to do".
My latest scale in JI form has a 10/9 interval followed by another one. That's 10/9*10/9 = 100/81 (the Syntonic Comma), but I round it the 10/9 * 10/9 to 16/13 (the comma does not pop up in a triad). Plus, as you seem to have said, comma shifts aren't always that notice-able and sometimes you, for example, may actually want to use them on purpose to make "wolf" intervals.

Now how does this have to have anything to do with triads or, more specifically, how 12TET handles triads vs. other scale systems? To me a comma is just another type of interval that's not as "just" as you'd like it to be that sometimes (but not always!) comes when you purify one interval and it hurts the purity of another interval. Also, I know the 12TET major 3rd is not a "comma", but it is off-just enough to sound like a comma to some.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> And by the way 1/4 comma meantone is not really based on a fifth, but on the fourth root of 5. It can actually be considered a kind of JI, and is mentioned as such in some texts, in MGG for example if I recall correctly. This is easily demonstrated: how would you tune twelve tones of 1/4 comma on a stringed instrument?

By this logic, anything with pure octaves is a form of JI. But alas, the fourth root of 5 is an irrational number, meaning scales containing it are not JI by most definitions. I don't see the point in using the term at all if you plan on counting 5^(1/4) as just intonation.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> Beats me- apparently you don't take the usual objection to the regular temperament seriously. The objection was my first reaction, and I find that it is the normal reaction of practicing musicians out here in the physical world. So I wasn't surprised to find it spelled out by Kyle Gann:

> http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html

Kyle Gann doesn't even discuss regular temperaments which are not equal divisions. While I have no objection to his comments, which make sense and work for him, it's plainly not a complete analysis of the situation. Most obviously, the only alternative to JI he discusses are large equal divisions. Where is the discussion of tempering of scales if this is supposed to be a complete argument?

> Yes I've read your introduction, it is very good. But it doesn't explain what I'm talking about, and as far as I know the tuning group has never explained that the regular temperaments function as efficient modalities of large equal divisions of the octave. For example, when you say:

Regular temperaments are a lot like JI. If you look at 11-limit JI, it has five generators, which you can take to be 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11. It is of rank five. Breed temperament has three generators, which you can take to be, exactly or approximately, 2, 49/40 and 10/7, and so it is of rank three. Marvel temperament has three generators, which you can take to be 2 and slightly flattened 3 and 5; hence it looks the same as 5-limit JI.

Special among all of these are those of ranks one and two. A rank one temperament has one generator, and is usually called an equal division of the octave. A rank two, "linear", temperament like meantone or miracle tends to involve MOS scales and can be represented in terms of a rank one temperament, and this seems to be what you are talking about. But it's hardly the only way of proceeding.

Cameron,

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I *was* hoping to gain some new insights from the thread. So, with that preamble:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> > What's a modality?
>
> Look it up and figure it out.

I spent about 5 minutes looking around, and I couldn't find a musical definition for "modality". Could I have spent more time? I suppose so.

But ffs, why not drop a little bit of the attitude? If you are wanting someone - like me - to understand some of your POVs on the big world of tuning schemes, the above answer to Graham - and, by default, anyone else who might pose the same question - well, that particular tactic is a massive fail.

How about an honest stab at a definition, or at the very least, a link to where you think it can be "looked up and figured out".

>"If you look at 11-limit JI, it has five generators, which you can take
to be 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11. It is of rank five."
One question...why not also 9 as a generator, or is 9 taken as a result of having 3 as a generator?

Also, is it safe to assume about generators as being applied to a generator^x / 2^y AKA generator^x and then reduced to the octave formula?
I get the feeling this is virtually the only way people have been creating scales (including things like MOS scales, which just happen to have the property of intersecting the 2/1 octave and having two interval sizes when given a certain generator).

Surely there has to be another kind of formula some well-known scale smiths have used to produce scales and plug generators into...what are such "other" formulas?

Ah I missed this one.

Cameron>"Michael you complained about turning every conversation into one
> about historical tunings- do you realize that the assumption that JI is
> going to cause comma problems is in effect turning everything into a
> discussion about triadic circle-of-fifths music?"
> I didn't bring up the idea of JI causing comma problems...and I only
> came in to counter that idea by trying to say "there are many ways to make
> commas less noticable in JI IF that's what you want to do".
>

Or I woud have objected earlyer.
JI does not have to have comma problems.
My 6-limit Tonal-JI system has 0 comma problems. There is simply never any
isue of any comma in it, ever.
Wolf fourths/fifths etc yes, but comma issues (of any kind) no.

Marcel

> Surely there has to be another kind of formula some well-known scale smiths
> have used to produce scales and plug generators into...what are such "other"
> formulas?
>

My Tonal-JI is such an "other" formula.
Based on permutations of the limited harmonic series intervals.

Marcel

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

> This thread (for those of you who saw it start) was originally about the idea of if there is a "best" scale or temperament based on John's work my own and others or, more realistically, what scales are best for what things. Scales meaning, from any time period, including ones being developed NOT just classic ones.

Here are some scales to consider as examples when pondering the question of whether just intonation or humongous equal divisions are the only alternatives:

! diab17a,scl
[25, 125, 175, 2401, 12005] breed diamond
17
!
2560/2401
343/320
8/7
400/343
2401/2000
5/4
3200/2401
7/5
10/7
2401/1600
8/5
4000/2401
343/200
7/4
640/343
2401/1280
2

Look at the tuning in cents to get the idea.

! bihexany-octoid.scl
Octoid tempering of bihexany, 600-equal
12
!
102.000000
268.000000
386.000000
418.000000
536.000000
702.000000
804.000000
884.000000
970.000000
1034.000000
1120.000000
2/1

! smithgw_dhexmarv.scl
Dualhex in 11-limit minimax Marvel ({225/224, 385/384}-planar)
12
!
115.802647
151.994179
267.796826
383.599473
468.992587
535.593652
700.597880
767.198946
852.592059
968.394706
1084.197353
2/1

Hi Igliashon,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Hi George, thanks for joining in the discussion! You always have something helpful to add. As to 11:13:15, I intend to explore it more in-depth in the coming months, once I have a 20-EDO guitar at my disposal. In 20, as Dan Stearns pointed out to me, there is a 9-note MOS of 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2, or 0-120-300-420-540-660-780-960-1080-1200, which is based on a chain of 11:15's and consistently (if imperfectly) approximates 11:13:15 (though I believe it can also be seen to approximate 11:14:16 about as well). I'd be interested to know if anyone has followed up on Wilson's suggestion and made any music based on an 11:13:15 tonality?

about that scale, see this

/tuning/topicId_82417.html#82417

Kalle Aho

I wasn't arguing that commas were a "problem" per se in JI. I love them;
they're a wonderful feature. JI is delightful to work with because you are
so explicitly aware of the structure of harmonic relationships. Having
commas tempered out provides a different and interesting set of musical
resources, and in 12EDO I happen to really enjoy that it tempers out the
syntonic comma, and being on the 3-limit favoring side of the meantone
temperament class it readily allows the free use of quartal harmonies,
whereas in, say, 1/4 meantone I perceive the 3-limit as being too
compromised for stacked quartal/quintal harmony. Being a product of
mainsteam music education, I have a lot of familiarity with 12EDO quirkier
possibilities, and I've also been spending more time working with JI.
Temperament classes not represented by 12EDO offer really exciting
possibilities, but working out the details of composing in extended JI could
take up all my time and mental resources if I wanted it to as it is. I
really like listening to people work in strange temperaments.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:42 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...m> wrote:

>
>
> You don't "have" to navigate commas in JI. You can take wolves in stride,
> perfectly lovely if that's in the nature of the music, you can let commas
> shift (so what?), you can work over a drone or in a tetrachordal system with
> an extremely limited pythagorean frame but infinite variation therein (like
> maqam)... you can play in JI til the cows come home without worrying about
> commas.
>
> Michael you complained about turning every conversation into one about
> historical tunings- do you realize that the assumption that JI is going to
> cause comma problems is in effect turning everything into a discussion about
> triadic circle-of-fifths music?
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael
> <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > >"In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this harmonic
> style harder to use and less seamless"
> > Agreed...actually most of my new scales near TET tunings (IE 7TET) for
> this reason. At least in my case, I start with approaching scales TET in
> terms of JI and then try my best temper out the remaining commas...until the
> error is within about 10 cents IE virtually unnoticable.
> >
> > >"My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is
> > 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma
> > problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW
> > rediscovering history."
> > I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET at all.
> I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the amusing
> less-commonly-used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords utilizing semi-tones
> like C E F A or C E F B.
> > But, at the same time, I think other scales, specifically those using
> carefully calculated temperament around JI and not "strict JI", can reap a
> majority of 12TET's benefits and allow flexibility/options that are
> impossible in 12TET. Plus it can help us get away from the fact a huge
> majority of the possible tricks in 12TET have been discovered throughout
> history and making truly fresh/original sounding songs in it is becoming
> increasingly hard to do...IMVHO this is why so much of new music is based on
> tricks in phrasing, arrangement, effects...and not actual new melodies and
> chords, just things like adjusting the phrasing/effects of/over existing
> ones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: rick <rick_ballan@...>
>
> > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 5:36:59 AM
> > Subject: [tuning] Re: Love vs. Hate of 12TET
> >
> >
> > Nicely put Cody,
> >
> > I'd just like to add that other cultures besides the west have their set
> tunings and ways of doing things which are treated by ethnomusiclologists
> with the utmost respect. My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO
> simply because it is 'western', people are only going to run into the same
> old comma problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW
> rediscovering history.
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cody Hallenbeck <codyhallenbeck@ ...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > All the study of tuning and microtonality has really just made me
> appreciate
> > > the interesting qualities of 12EDO. In addition to the obvious endless
> > > modulation and small cardinality for an recognizable 5-limit harmony, I
> like
> > > how quartal/quintal harmony in 12EDO blends so seamlessly with 5-limit
> > > triadic harmony. In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes
> this
> > > harmonic style harder to use and less seamless, and to my ear I like a
> > > favoring of the 3 limit over the 5 limit because their more accurate
> tuning
> > > puts them on a more even level with the more familiar 5-limit triadic
> > > harmonies. There is also, of course, the many possibilities presented
> by the
> > > even divisibility of 12 into 2, 3, 4, and 6.
> > >
> > > The problem really is that it is taken as an exclusive standard,
> whereas
> > > it's certainly not the only pitch resource worth using. I think there's
> > > truth to the idea that 12EDO more-or-less exhausted for new harmonic
> > > language, although I certainly think truly original music can be
> written in
> > > it. I also think that it would improve musicianship if JI or maybe
> extended
> > > meantone was understood in the context of ensemble playing with
> flexible or
> > > continuous pitched instruments.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is
> awesome).
> > > > But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this
> list.
> > > > Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> > > > question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great
> tuning."
> > > >
> > > > Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
> > > > 1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"... each interval stays
> constant
> > > > in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
> > > > 2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of
> > > > perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained
> ear.
> > > > In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure
> than
> > > > 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
> > > > 3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a
> very
> > > > balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as
> purity of
> > > > a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for
> many if
> > > > not most.
> > > > 4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and
> play
> > > > --------all in all it's very good for most common practice
> music...but not
> > > > beyond.
> > > > ************ ********* ********* ********* ****
> > > > .....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
> > > > 1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with
> common-practice
> > > > intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
> > > > 2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and
> > > > non-tuning-related issues used for composition) . True, you can get
> some
> > > > extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave
> as the
> > > > repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals
> after
> > > > these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
> > > > 3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11,
> 13/12
> > > > are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to
> approach
> > > > the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET
> has a
> > > > dissonant and often harmonically/ chord-wise hard to use half-step
> around
> > > > 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
> > > > 4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in
> > > > #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there
> are so
> > > > many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords
> possible it
> > > > forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of,
> say, just
> > > > a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding
> anywhere
> > > > from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many
> years
> > > > to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the
> 12TET
> > > > system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many
> parts of
> > > > it to sound confident and "in key".
> > > > 5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an
> advantage
> > > > when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument
> even in
> > > > real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or
> many wind
> > > > instruments. ..and get an infinite number of perfect extra
> transpositions
> > > > instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight
> through
> > > > the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there
> seems much
> > > > less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.
> > > >
> > > > __,_._,__
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

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

> Or I woud have objected earlyer.
> JI does not have to have comma problems.
> My 6-limit Tonal-JI system has 0 comma problems. There is simply never any
> isue of any comma in it, ever.
> Wolf fourths/fifths etc yes, but comma issues (of any kind) no.

If you use a wolf 40/27 fifth in a piece where most of the fifths are 3/2, that IS the comma issue.

Marcel>"My Tonal-JI is such an "other" formula.Based on permutations of the limited harmonic series intervals."
If so, then how is it able to directly re-tune 12TET songs? You're right though I did forget an "exception"...JI tunings that are based upon (within 15 cents or so) mean-tone intervals which basically merge around the same sort of pattern but use JI instead of generator^x/2^y as their generation methods.. The other thing is if it's "limited", then how come certain intervals in the scale (last time I checked) can't even be reduced to x/13 IE the 25th harmonic or lower?

Call me picky but I don't see it as that much different, to my ears its maybe a 5% improvement on 12TET with little difference in mood, only some purity improvement. Please feel free to prove me otherwise, though, and show things like chords that can occur in your scales that sound significantly different than 12TET and yet still very "tonal"...

Cody>"Temperament classes not represented by 12EDO offer really exciting
possibilities, but working out the details of composing in extended JI
could take up all my time and mental resources if I wanted it to as it
is. I really like listening to people work in strange temperaments."
Ah the understandable and usual complaint about micro-tonality: "12TET is hard enough". An alternative question: what 7-or-more-tone scales do those here believe are easier to learn than 12TET and yet offer just as many (but significantly different-sounding) possibilities?

Hi Gene,

If you use a wolf 40/27 fifth in a piece where most of the fifths are 3/2,
> that IS the comma issue.
>

I disagree.
I think 40/27 is a perfectly valid fifth.
And it occurs in my theory in a way that there is no doubt about any comma.
My theory is very specific where a 40/27 fifth occurs.
It is in 2 places. One is between 9/8 and 5/3 where the root of the chord is
1/1.
And one is between 9/5 and 8/3 where the root of the chord is 1/1.
Since my theory has no possiblity of for instance a 10/9 or 27/16 or 16/9 or
27/10 from the root 1/1, there is never a possiblity for these specific
fifths to perhaps be a 3/2.
Therefor there is no "comma uncertainty" in this way.
There is also no comma drifting possible in my theory.
And there is never a comma shift possible in 6-limit tonal-ji.
I mean, it's really not possible, based on simple rules of the harmonic
model and the way to change the harmonic model root.

I don't agree a 40/27 fifth is a comma issue.
It's the other way around.
To not understand the 40/27 fifth leads immediately to comma issues! (as do
a few other things)

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>An alternative question: what 7-or-more-tone scales do those here believe are easier to >learn than 12TET and yet offer just as many (but significantly different-sounding) >possibilities?

Blackwood decatonic, hands down. Especially on a guitar. It's perfectly symmetric, every position yields a consonant tetrad, and depending on the metatuning it can be very harmonically consonant. It maintains "simple" common-practice progressions (like I-IV-V) but totally destroys more complex ones, and it sounds tonal even though it lacks a tonic. It's great for rock and blues because every chord has both fifth and a harmonic seventh, but there are still major and minor seconds, thirds, sixths, and sevenths (though in decatonic terms they'd be "seconds, fourths, eighths, and tenths"), so there is plenty of harmonic variety. Yeah, it's no good for common-practice music because the "tonal gravity" just isn't there...but so what? It's fun, like playing in zero gravity.

Honestly, on a guitar, you won't FIND an easier scale without greatly sacrificing harmonic and melodic resources. The scale has the same fingering on every string in every position--there are only two modes (major and minor) and on a 20-EDO guitar there only 4 keys of each mode. Yet for all its simplicity it is rich in complexity, because you can make some really complex chords...consider that in the 15-EDO version, in all the major positions, you can add both a major seventh AND a harmonic dominant seventh, and either a septimal major ninth or an undecimal neutral ninth. Do you see why I love this scale so much? Yeah, the fifths are a bit rough, but what of it?

On 18 April 2010 21:56, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Marcel>"My Tonal-JI is such an "other" formula.Based on permutations of the
> limited harmonic series intervals."
> If so, then how is it able to directly re-tune 12TET songs?
>

Because my theory goes to the heart of how harmony / melody works I think.
But in any case, my theory rests on a different foundation than the standard
way of building scales in JI or meantone or any other method.

> You're right though I did forget an "exception"...JI tunings that are based
> upon (within 15 cents or so) mean-tone intervals which basically merge
> around the same sort of pattern but use JI instead of generator^x/2^y as
> their generation methods.. The other thing is if it's "limited", then how
> come certain intervals in the scale (last time I checked) can't even be
> reduced to x/13 IE the 25th harmonic or lower?
>

Well, I've explained the basis of my theory many times allready.
It's a long story and I'm not going to write it again now.
I'll put it on my website soon so I can give a link.

>
> Call me picky but I don't see it as that much different, to my ears its
> maybe a 5% improvement on 12TET with little difference in mood, only some
> purity improvement.
>

Well, it's pure JI, many intervals are pretty different from 12tet.
But, since it tunes the music actually in tune (and the only in tune there
is) it doesn't give you a strange out of tune vibe.
Just more clarity and a deepening of the emotional feeling the music conveys
etc.
I don't agree there isn't a difference in mood.
Have you heard this:
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI_15-04-2010%29.mp3
The tuning is very emotional to me, much more emotional than 12tet. The
notes speak much more.

> Please feel free to prove me otherwise, though, and show things like chords
> that can occur in your scales that sound significantly different than 12TET
> and yet still very "tonal"...
>

I've said this several times to you before as you have asked me several
times before.
You can combine any of the following notes you wish to form any chord you
wish. (and don't even need to play 1/1)
1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
You'll find plenty of different than 12tet intervals in there, and all
chords in it are tonal.
And if you want really crazy intervals you'll find the 7-limit harmonic
model:
1/1 21/20 35/32 9/8 7/6 6/5 5/4 21/16 4/3 7/5 35/24 3/2 14/9 8/5 5/3 7/4 9/5
28/15 15/8 35/18 2/1
Again you can hit any combination of notes in this scale. I'm not sure how
tonal to call this, as usually what we call tonal common practice is
6-limit.

But, if you start making up chords in the above scales (and any chord you
make up can be used in music), you'll have no idea how to use it in actual
music. Which chord progressions lead to the chord you made up, where the
chord can go to etc etc.
I've explained much of this on this list allready, but I don't think you've
been reading it, or atleast have not tried to understand it, as you keep
asking me questions I've long ago allready answered.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> If you use a wolf 40/27 fifth in a piece where most of the fifths are 3/2,
> > that IS the comma issue.
> >
>
> I disagree.
> I think 40/27 is a perfectly valid fifth.

You miss my point. It doesn't matter if you don't think it's a problem. Many on this group may well agree with you. What matters is that this is what people mean by a "comma problem". Hence your system of using such intervals as "perfectly valid" fifths has a "comma problem" BY DEFINITION.

But Michael, these are very common chords in 12 EDO, especially in jazz. C E F A is just an inversion of Fmaj7 while C E F B is an incomplete Fmaj7(#11) as F A C E G B.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this harmonic style harder to use and less seamless"
> Agreed...actually most of my new scales near TET tunings (IE 7TET) for this reason. At least in my case, I start with approaching scales TET in terms of JI and then try my best temper out the remaining commas...until the error is within about 10 cents IE virtually unnoticable.
>
> >"My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is
> 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma
> problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?) . IOW
> rediscovering history."
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET at all. I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the amusing less-commonly-used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords utilizing semi-tones like C E F A or C E F B.
> But, at the same time, I think other scales, specifically those using carefully calculated temperament around JI and not "strict JI", can reap a majority of 12TET's benefits and allow flexibility/options that are impossible in 12TET. Plus it can help us get away from the fact a huge majority of the possible tricks in 12TET have been discovered throughout history and making truly fresh/original sounding songs in it is becoming increasingly hard to do...IMVHO this is why so much of new music is based on tricks in phrasing, arrangement, effects...and not actual new melodies and chords, just things like adjusting the phrasing/effects of/over existing ones.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: rick <rick_ballan@...>
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 5:36:59 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Love vs. Hate of 12TET
>
>
>

Marcel>"I disagree. I think 40/27 is a perfectly valid fifth."

Let's see (40/27)/(3/2) = 1.0125...about 21 cents off. To me intervals really start to "bark" at me when over 15 cents off. So I'd say it's not much of a fifth.
Using http://www.mindspring.com/~alanh/fracs.html I tried to see if there were any other fractions within about 15 cents of (40/27) with, say, a denominator of 12 or under in that range...no luck. So it doesn't seem to make much of a consonant (at least in the periodic sense) non-5th interval either (and believe me, I love such notes that are in-between common practice intervals but "magically" still decently periodic).

Dare I use the T word...if I were you I'd temper one of the two ratios that forms the "Wolf Fifth" gap by about 10.5 cents further apart so that your 21 cent error turns into a 10.5 cent error and doesn't "deform" any of the other relationships around it by more than 10.5 cents (still less than the 12TET major 3rd, for example, is "off"...and less an error than many people can readily hear).

I guess this is yet another example of why I like to "level out" JI scales I make...rather than just leaving them in pure JI and "blindly" assuming that maximizes overall consonance. At the same time I consider JI a great way to quickly make "draft" versions of the scales and find chords and harmonic relationship...but for the final versions and the most balanced purity (IMVHO), you have to turn to "Mr T." :-D

Sounds great am going to have totry Blackwood Decatonic. I really wonder how much effort has been made to market this to the oh-so-quick-to-assume general public as a gateway to get "12TET is hard enough" musicians into micro-tonality.
>"and it sounds tonal even though it lacks a tonic"
Which is actually a plus for me...I love the sense of floating between implied "virtual pitches", but never locking to one much more strongly than another.

>"Yeah, the fifths are a bit rough, but what of it?"
Ugh, although I don't care this is going to make this one harder to get people interested in. So what are the possible values of "Blackwood 5ths"? I just hope those values are reduce-able to something with 14-cents or so of an x/11 or lower (IE x/10) type fraction since having a reliable ratio to use about a 5th away is such a huge deal in things like arpeggios. Something within 14 cents or so 16/11 or 17/11 (or, of course, within 14 cents of 3/2) wouldn't be too bad for the "public ear".

>"The scale has the same fingering on every string in every position"
Wow....sounds even easier than 12TET.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel>"I disagree. I think 40/27 is a perfectly valid fifth."
>
> Let's see (40/27)/(3/2) = 1.0125...about 21 cents off. To me intervals really start to "bark" at me when over 15 cents off. So I'd say it's not much of a fifth.

And that's not even the main point, which is that most of his fifths are pure 3/2. 40/27 is 680.45 cents. That you can compare to the 685.71 cents of 7 equal or the 675 of 16 equal. Those don't have comma problems, they just have flat fifths. But the fifths of Marcel's system are mostly pure.

>"And if you want really crazy intervals you'll find the 7-limit harmonic model:
1/1 21/20 35/32 9/8 7/6 6/5 5/4 21/16 4/3 7/5 35/24 3/2 14/9 8/5 5/3 7/4 9/5 28/15 15/8 35/18 2/1"
In fact, you are right many of these are not in any way reminiscent of 12TET generation. I stand corrected and actually...you are right you did prove this before just not voiced as being in this context.

Me>"The other thing is if it's "limited", then how come certain intervals
in the scale (last time I checked) can't even be reduced to x/13 IE the
25th harmonic or lower?"
But...here's my issue. There are many sour intervals in said above scale (at least to my eye). It's going to take a tricky learning curve to separate the good from the bad here. So you have an original generation scheme for "crazy intervals" that don't just sound like purer 12TET, cool...now how to you plan to have people learn how to play them without growing impatient? I hope you have a solution....

Hi Gene,

And that's not even the main point, which is that most of his fifths are
> pure 3/2. 40/27 is 680.45 cents. That you can compare to the 685.71 cents of
> 7 equal or the 675 of 16 equal. Those don't have comma problems, they just
> have flat fifths. But the fifths of Marcel's system are mostly pure.
>

Ok what I'm trying to get across is that 40/27 is an "in tune" interval
under certain circumstances.
To play a 3/2 fifth in such circumstances would be out of tune.
Both are intervals in their own right.
In 12tet, both of these intervals have the same distance in keys, and are
tempered to become the same interval.
But in my Tonal-JI system, these 2 are no longer the same interval.
So perhaps under "pure fifth" one should understand indeed 3/2.
But under the name "fifth" I understand both the 3/2 and 40/27 (wolf fifth)
intervals.

Once one can seperate these 2 intervals as seperate perfectly valid
intervals, and see how they function in my Tonal-JI system, you will see
that my system has no comma problem, and also has no problem identifying
which fifth it is. (it can under certain circumstances when translating
12tet say that there are more than one interpretation of a chord progression
possible, but usually in real music things are pretty clear it seems so far
to me)

It's really time to get rid of the old thinking that a 12tet fifth
translated to JI is 3/2.
I mean it should be pretty clear by now that this is a mathematical
impossibility without comma shifting, and makes no sense in many ways.

Marcel

Me> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET
at all. I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the
amusing less-commonly- used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords
utilizing semi-tones like C E F A or C E F B.

>"But Michael, these are very common chords in 12 EDO, especially in
jazz. C E F A is just an inversion of Fmaj7 while C E F B is an
incomplete Fmaj7(#11) as F A C E G B."
I realize they are likely used a lot in jazz (one of the things I really like about jazz)...but how much common/popular music is jazz? Can you name many songs the average person would know about that uses such chords?
I guess my point is (much as I love such chords)...I don't see much evidence outside academics (and to me, jazz is fairly academic due to it's tricky learning curve) that people consider them much when writing songs.
I've even used things like the major 11th, minor 13th, and minor add9 chords when writing 12TET songs...often even called out for being "out of key" by using them. Apparently, most people I've talked to seem to think 6+ note chords are dissonant and a good few thing 5 note chords in 12TET are sour)...plus most of those chords only have use semi-tone, not both of the two available.

That being said, what are your favorite semitone-intensive chords in 12TET and why? If nothing else, I think it's a step in the right direction to convince the public the idea chords denser than, say, a Cadd2 can be useful is definitely a step in the right direction toward micro-tonality. Even if we both blatantly disagree on how effective the semi-tone is in 12TET (with my opinion being that it's relatively limited in non-academic use with 12TET and micro-tonality could be a huge key to getting around that limitation).

Me>"Let's see (40/27)/(3/2) = 1.0125...about 21 cents off. To me intervals really start to "bark" at me" over 15 cents off...
Gene>"And that's not even the main point, which is that most of his fifths
are pure 3/2. 40/27 is 680.45 cents. That you can compare to the 685.71
cents of 7 equal or the 675 of 16 equal. Those don't have comma
problems, they just have flat fifths. But the fifths of Marcel's system
are mostly pure."

Ah ok....so that 40/27 is an "odd one out" as the "circle of 5ths" in his scale seems in general very "aligned" but in the comma that results from aligning to the octave knocks that one 5th off to 40/27.

A side question...what does it matter if an interval that's "off" is generated by an accumulated "comma" error or not? Point (to me at least) is that interval is off and, regardless of how in got to be that way, if someone wants his scale to be as consonant as possible he will have to do some sort of tempering to help clear that "wolf" interval. I guess I simply don't see how realizing the error "came from a comma" helps solve the problem more quickly or effectively (which is the point, right?).

Me>"Let's see (40/27)/(3/2) = 1.0125...about 21 cents off. To me intervals really start to "bark" at me" over 15 cents off...
Gene>"And that's not even the main point, which is that most of his fifths
are pure 3/2. 40/27 is 680.45 cents. That you can compare to the 685.71
cents of 7 equal or the 675 of 16 equal. Those don't have comma
problems, they just have flat fifths. But the fifths of Marcel's system
are mostly pure."

Ah ok....so that 40/27 is an "odd one out" as the "circle of 5ths" in his scale seems in general very "aligned" but in the comma that results from aligning to the octave knocks that one 5th off to 40/27.

A side question...what does it matter if an interval that's "off" is generated by an accumulated "comma" error or not? Point (to me at least) is that interval is off and, regardless of how in got to be that way, if someone wants his scale to be as consonant as possible he will have to do some sort of tempering to help clear that "wolf" interval. I guess I simply don't see how realizing the error "came from a comma" helps solve the problem more quickly or effectively (which is the point, right?).

Hi Michael,

First of all, sorry for the perhaps unfriendly tone in part of my last
email.
I just read it back.
Have been trying to cut down drastically on smoking past week and at times
it seems to affect my mood :)

>"And if you want really crazy intervals you'll find the 7-limit harmonic
> model:
> 1/1 21/20 35/32 9/8 7/6 6/5 5/4 21/16 4/3 7/5 35/24 3/2 14/9 8/5 5/3 7/4
> 9/5 28/15 15/8 35/18 2/1"
> In fact, you are right many of these are not in any way reminiscent
> of 12TET generation. I stand corrected and actually...you are right you did
> prove this before just not voiced as being in this context.
>
> Me>"The other thing is if it's "limited", then how come certain intervals
> in the scale (last time I checked) can't even be reduced to x/13 IE the 25th
> harmonic or lower?"
>

About the limited, the 6-limit harmonic model results from all the
permutations of the harmonic series up to the 6th harmonic (6-limit)
The 7-limit harmonic model results from all the permutations of the harmonic
series up to the 7th harmonic (7-limit)
Get it? That's where the limiting happens, right at the beginning in the
harmonic series itself.
After the limiting (which is simply controlling complexity) we permutate the
limited harmonic series.
So in the 6-limit harmonic series we have the 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 as the
basis.
We then permutate the order of the intervals making up this limited harmonic
series.
The intervals are 1/1 + 2/1 + 3/2 + 4/3 + 5/4 + 6/5
We the do 1/1 + 6/5 + 5/4 + 4/3 + 3/2 + 2/1
and 1/1 + 4/3 + 6/5 + 3/2 + 2/1 + 5/4
etc etc..
All possible permutations, all starting with 1/1.
After you've done all possible permutations you will get:
1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 (when reduced to one octave)
There are many things I could tell about this scale, it's the most
harmonious scale this size possible in many ways.
All it's intervals are related to the 1/1, and can be said to be comming
from 1/1.
The "consonant" harmonies in it are the underlying permutations. They are
the main structure.
But one can hit any combination of notes. And infact hitting notes that come
from different permutations of the 1/1 seem to give a clearer indication of
the root.
But one can't just play away in this scale and be in tune, as there's
musical logic as to what we percieve as the root 1/1 of chords.
Once you can play this logic you can reach any chord possible, also the
dissonant ones etc, but I'm not ready to explain this logic yet as I
understand only part of it at the moment.
The best way I know to learn is to start retuning music this way.
There's also something I can tell about the relationship between harmonic
roots in tonality, and how to move from root to root (it has rules)
All these things I based on logic thinking and putting these thoughts to the
test.
If you wish to know more try finding the mail I wrote to you and Gene about
1 1/2 week ago I think on this list, it was about tonality amongst other
things.
And another one in which I say that when changing harmonic model root, the
chord (preceding) must fit in the harmonic model of both roots.
See my transcription of the Drei Equale on www.develde.net for the 6-limit
harmonic model roots in the piece and see if you can follow why and how the
roots change.
My system really has the answers (and satisfactory ones I think) you asked.

> But...here's my issue. There are many sour intervals in said above
> scale (at least to my eye). It's going to take a tricky learning curve to
> separate the good from the bad here. So you have an original generation
> scheme for "crazy intervals" that don't just sound like purer 12TET,
> cool...now how to you plan to have people learn how to play them without
> growing impatient? I hope you have a solution....

Well without growing impatient, I don't have an answer for that yet :)
Right now it's a pretty steep learning curve, for me too.
But in the future, who knows.

Marcel

Marcel>"Once one can seperate these 2 intervals as seperate perfectly valid intervals, and see how they function in my Tonal-JI system"

Even if you are treating them as separate interval (classes) in your scale (unlike something like mean-tone)...40/27 virtually rounds to no nearby fractions that are anywhere near periodic within even 15 cents. It doesn't sound far enough away from 3/2 to be a different class....rather it sounds like the same note harshly de-tuned
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma
(the Syntonic comma) "is a small interval between two musical notes, equal to the frequency ratio 81:80, or around 21.51 cents. Two notes that differ by this interval would sound different from each other even to untrained ears[1],
but would be close enough that they would be more likely interpreted as
out-of-tune versions of the same note than as different notes." -wikipedia
...it virtually says the same thing. I get what you are saying about making an "off" interval into it's own interval class...but 40/27 obviously does not appear to qualify for that "trick". Regardless of how the error from 3/2 is generated or if it is generated in the same way comma's usually are...the human ear hears it as a comma...which is IMVHO the problem you need to either fix and/or admit blatantly is off.

Heck, in my latest scale (JI-draft/untempered-version = 1/1 10/9 6/5 4/3 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1)...I will openly admit that between 9/5 10/9 on the next octave I have a nasty Syntonic comma. In the tempered version I round the 10/9 up about 10 cents to partially avoid it (making it a 10 cent error instead of a 21 cent one) and admit to knocking off other intervals dependent on the 10/9 by 10 cents or so as a compromise. What I'm saying here is since you can never get all-perfect (even you admitted mathematically that just knocking the error out without any side-effect would be impossible)...it's probably best just to be honest about the mathematical limits of music rather than (at least it seems a bit like this to me) giving problems different names and excuses in order to hide them.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >"Yeah, the fifths are a bit rough, but what of it?"
>Ugh, although I don't care this is going to make this one harder to get people interested >in. So what are the possible values of "Blackwood 5ths"? I just hope those values are >reduce-able to something with 14-cents or so of an x/11 or lower (IE x/10) type fraction >since having a reliable ratio to use about a 5th away is such a huge deal in things like >arpeggios. Something within 14 cents or so 16/11 or 17/11 (or, of course, within 14 cents >of 3/2) wouldn't be too bad for the "public ear".

Well, sadly, unlike most temperaments the "fifth" of Blackwood is not subject to variation. This is because the period of Blackwood is 1/5 of an octave, i.e. 240 cents, and the generator is pretty much any interval less than 240 cents. So the fifth is firmly entrenched at 720 cents--3/5 of an octave--i.e. around 50/33; but it is because of this that Blackwood obtains all its useful properties. For instance, the "fourth" at 480 cents, because it is exactly 2/5 of an octave, is also 1/5 of two octaves; on a guitar, this means that you can tune all the open strings 480 cents apart and the highest and lowest strings will be two octaves apart. This is what allows for the greatly simplified fingerings. Honestly, it's not really a problem to my ears. 3/2 is such a strong interval that it can survive a fair amount of mistuning; and playing chords in alternate inversions seems to lessen the beating significantly.

If you're interested, I'd suggest reading my paper on 5n-EDOs for comparisons of the harmonic and melodic properties of different Blackwood-compatible metatunings. For instance, 25 has near-Just (within 2 cents) 5/4 major thirds, 15 has near-Just (within 5 cents) 6/5 minor thirds, but 20 has the best melodic properties because its semitone is 1/3 the size of its whole tone (at 60 and 180 cents, respectively). Actually, a mathematically-ideal Blackwood scale that averages out the dissonance of the major & minor thirds would have a minor third of 325¢ and a major third of 395¢, giving a semitone of 85¢ and a whole tone of 155¢, so a subset of either 70-EDO or 100-EDO could be used...though I don't see this as much of an improvement over 15-EDO.

>"About the limited, the 6-limit harmonic model results from all the
permutations of the harmonic series up to the 6th harmonic (6-limit)
The 7-limit harmonic model results from all the permutations of the harmonic series up to the 7th harmonic (7-limit)
Get it? That's where the limiting happens, right at the beginning in the harmonic series itself."
Well....that's so far as intervals from the root. The way I see it all intervals are ultimately potential tonics and all should be able to be considered roots. If you look at 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1....you can find a dyadic combination like 4/3 over 9/8 = 32/27...which is obviously far above 7-limit. Yes, I'm being very picky...but those are the same sort of things I try to crunch down on AKA find and fix for my own scales...and I figured it could only help.

>"Once you can play this logic you can reach any chord possible, also the
dissonant ones etc, but I'm not ready to explain this logic yet as I
understand only part of it at the moment."
Right...so it's not that easy to figure out. I'm just trying to watch out for what may happen if you try to get musicians outside this forum to use your scale...and I'm hoping to help give you the best chance possible of getting them to take you seriously.

>"Right now it's a pretty steep learning curve, for me too. But in the future, who knows."
All I can say is
A) Good luck!
B) Argh....man there are so many could be near-perfect (IE 11 cents or less error) dyads in your scale that are off by 20 cents or so that could be neutralized if you just dared to (yes) temper them to fit. Even if you don't want it...it's inevitable someone is going to temper your scales and get people interested in the wolf-in

BTW, best luck quitting smoking...Lord knows it's tricky, especially when you're in Holland (and I lived there for 5 years...and people there smoke a LOT).

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

> It's really time to get rid of the old thinking that a 12tet fifth
> translated to JI is 3/2.
> I mean it should be pretty clear by now that this is a mathematical
> impossibility without comma shifting, and makes no sense in many ways.

The fifth of 12 et is less than two cents flat, making it difficult if not impossible to hear it as anything but a near pure fifth. And until the Renaissance, European music based its theory on just intonation, tuning the fifths purely. It's not a mathematical impossibility, but the major triad if defined as C-E-G in this tuning has minor thirds of of 32/27, the same as you used, and major thirds sharp by the same interval of 81/80 as you want your fifth and minor third to be flat in the exceptional case. If you use C-Fb-G instead, thirds are nearly pure, a theoretical possibility which wasn't much explored.

On 19 April 2010 06:57, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

> If you're interested, I'd suggest reading my paper on 5n-EDOs <snip>

You have a paper on 5n-EDOs? Oh, yes, I remember. It was in the MMM
files folder, and I had to log in to get it, and then forgot about it,
or something. And you said you weren't going to debate the
terminology, and then got comments about the terminology. Anyway,
Google found it here:

http://xenharmonic.ning.com/forum/topics/a-brief-paper-on-edos-that-are

It does indeed say what you say it says.

Do you have musical examples that illustrate these ideas? I take it
the answer is "yes" and good ones, but I don't know which tracks.

Graham

On 18 April 2010 14:42, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

>> What's a modality?
>
> Look it up and figure it out.

Well, sure, I looked it up before I asked the question, and got a lot
of interesting answers. Here's my favorite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modality_%28semiotics%29

"In semiotics, a modality is a particular way in which the information
is to be encoded for presentation to humans, i.e. to the type of
sign and to the status of reality ascribed to or claimed by a sign,
text or genre."

I can see how temperaments and temperament classes could be modalities
by that definition. And I can imagine you writing something
interesting about it. What I don't understand is why equal
temperaments should be excluded.

>> If it's such a good way of explaining things, why can't those of us
>> who already understand the subject understand what you're saying >about
>> it?
>
> Beats me- apparently you don't take the usual objection to the
> regular temperament seriously. The objection was my first reaction,
>  and I find that it is the normal reaction of practicing musicians out
> here in the physical world. So I wasn't surprised to find it spelled
> out by Kyle Gann:
>
> http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html
>
> (see reason 1 and the penultimate paragraph)

Reason 1 is "To give me approximations of the harmonics I want, an
equal-tempered scale would have to have more pitches than I can
handle."

Well, you're right in that I don't take that seriously as an objection
to regular temperaments in general. Right there in the quote he's
munching on the stale old "JI/ET" dichotomy. Even then, he assumes
you have to take the whole ET, when regular mappings help you to find
subsets (exactly what he says JI does). A regular temperament should,
by definition (depending on the definition) give you fewer notes than
JI. If practicing musicians are really having the reaction you say to
"middle path" temperaments it's a shame they don't say so in this
virtual forum, so that we can correct them. I don't take it seriously
because it's obviously wrong.

> Yes I've read your introduction, it is very good. But it doesn't
> explain what I'm talking about, and as far as I know the
> tuning group has never explained that the regular temperaments
> function as efficient modalities of large equal divisions of the
> octave. For example, when you say:

Thank you!

I think you'd better explain what you're talking about, then.

> "31, 41 and 72 note equal temperaments are all part of the Miracle family."
>
> Well, normal people so to speak (that's jokingly said but you know
> what I mean) are going to see 31 as something that is usually
> implemented as meantone, 41 as something usually implemented
> as tetrachords on a grid, and 72 as something that is implemented
> via the modalities of Sims, moria, or superduperserialism (or
> whatever it's called). Those are all modalities.

I don't know many people who know about Sims. If they had these
narrow views of those equal temperaments, they should learn something
from reading about miracle.

> If you explain that regular temperaments function as efficient
> modalities of numerous large equal divisions, the objection of
> "too many notes" suddenly loses ground.

The objection should have lost ground when I listed 10 notes.

> "Miracle temperament functions as an efficient modality of 31, 41
> and 72 note equal temperaments. It can be applied to these
> equal divisions as a relatively small subset or extended, maintaining
> its structure and regular mapping throughout".

Great. What does it mean?

> The tempering out of commas also implies modalities, by the way.
> A random walk through the pitches wouldn't really temper out
> anything except on paper.

Does it? That's nice! So what is it that unison vectors imply and
that we haven't talked about here?

> Now is anybody going to have the common decency to concede
> that what I'm saying is thoughtful, sensible, and informed,
> rather than finding yet more sophistries in order to sneer and scoff?
> History tells us no. :-)

History tells me that insulting people who don't understand you
doesn't make your arguments any clearer. Explaining new ideas really
is a difficult business. And not one I'm especially good at, although
I do try.

Graham

Nicely put- but it is a straw man, because noone (afaik) is shunning 12-tET on the grounds that it is "western".

For one thing, it is probably not western. The Ming literature describing 12-tEt appeared in Europe (via Jesuit missionaries iirc) some decades before 12-tEt was described in European writing. Is there a connection? Who knows. But 12-tET is not inherently "western". Nope.

Well that's kind of sneaky you might say. Sure. :-) BUT! You can't say it's shunned on grounds of being western because, outside of museum work (historical perfomances, etc), those who shun it are precisely those who engage in the most western tunings of all, equal log. divisions of non-octaves and what-not!

Nope, it's shunned because it's been enforced on pretty much everything. Just too much of it around. And because it is completely missing a whole complement of intervals that people use for emotional expression.

And because many people are deeply concerned with a definitively western musical phenomenon: harmony.

12-tEt simply isn't western enough for me, the harmony is far too limited and combinatoric, lacking lumps and sensuality.

Nice try though, Cody. :-P

--- In tuning@...m, "rick" <rick_ballan@...> wrote:
>
> Nicely put Cody,
>
> I'd just like to add that other cultures besides the west have their set tunings and ways of doing things which are treated by ethnomusiclologists with the utmost respect. My concern is that by deliberately avoiding 12EDO simply because it is 'western', people are only going to run into the same old comma problems that existed prior to its invention (discovery?). IOW rediscovering history.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cody Hallenbeck <codyhallenbeck@> wrote:
> >
> > All the study of tuning and microtonality has really just made me appreciate
> > the interesting qualities of 12EDO. In addition to the obvious endless
> > modulation and small cardinality for an recognizable 5-limit harmony, I like
> > how quartal/quintal harmony in 12EDO blends so seamlessly with 5-limit
> > triadic harmony. In JI you have to navigate commas, which I think makes this
> > harmonic style harder to use and less seamless, and to my ear I like a
> > favoring of the 3 limit over the 5 limit because their more accurate tuning
> > puts them on a more even level with the more familiar 5-limit triadic
> > harmonies. There is also, of course, the many possibilities presented by the
> > even divisibility of 12 into 2, 3, 4, and 6.
> >
> > The problem really is that it is taken as an exclusive standard, whereas
> > it's certainly not the only pitch resource worth using. I think there's
> > truth to the idea that 12EDO more-or-less exhausted for new harmonic
> > language, although I certainly think truly original music can be written in
> > it. I also think that it would improve musicianship if JI or maybe extended
> > meantone was understood in the context of ensemble playing with flexible or
> > continuous pitched instruments.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >"I definitely agree with this last part (although IMO 31-tet is awesome).
> > > But I hate it when people hate on 12-tet. 12-tet gets no love on this list.
> > > Which is understandable, but - a large part of the
> > > question I've been asking is exactly why 12-tet is such a great tuning."
> > >
> > > Ok, here goes again for "what's good about 12TET"
> > > 1) Modulation and transposition is "perfect"...each interval stays constant
> > > in every key. Though this is true of all TET tunings.
> > > 2) All common practice intervals are within about 13 cents of
> > > perfect...typically close enough to be un-noticeable to the untrained ear.
> > > In tests between 1/4 comma meantone and JI, both in theory more pure than
> > > 12TET, 12TET often does almost as well as the other two.
> > > 3) No note functions much stronger as a tonic than any other giving a very
> > > balanced feel and this helps musicians know what to expect far as purity of
> > > a chord regardless of the tonic used, making composition easier for many if
> > > not most.
> > > 4) 12 notes per octave are relatively easy to fit on instruments and play
> > > --------all in all it's very good for most common practice music...but not
> > > beyond.
> > > *******************************************
> > > .....and now for a few of the things I hate about 12TET
> > > 1) Virtually all the chord progressions available with common-practice
> > > intervals in 12TET have been exhausted over the hundreds of years.
> > > 2) Same goes with melodic progressions (not counting phrasing and
> > > non-tuning-related issues used for composition). True, you can get some
> > > extra leverage by, say, making scales with the 5th and not the octave as the
> > > repeating interval. But still, give me some new melodic intervals after
> > > these 200+ years of 12TET (for crying out loud)... :-)
> > > 3) The fact small but not extremely small intervals like 11/10,12/11,13/12
> > > are missed by over 13 cents and this gives rise to an inability to approach
> > > the idea of making more consonant/"legal" clustered chords...12TET has a
> > > dissonant and often harmonically/chord-wise hard to use half-step around
> > > 18/17 and leaves you stuck with it.
> > > 4) 12TET has many sour spots often due to the problem expressed in
> > > #3...which actually creates a nasty learning curve for it as there are so
> > > many un-usable (to most musicians' taste) terribly sour chords possible it
> > > forces musicians to memorize hundred of "right" chords instead of, say, just
> > > a few possible "wrong" ones to avoid with all the rest sounding anywhere
> > > from ok to great. To me the fact music chord theory can take so many years
> > > to learn says something is a bit irrational about many parts of the 12TET
> > > system that it requires musicians to "patch" it by avoiding so many parts of
> > > it to sound confident and "in key".
> > > 5) Transposed scales under the 12TET tuning may not be such an advantage
> > > when you can, say, digitally pitch-shift the result of an instrument even in
> > > real-time (especially in case of keyboards) or use a fret-less or many wind
> > > instruments...and get an infinite number of perfect extra transpositions
> > > instead of 11 of them. Technology often allows us to cut straight through
> > > the "only TET tunings allow perfect transpositions" limit...there seems much
> > > less need to obsess about a tuning's ability to transpose.
> > >
> > > __,_._,__
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 18 April 2010 14:42, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
>
> >> What's a modality?
> >
> > Look it up and figure it out.
>
> Well, sure, I looked it up before I asked the question, and got a lot
> of interesting answers. Here's my favorite:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modality_%28semiotics%29
>
> "In semiotics, a modality is a particular way in which the information
> is to be encoded for presentation to humans, i.e. to the type of
> sign and to the status of reality ascribed to or claimed by a sign,
> text or genre."
>
> I can see how temperaments and temperament classes could be >modalities
> by that definition. And I can imagine you writing something
> interesting about it. What I don't understand is why equal
> temperaments should be excluded.

That's exactly kind of meaning I meant. The general meaning of modality, the common ground in how the word is used in different fields, is how things are used, implemented, understood. You could
say it is the verbs of a thing, not just the nouns.

Even simply taking the traditional meaning of "modality" in music theory, that is, of the modes and modal concerns, and extending it a bit is enough to cover what I meant.

Equal temperaments are certainly not excluded, I've been saying there are different modalities of a given ET all along. 31 could be 1/4 comma but that's not what it "is". It's just a set (or group or whatever the correct term is here) without a modality. It could just as well be Miracle as 1/4 comma.

>
> >> If it's such a good way of explaining things, why can't those of >us
> >> who already understand the subject understand what you're saying >about
> >> it?
> >
> > Beats me- apparently you don't take the usual objection to the
> > regular temperament seriously. The objection was my first reaction,
> >  and I find that it is the normal reaction of practicing musicians out
> > here in the physical world. So I wasn't surprised to find it spelled
> > out by Kyle Gann:
> >
> > http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html
> >
> > (see reason 1 and the penultimate paragraph)
>
> Reason 1 is "To give me approximations of the harmonics I want, an
> equal-tempered scale would have to have more pitches than I can
> handle."
>
> Well, you're right in that I don't take that seriously as an >objection
> to regular temperaments in general. Right there in the quote he's
> munching on the stale old "JI/ET" dichotomy. Even then, he assumes
> you have to take the whole ET, when regular mappings help you to >find
> subsets (exactly what he says JI does). A regular temperament >should,
> by definition (depending on the definition) give you fewer notes >than
> JI. If practicing musicians are really having the reaction you say to
> "middle path" temperaments it's a shame they don't say so in this
> virtual forum, so that we can correct them. I don't take it >seriously
> because it's obviously wrong.

It's not obviously wrong from the "outside".

>
> > If you explain that regular temperaments function as efficient
> > modalities of numerous large equal divisions, the objection of
> > "too many notes" suddenly loses ground.
>
> The objection should have lost ground when I listed 10 notes.

That doesn't suffice because it looks like a scale, which people are going to assume is part of a larger system.
>
> > "Miracle temperament functions as an efficient modality of 31, 41
> > and 72 note equal temperaments. It can be applied to these
> > equal divisions as a relatively small subset or extended, maintaining
> > its structure and regular mapping throughout".
>
> Great. What does it mean?

I can't put it any more succinctly and clearly than that. You can
see how a regular temperament functions as a modality, imposes a particular rhyme and reason, and surely you agree that it is efficient, that's what the "regular" part means.
>
> > The tempering out of commas also implies modalities, by the way.
> > A random walk through the pitches wouldn't really temper out
> > anything except on paper.
>
> Does it? That's nice! So what is it that unison vectors imply and
> that we haven't talked about here?

I don't get that. Unison vectors don't eally imply anything outside of smallest step size when not experienced in a musical situation.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> Kyle Gann doesn't even discuss regular temperaments which are not >equal divisions.

Regualr temperaments *are* NOT equal divisions. They can be modalities of equal divisions. See? You wouldn't have people mistakenly blowing off the whole thing by seeing things like "612 edo..." and thinking, yeah right, or making incorrect equations of equal divisions with regular temperaments like the one you just made.

I know you that you know very well that for example 31 doesn't "equal" miracle anymore than it doesn't automatically "equal" 1/4 comma. Everyone who has been here any length of time knows that you're not EQUATING specific equal divisions with specific temperaments.

But try to look at what you just said from the "outside". What you just said implies is that some regular temperaments ARE equal divisions. This is simply not true. That is not what they "are", otherwise you couldn't have different temperaments employed in the same equal division!

>
> Regular temperaments are a lot like JI. If you look at 11-limit JI, it has five generators, which you can take to be 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11. It is of rank five. Breed temperament has three generators, which you can take to be, exactly or approximately, 2, 49/40 and 10/7, and so it is of rank three. Marvel temperament has three generators, which you can take to be 2 and slightly flattened 3 and 5; hence it looks the same as 5-limit JI.
>
> Special among all of these are those of ranks one and two. A rank one temperament has one generator, and is usually called an equal division of the octave. A rank two, "linear", temperament like meantone or miracle tends to involve MOS scales and can be represented in terms of a rank one temperament, and this seems to be what you are talking about. But it's hardly the only way of proceeding.
>

I'm talking about "all" the modalities. The point is that there are different modalities, even if the set of material is the same.

> > > Beats me- apparently you don't take the usual objection to the
> > > regular temperament seriously. The objection was my first reaction,
> > > Â and I find that it is the normal reaction of practicing musicians
out
> > > here in the physical world. So I wasn't surprised to find it spelled
> > > out by Kyle Gann:
> > >
> > > http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html
> > >
> > > (see reason 1 and the penultimate paragraph)

I've read this before, and am now reading it again now that I understand
more about all of this. But I strongly disagree with this:

"3. I have never liked the concept of transposability, which is considered
by many the primary virtue of equal temperaments. I don't like the way (and
noticed this even as a child), in some of Mozart's piano sonatas, the second
theme sounds so perfectly placed as to register in the exposition, and then
when it's transposed a fourth up or a fifth down in the recap, it doesn't
sound as good. I've always instinctively agreed with Dane Rudhyar that to
transpose a sonority is to diminish its absolute value as a sonic phenomenon
and reduce it to a set of relationships."

That's absurd. Kyle sounds like someone who has AP. I have AP as well and I
have to tell you that to take a piece of music and transpose it can either
be extremely annoying or life-changingly awesome. That's like saying that
you don't like artistic renditions of the sky in any color but blue, because
only blue captures the real "essence" of the sky, and painting a green alien
sky just reduces it to saturation and value relationships, thus removing the
chroma.

Well, that's what it's like to transpose a piece of music for someone with
AP. You take a piece that sounds like "daytime" or "blue" or whatever, and
then you transpose it and suddenly it's "night time" or "red' or "purple" or
whatever. What's wrong with that?

I have this theory that people who don't have AP sometimes try to "fake it"
by coming up with stuff like the above. Maybe Kyle Gann does have AP, but I
don't understand why he's so intolerant to transposition then. Everyone who
has AP basically comes across that experience on a regular basis - you hear
a familiar song in a different key and it's like "hey, I like that!"

Now, let's see if the tuning list is as hostile to this admission that I
have AP as my buddies from school usually are... :)

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET
> at all. I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the
> amusing less-commonly- used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords
> utilizing semi-tones like C E F A or C E F B.
>
> >"But Michael, these are very common chords in 12 EDO, especially in
> jazz. C E F A is just an inversion of Fmaj7 while C E F B is an
> incomplete Fmaj7(#11) as F A C E G B."
> I realize they are likely used a lot in jazz (one of the things
I really like about jazz)...but how much common/popular music is
jazz? Can you name many songs the average person would know about
that uses such chords?

Try Stevie Wonder's songs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA9xhX5MDrU

and from a more gentle age try Cole Porter. Here you can listen to
the chord changes alone:

http://www.songtrellis.com/composers/Porter,Cole/changeslist

Kalle Aho

> > >"But Michael, these are very common chords in 12 EDO, especially in
> > jazz. C E F A is just an inversion of Fmaj7 while C E F B is an
> > incomplete Fmaj7(#11) as F A C E G B."
> > I realize they are likely used a lot in jazz (one of the things
> I really like about jazz)...but how much common/popular music is
> jazz? Can you name many songs the average person would know about
> that uses such chords?

Gee, how about the vast majority of music written after the year 1900?
The rest of the world has generally moved on from triadic common
practice theory.

Is it really necessary to label all tetradic 12-tet music as "jazz?"

> Try Stevie Wonder's songs:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA9xhX5MDrU
>
> and from a more gentle age try Cole Porter. Here you can listen to
> the chord changes alone:
>
> http://www.songtrellis.com/composers/Porter,Cole/changeslist

Yeah. That. That's why I hate using the term "jazz" around here. You
say "jazz" and people suddenly retreat into common practice theory
defense mode and miss the point.

Again - not necessary to label all tetradic 12-tet music as "jazz," or
view it as something unrelated to common practice music.

-Mike

> Even if you are treating them as separate interval (classes) in your scale
> (unlike something like mean-tone)...40/27 virtually rounds to no nearby
> fractions that are anywhere near periodic within even 15 cents. It doesn't
> sound far enough away from 3/2 to be a different class....rather it sounds
> like the same note harshly de-tuned
>

I doesn't matter how it sounds if you play it by itself.
And 40/27 is periodic, it's much more periodic than 81/64 for instance.
Take for instance the octave inversion of 40/27, which is 27/20. play it in
the 3rd octave and you have 27/5.
27 is a normal number in JI, it's in 27/16, 32/27, 40/27, 27/20, 27/25,
50/27.
The thing is, 27/20 and also 27/25 have been mostly ignored. Only the 32/27,
27/16 is well known in occuring in for instance the dominant 7th chord.
As for it beeing not far enough away from 3/2 to be a different class... why
would that be? You just made that rule up, and it's wrong.

Also, you can't just play the 40/27 by itself as the ear/brain will expect a
3/2 as default.
You have to prepare the 40/27. Se for instance the 40/27 and 27/20 in my
drei equale tuning.
To make those all thoes 3/2 and 4/3 will make it sound out of tune.
There actually isn't any problem in making all but one of the 40/27 and
27/20 in my tuning 3/2 and 4/3 (only one will require a comma shift)

> If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma
> (the Syntonic comma) "is a small interval<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_%28music%29>between two
> musical <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music> notes, equal to the frequency
> ratio 81:80, or around 21.51 cents<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_%28music%29>.
> Two notes that differ by this interval would sound different from each other
> even to untrained ears[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma#cite_note-0>,
> but would be close enough that they would be more likely interpreted as
> out-of-tune versions of the same note than as different notes." -wikipedia
>

Well, there you go. even untrained ears will here it as a different sounding
interval.
But indeed if one plays a 40/27 where the music calls for a 3/2 then the
40/27 will sound out of tune.
Up untill now no theory could say when the 40/27 should happen, so they
sounded out of tune.

> ...it virtually says the same thing. I get what you are saying about
> making an "off" interval into it's own interval class...but 40/27 obviously
> does not appear to qualify for that "trick". Regardless of how the error
> from 3/2 is generated or if it is generated in the same way comma's usually
> are...the human ear hears it as a comma...which is IMVHO the problem you
> need to either fix and/or admit blatantly is off.
>

No, it is not heard as a "comma", as I said before, where the 40/27 occurs,
the 3/2 cannot, and the ear does not expect a 3/2 in those places.

>
> Heck, in my latest scale (JI-draft/untempered-version = 1/1 10/9 6/5 4/3
> 3/2 5/3 9/5 2/1)...I will openly admit that between 9/5 10/9 on the next
> octave I have a nasty Syntonic comma.
>

Uhm, between 9/5 and 10/9 you have something really out of tune going.
Very different from a 40/27.

In the tempered version I round the 10/9 up about 10 cents to partially
> avoid it (making it a 10 cent error instead of a 21 cent one) and admit to
> knocking off other intervals dependent on the 10/9 by 10 cents or so as a
> compromise. What I'm saying here is since you can never get all-perfect
> (even you admitted mathematically that just knocking the error out without
> any side-effect would be impossible)...it's probably best just to be honest
> about the mathematical limits of music rather than (at least it seems a bit
> like this to me) giving problems different names and excuses in order to
> hide them.
>

I'm hiding 0.0
And you can do music with pure 3/2, it's just that you can also do chord
progressions that are not with only 3/2 but also have 40/27.
There's nothing imperfect about that.
It's 12tet thinking and trying to convert every 12tet fifth to a 3/2 fifth
that's wrong thinking (and leads to out of tune tunings)

Anyhow, if I'm somehow wrong, then surely someone should be able to tune the
drei equale better than me.
As it's chock full of 40/27 and 27/20.
Yet it sounds 100% perfect to my ears, and all the other versions I've heard
by others are vastly inferior to my 40/27 27/20 version in many ways.

Marcel

> > It's really time to get rid of the old thinking that a 12tet fifth
> > translated to JI is 3/2.
> > I mean it should be pretty clear by now that this is a mathematical
> > impossibility without comma shifting, and makes no sense in many ways.
>
> The fifth of 12 et is less than two cents flat, making it difficult if not
> impossible to hear it as anything but a near pure fifth.

Well apparently not.
As my tuning of the drei equale definately sounds best in JI with 40/27
fifths in certain places.
And to tune these fifths as 3/2 sounds out of tune and my ear picks those up
as weird.
Thing is the more in tune you get the more these wrong 3/2 will stick out,
and don't sound at all like my ear/brain interprets the music in 12tet.

Furthermore, I've said allready that the 40/27 occurs in specific
situations.
To just play a fifth on the keyboard, first as 3/2, then as 40/27, then sure
the 3/2 will sound more synchronous, and since there's no musical context
the ear/brain will baturally expect a 3/2 and the 40/27 will sound horrible
out of tune.
But after the proper preperation and in music that calls for the 40/27, the
40/27 sounds perfectly in tune and our ear expects this 40/27.

To say the 12tet fifth is only 2 cents off from 3/2 and that's why we can't
hear it as anything else is nonsense.
Also take for instance the major and minor thirds, they are much better
approached by 81/64 and 32/27.
You're getting pythagorean on me. And we all know pythagorean sounds
significantly worse than 12tet!

> And until the Renaissance, European music based its theory on just
> intonation, tuning the fifths purely. It's not a mathematical impossibility,
>

No indeed not mathematically impossible if one uses 81/64 major thirds etc.
But again, this surely is not right as it sounds horrible.
I've rendered the drei equale in optimal pythagorean in the past and
everybody thought it sounded just horrible (rightfully so)

but the major triad if defined as C-E-G in this tuning has minor thirds of
> of 32/27, the same as you used, and major thirds sharp by the same interval
> of 81/80 as you want your fifth and minor third to be flat in the
> exceptional case. If you use C-Fb-G instead, thirds are nearly pure, a
> theoretical possibility which wasn't much explored.

Yes, and this is why this tuning method was abandoned as it was wrong and
sounded horrible.
That's not to say that musical theories of the past, which was partly used
to make music, hasn't produced music that is actually pretty music in 12tet
or some other mistuning.
But also the music of that period will only be in tune if tuned to my
system, and also the music of that period will have som 40/27 27/20 fifths
fourths sometimes.

Marcel

Michael--
I was saying was that extended JI is hard enough that I don't feel a great,
immediate urge to work in non-meantone temperaments. I don't think any
tuning system offers as much possibility at greater ease than 12EDO. 19EDO
probably isn't a whole lot harder to work with, and is a pretty rich tuning
as far as possibility goes.

Igliashon's suggestion of blackwood decatonic also sounds hip.

The ease of microtonal music is a silly issue in my opinion. It's like
saying that common practice rhythm is difficult to perform accurately, so no
would bother playing anything with odd or shifting meter, complex tuplets,
metric modulations, etc, but such features are common in modern music. Most
music students I know have spent a fair amount of time learning to perform
some or all of these. I don't see why the same shouldn't be the same in the
domain of pitch. It's in large part about learning what's possible. You can
probably get singers/string-players/etc to tune a harmonic 13th chord with
sufficient practice, but I'm not so sure how much I'd rely on the exact size
of comma pumps (although in my understanding this is essentially what
Johnston's 2nd string quartet does).

And Camereon, I do agree there's just too much 12EDO around. I just think
it's interesting/useful to think of 12EDO's interesting qualities when
listening to music that makes heavy use of them. It's more than the smallest
ET supporting 5-limit harmony (though this certainly the initial impetus).
It allows for the techniques of Debussy, Bartok, Messiaen, Hindemith, Ives,
etc, which in different ways exploit the fact that 12EDO belongs to many
different temperament classes.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Cody>"Temperament classes not represented by 12EDO offer really exciting
> possibilities, but working out the details of composing in extended JI could
> take up all my time and mental resources if I wanted it to as it is. I
> really like listening to people work in strange temperaments."
> Ah the understandable and usual complaint about micro-tonality: "12TET
> is hard enough". An alternative question: what 7-or-more-tone scales do
> those here believe are easier to learn than 12TET and yet offer just as many
> (but significantly different-sounding) possibilities?
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Now, let's see if the tuning list is as hostile to this admission that I
> have AP as my buddies from school usually are... :)

So you have Advanced Placement do you, ya little punk? (SMACK)

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

> I think 40/27 is a perfectly valid fifth.

Hi Marcel,

that view agrees with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Bruckner
's tuning interpretation of the the ancient "Eleven-Eyes" concept:

-'-'-'-°-°-°-"-"-"-"-"-

as an chain of 11 consecutive 5ths sequence in the order:

A'E'B'F#°C#°G#°Eb"Bb"F"C"G"D.

wehn realizied in reference to:
http://www.answers.com/topic/johann-heinrich-scheibler
Quote:"
Apart from his experiments in tuning and equal temperament, he is remembered for proposing the pitch ab2 = 440 as a standard at Stuttgart (1834)." @ standardization confernce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440

AA=55 A=110 a=220 a':=440 (Hz or cps)
'
e=165 e'=330
'
b'=495
'
f#'=371.25 f#"=742.5 f#'''=1485
°
c#'=278.375 c"=556.75 c#'''1113.5 c#""=2227 c#'''''=4454(<4455)
°
g#'=417.5 g#"=835 g#'''=1670 g#""=3340 g#'''''=6680(<6681)
°
eb'=313 eb"=626 eb'''=1252 eb""=2504(<2505)
"
bb'=469.5 bb"=939
"
4F=11 FFF=22 FF=44 F=88 f=176 f'=352 f"=704 f'''1408 f""=2416(<2417)
"
CC=33 C=66 c=132 c'=264
"
G=99 g=198 g'=396
"
d'=297

as concrete realization of the A'E'B'F#°C#°G#°Eb"Bb"F"C"G"D chain.

Attend, that contains an divsion of the 'Schisma' into four subparts with the superparticular-ratio property:
32805/32768=(4455/4454)*(6681/6680)*(2505/2504)*(2417/2416)=5*3^8/2^15

Then continue the procedure by:
Line-up that dozen pitches in chromatic ascending order:

c' 264 middle_C4
#' 278.375 = 278+3/8
d' 297
#' 313
e' 330
f' 352
#' 371.25 = 371+1/4
g' 396
#' 417.5
a' 440 Hz
#' 469.5
b' 495
c" 528 tenor_C5

That 12 pitches yield an scala-file, that generalizes
the ordinary JI-Heptatonics into the more general 'JI-Dodecatonics:

!SpBruckner.scl
!
Sparschuh's view of Bruckner's "dissonant 5th"D-A=40/27 in C-major key
12
!
2227/2112 ! c#'''''/c''''' semi-tone
9/8
313/264 ! eb'/c' minor-3rd
5/4
4/3
45/32 ! syntonic-tritone := 5*3^2/2^5
3/2
835/528 ! g#"/c" diminshed-6th
5/3
939/528 ! bb"/c" diminshed-7th
15/8
2/1
!
! [eof]

...by distributing the schisma over the accidential keys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoh%C3%A9_Tanaka
conviced Bruckner about favouring JI against the inferior 12-TET:
"
He designed and patented a just intonation Enharmonium with 20 keys and 26 pitches in an octave, and had Johannes Kewitsch, of Berlin, construct a 5-octave version which in Vienna in 1891 he demonstrated to Anton Bruckner, who was impressed with its potential.
"
http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/library/data/lit38230/index_html?pn=10&ws=1.5
"I thorougly conicide with the the foregoing."
(Signed) A. Bruckner, 26th July 1890.

/tuning/topicId_85295.html#85299
"- The Bruckner/Sechter way, where the d is 32/27 below F and the a
(40/27) is treated as a dissonance."
...that occurs inbetween the 5th D-A within the C-major tonic.

Literature references:

1. Simon Sechter:
http://books.google.de/books/download/Die_Grunds__tze_der_musikalischen_Kompos.p\
df?id=96gQAAAAYAAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U2_Lh0z63X3Wycrz7sQWg_3G0a7YQ

2. Paul Hindemith
in
http://www.unitus.org/FULL/HindCMCpp54-131,+trist.pdf

3. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Vogel
"Die Lehre von den Tonbeziehungen, Bonn 1976"

bye
A.S.

MikeB>"Is it really necessary to label all tetradic 12-tet music as "jazz?""
I never said that...I just get the impression such half-step-utilizing chords are, in general, considered a great deal more common in such more advanced genres. So where ever did you get the impression that I said all (when in fact the most extreme words I use on these forums are things like "most" and I do not resort to absolutes such as "all")?
The other thing is there are tons of tetrad-based-chords....and I never said the word tetrad...I said chords with a semi-tone; and we both know there are exponentially less chords using semi-tones than tetrad-based chords. It's a whole different ballgame.

Example...when I learned music, I learned by things like taking tablature and midi files for pop and rock songs. Rarely did I see things like half steps held as chords in those types of music. And when I use things like 13th chords in pop songs, people complain its
too dissonant...but when I realize similar progressions in jazz or
classical style songs far more people are open to them.

And, of course, I know the concept of using half-steps in chords has been around for a good while, it just doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity (hey, same thing goes with micro-tonal music , which has been around longer than 12TET has and IE much harmonic music is not 12TET through history...it's just such music has not kept popularity). See the difference?
Kalle gave a few good examples of artists like Stevie Wonder and Cole Porter who use such chords and are not as directly in more "academic" genres like jazz, blues, or classical and can be considered by some as popularizing their use. Then again you can easily argue Stevie is on the jazzy side of R&B and has performed at several jazz fests. Meanwhile Cole Porter (though I'm no expert on him) appears to have wrote mostly broad-way scores and has been remixed by musicians such as Ella Fitzgerald . I assume most people would consider his style of music generally more "academic" than pop, even if he has a few songs like "Don't Fence Me In" (which even I've heard) which aren't Broadway-ish at all.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with jazz, blues, classical or broad-way (some of the more academic genres, IMVHO) or that things like 13th chords can't be or haven't been used outside them. But just noting the realistic sense that only a small proportion of people (maybe 10% or so) seem to be really into those sorts of music and perhaps mainly only those few have been able to champion such "stretches" of mean-tone theory under 12TET as "odd" chords that utilize the half-step.

My point, again, is that while I believe use of such chords should not be stuck in use for more academic music, I hope it can manage to work its way into pop without a public reaction of "it's way too dissonant". And if songs written in 12TET can do well enough, great...but if not or if someone wants more half-step utilizing chords to be possible as acceptable as consonant in relatively "non-academic" genres, there is always the option of using a different interval size or sizes for the minor second via (gasp) micro-tonality! :-)

Marcel>"27 is a normal number in JI, it's in 27/16, 32/27, 40/27, 27/20, 27/25,
50/27."
Many of these seems to be about a comma off a dominating periodic interval and not near any other interval.
For example 40/27 = 1.48148 (comes out as a sour 2/3) and 27/16 = 1.6875 which comes across to me as simply a slightly sour version of 22/13 = 1.692307 (not much difference) or even a 13-cent sour version of 17/10 (significantly more sour).
To me x/27 often cries (I'm within about 12-20 cents of a much more periodic interval, why not just temper me to fit within 10 cents)?

>"As for it being not far enough away from 3/2 to be a different class... why would that be? You just made that rule up, and it's wrong. "
I was referencing it's ability to have a significantly different feel than 3/2...and I didn't "make it up"...I suspected it due to the lack of periodicity in an x/27 interval that can't be reduced, listened to it, and it indeed sounded off to my ears. And that is coming from someone who has listened to intervals like 12/13 (certain dissonant to some) and noted them as OK.

One way to test. Try 16/11, which is one of the closer fractions to 3/2 with a denominator of 13 or lower. Now try 3/2 and then 40/27. At least to my ears alone it seems obvious that 16/11 has one sound, 3/2 has another, and 40/27 just seems to blur not-so-confidently between the two. I'm not saying x/27 is invalid, but I sense the error has to be a good bit less than of many of the dyadic intervals in your scale...more like 10 cents error instead of approaching 15-20 cents. A good example of this....27/25 IMVHO is fine because it is within just a few cents of 13/12 (about 5.33 cents)...good enough...but many fractions using 27 are not and I think testing and looking through temperament options if your x/27 or 27/x form fraction falls around 15+ cents from the nearest x/13 or lower format fraction would likely help your scale.

>"No, it is not heard as a "comma", as I said before, where the 40/27
occurs, the 3/2 cannot, and the ear does not expect a 3/2 in those
places."
I understand the ear does not see an "imaginary" 3/2 (as if it wants a 3/2 to appear) colliding with the 40/27. But at the same time, that fraction still sounds utterly like a blue between an interval class at around 16/11 and the usual one at 3/2 it sounds...a bit confused to me. And, to be clear, I don't think it's a "common practice" or not issue, I think it's an issue purely of the physics phenomenon of periodicity. Come to think of it...I think 1.545454 IE 17/11 would be another "different tonal class of 5th" alternative as (perhaps) would 23/15 and 22/15. All of these options (at least to my ear) sound significantly more confident and expressive than the 40/27.

Me>" If you look at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_comma
>>(the Syntonic comma) "is a small interval between two musical >notes, equal to the frequency ratio 81:80, or around 21.51 cents. Two notes that differ by this interval would sound
>different from each other even to untrained ears[1],
>but would be close enough that they would be more likely interpreted as
>out-of-tune versions of the same note than as different notes."
>-wikipedia"
>
Marcel>"Well, there you go. even
untrained ears will here it as a different sounding interval."
Can someone on the list please back me up here? :-) Yes they say "different", but then they quickly say " they would be more likely interpreted as
out-of-tune versions of the same note than as different notes." That's what I'm saying, they sound different, but not different enough to be of their own classes as different tones and thus end up simply sounding out-of-tune.

>"It's 12tet thinking and trying to convert every 12tet fifth to a 3/2
fifth that's wrong thinking (and leads to out of tune tunings)"
But, you see, the 12TET fifth is within 14 cents or so of the 3/2 fifth. In fact it's 1.49831 and 1.5 / 1.49831 = 1.001127 or about 2 cents off (your ear isn't going to notice that tiny a difference)? So to a huge majority of people's ears, the 12TET fifth is the 3/2 fifth, same interval class and everything. My issue with your fifth is that it seems to fall into the gray area of "not close enough to sound the same as a 3/2 fifth, but not far enough away to lock in to being near another interval (such as 16/11) and thus ending up sounding like a confused version of a tone wavering between two more periodically-stable interval classes.

>"Anyhow, if I'm somehow wrong, then surely someone should be able to tune the drei equale better than me.
As it's chock full of 40/27 and 27/20."
I'll take that as a challenge. :-) Just to make sure I get it right, though, what is the exact "Drei Equale" scale (I know you've given several in your examples)?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> > Kyle Gann doesn't even discuss regular temperaments which are not >equal divisions.
>
> Regualr temperaments *are* NOT equal divisions. They can be modalities of equal divisions. See?

No. In my vocabulary at any rate, a rank one temperament such as 12et or 31et is regular. In fact, it looks to me like it's pretty hard to get any more regular.

> I know you that you know very well that for example 31 doesn't "equal" miracle anymore than it doesn't automatically "equal" 1/4 comma. Everyone who has been here any length of time knows that you're not EQUATING specific equal divisions with specific temperaments.

An n ndo, by definition, has a single step size of 2^(1/n) and the beginning, at least, of a tuning map in that it maps 2 to n steps. There are subtle distinctions to be made as to whether mapping 2, 3, and 5 in 12edo is the same temperament as mapping 2, 3, 5 and 7 in 12edo, or whether dividing a stretched or compressed octave into twelve parts counts as 12edo or not, or whether the step sizes need to be exactly the same, or if you can screw with them as in piano tuning, and on and on. But you don't seem to be worried about any of that; you seem to have the idea, in my thinking incorrect, that a rank one temperament shouldn't count as regular.

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

> Kalle gave a few good examples of artists like Stevie Wonder
and Cole Porter who use such chords and are not as directly in
more "academic" genres like jazz, blues, or classical and can be
considered by some as popularizing their use.

This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call blues academic.

> Then again you can easily argue Stevie is on the jazzy side of R&B
and has performed at several jazz fests. Meanwhile Cole Porter
(though I'm no expert on him) appears to have wrote mostly broad-way
scores and has been remixed by musicians such as Ella Fitzgerald .
I assume most people would consider his style of music generally
more "academic" than pop, even if he has a few songs like "Don't
Fence Me In" (which even I've heard) which aren't Broadway-ish at
all.

Well, you asked "Can you name many songs the average person would
know about that uses such chords?"

Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook

is a list of songs for you. Almost anyone immersed in the Western
culture knows several of these songs by heart. "Over the Rainbow",
"Puttin' on the Ritz", "Summertime", "Moon River", "I've Got You
Under My Skin" etc.

It's true that Broadway, Hollywood musical and Tin Pan Alley tunes
are used as "jazz standards" but once this music was practically
synonymous with popular music. This music forms the repertoire of
such very popular artists as Frank Sinatra, Barry Manilow, Tony
Bennett and other "granny/grandpa/old folks' music". Rock'n'roll
ruined harmony. :)

Kalle Aho

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

> >"Anyhow, if I'm somehow wrong, then surely someone should be able to tune the drei equale better than me.
> As it's chock full of 40/27 and 27/20."
> I'll take that as a challenge. :-) Just to make sure I get it right, though, what is the exact "Drei Equale" scale (I know you've given several in your examples)?

If Marcel will give us a midi file, we can all play this game.

And if you want an example of a massively popular contemporary
artist who uses "chords with semitones in them" try Alicia Keys

http://www.youtube.com/user/aliciakeys?blend=1&ob=4

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
>
> > Kalle gave a few good examples of artists like Stevie Wonder
> and Cole Porter who use such chords and are not as directly in
> more "academic" genres like jazz, blues, or classical and can be
> considered by some as popularizing their use.
>
> This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call blues academic.
>
> > Then again you can easily argue Stevie is on the jazzy side of R&B
> and has performed at several jazz fests. Meanwhile Cole Porter
> (though I'm no expert on him) appears to have wrote mostly broad-way
> scores and has been remixed by musicians such as Ella Fitzgerald .
> I assume most people would consider his style of music generally
> more "academic" than pop, even if he has a few songs like "Don't
> Fence Me In" (which even I've heard) which aren't Broadway-ish at
> all.
>
> Well, you asked "Can you name many songs the average person would
> know about that uses such chords?"
>
> Here
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook
>
> is a list of songs for you. Almost anyone immersed in the Western
> culture knows several of these songs by heart. "Over the Rainbow",
> "Puttin' on the Ritz", "Summertime", "Moon River", "I've Got You
> Under My Skin" etc.
>
> It's true that Broadway, Hollywood musical and Tin Pan Alley tunes
> are used as "jazz standards" but once this music was practically
> synonymous with popular music. This music forms the repertoire of
> such very popular artists as Frank Sinatra, Barry Manilow, Tony
> Bennett and other "granny/grandpa/old folks' music". Rock'n'roll
> ruined harmony. :)
>
> Kalle Aho
>

> > >"Anyhow, if I'm somehow wrong, then surely someone should be able to
> tune the drei equale better than me.
> > As it's chock full of 40/27 and 27/20."
> > I'll take that as a challenge. :-) Just to make sure I get it right,
> though, what is the exact "Drei Equale" scale (I know you've given several
> in your examples)?
>
> If Marcel will give us a midi file, we can all play this game.

Please do play :)
Tonal-JI MIDI file and Scala sequence file are now up on my site at
www.develde.net

Marcel

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

> Ok what I'm trying to get across is that 40/27 is an "in tune"
> interval under certain circumstances....
> But under the name "fifth" I understand both the
> 3/2 and 40/27 >(wolf fifth) intervals.

Hi Marcel,
that 40/27 'dissonat-5th' appears several times already in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Albert_Ban
_s' "pure 18-tone JI tone-scale" harpsichord keyboard in:
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/wieiswie/ban.html#toonschaal
"
18: 2/1 C
16/15
17: 15/8 B
25/24
16: 9/5 Bes-plus
81/80
15: 16/9 Bes
16/15
14: 5/3 A
25/24
13: 8/5 As
128/125
12: 25/16 Gis
25/24
11: 3/2 G
16/15
10: 45/32 Ges
81/80
9: 25/18 Fis
25/24
8: 4/3 F
16/15
7: 5/4 E
25/24
6: 6/5 Es
128/125
5: 75/64 Dis
25/24
4: 9/8 D
81/80
3: 10/9 D-min
25/24
2: 16/15 Des
128/125
1: 25/24 Cis
25/24
0: 1/1 C

"
Attend there in the link the following keyboard in today's ratios,
as scala-file:

! JoanAlbertBan18tone.scl
Pure 18-tone JI tone-scale (in dutch: 'toonschaal')
! source: http://www.huygens-fokker.org/wieiswie/ban.html#toonschaal
!
18
!
25/24 ! c#-
16/15 ! C#
10/9 ! D-
9/8 ! D
75/64 ! D#
6/5 ! Eb
5/4 ! E
4/3 ! F
25/18 ! F#
45/32 ! Gb
3/2 ! G
25/16 ! G#
8/5 ! Ab
5/3 ! A
16/9 ! Bb
9/5 ! Bb+
15/8 ! B
2/1
!
![eof]

bye
A.S.

Hi Andreas,

Thanks for the links!

Pure 18-tone JI tone-scale (in dutch: 'toonschaal')
> ! source: http://www.huygens-fokker.org/wieiswie/ban.html#toonschaal
>
> !
> 18
> !
> 25/24 ! c#-
> 16/15 ! C#
> 10/9 ! D-
> 9/8 ! D
> 75/64 ! D#
> 6/5 ! Eb
> 5/4 ! E
> 4/3 ! F
> 25/18 ! F#
> 45/32 ! Gb
> 3/2 ! G
> 25/16 ! G#
> 8/5 ! Ab
> 5/3 ! A
> 16/9 ! Bb
> 9/5 ! Bb+
> 15/8 ! B
> 2/1
> !
> ![eof]
>
> bye
> A.S.
>

Though all of the scales you linked to have a different method of generating
them, and a different theory behind them and method of use.
It's funny to see that my fellow countryman Fokker made a scale that comes
closest to my 6-limit tonality scale :)
My 6-limit tonality scale is the same as Fokker his scale, but I have an
extra 27/20 and 27/16 in it making my 6-limit tonality scale 20 tones.

Marcel

>"This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call blues academic."
>"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook"
Well I would say a good deal of people (although mostly from the 70's or before) know at least a few of these. I know "Moon River", but only from choir...argh, yes, again "academic".

>"It's true that Broadway, Hollywood musical and Tin Pan Alley tunes
are used as "jazz standards" but once this music was practically
synonymous with popular music."..."Tony
Bennett and other "granny/grandpa/ old folks' music".
I'll say this much...it's fair to say it was popular, even if it's not popular now.

>"Rock'n'roll ruined harmony. :)"
I'll say this much...a lot of "grandpa" music is actually much more advanced in many ways than modern music...and perhaps much of the reason I believe it has become academic, beside not quite meeting the public's ears for catchy-ness and consonance, is to teach people all the possibilities such music covers that modern music ignores. About rock and roll...I guess you could say once the world got turned on to the low-attention-span theatre of dead-simple power chords and walls of distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like 13ths) and the immensely simple hyper-confident and often somewhat "mono-phonically consonant" melodies of hip hop, apparently there was no turning back.

Kalle>"And if you want an example of a massively popular contemporary
artist who uses "chords with semitones in them" try Alicia Keys"
Wow...no complaints on that pick far as popularity. Most of her songs "seem" to contain very simple chords...to my ears it's just major and minor 7ths.
So which chords in there are the crazy ones? :-)

Ah, no, rock n roll didn't kill harmony. This of the great progressive
rock bands like Genesis, Yes, ELP, and even Rush.

However, there seems to be a point many are missing - if you play
guitar with lots of distortion extended chords sound like "mud".
This is the main reason. Jimmy Page probably dealt with this
phenomenon as well as anyone. With some finesse one can work in the
extended intervals with distortion but its not readily apparent how to
do so.

The 2nd reason is because every now and again rock has a "back to the
roots" movement. Like punk and grunge. That is good and bad.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>    About rock and roll...I guess you could say once the world got turned on to the low-attention-span theatre of dead-simple power chords and walls of distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like 13ths) and the immensely simple hyper-confident and often somewhat "mono-phonically consonant" melodies of hip hop, apparently there was no turning back.
>
>
>

Marcel,
I got the sequence file, but it just shows a series of notes and not the scale directly

Is the scale you are using just the following
1/1
16/15 (1.06666666) (need to check this note against other possible dyads)
10/9 (1.11111)
9/8 (1.125)
6/5 (1.2)
5/4 (1.25) over 1.066666 = 1.171875 conflict should be 1.16666666666 (conflict ok, less than 14 cents off)
4/3 (1.333)
27/20 (1.35) conflict should be closer to 1.3636363 AKA 15/11
3/2 (1.5)
8/5 (1.6) conflict with 27/20 should be closer to 1.18181 (13/11)
5/3 (1.666) conflict with 1.35 and conflict with 1.2 (5/3 over 6/5 is 1.3888888)...second conflict solvable by tempering 6/5 into 1.21
16/9 (1.777) conflict with 1.2 at 1.481 (sour 5th)
15/8 (1.875) conflict with 8/5 at 1.1718, conflict with 6/5 at 1.5625 should be nearer to 1.5714 and with 10/9 at 1.6875 should be nearer to 1.7.
2/1

....or am I missing any notes?

Chris>"However, there seems to be a point many are missing - if you play
guitar with lots of distortion extended chords sound like "mud"."

Me (before)>" low-attention- span theatre of dead-simple power chords and walls of
distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like
13ths)"

So yes, exactly...pardon my optimism but I think I nailed that point even before you resurrected it. :-)

>"The 2nd reason is because every now and again rock has a "back to the roots" movement. Like punk and grunge. That is good and bad."
You can even say Nirvana was going back to the Beatles (at times their styles are quite similar, minus the insane distortion Nirvana used) and people keep coming back to either one of those two.

Mike,

I thought we were saying the opposite

You said - no one is playing extended chords because they prefer power
chords.

I'm saying they don't because it doesn't work with distortion.

However, the Hendrix chord is one that finesses around the problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrix_chord

and used by the Beatles in Tax Man as well.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Chris>"However, there seems to be a point many are missing - if you play
>
> guitar with lots of distortion extended chords sound like "mud"."
>
> Me (before)>" low-attention- span theatre of dead-simple power chords and
> walls of distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like
> 13ths)"
>
> So yes, exactly...pardon my optimism but I think I nailed that point even
> before you resurrected it. :-)
>
>
> >"The 2nd reason is because every now and again rock has a "back to the
> roots" movement. Like punk and grunge. That is good and bad."
> You can even say Nirvana was going back to the Beatles (at times their
> styles are quite similar, minus the insane distortion Nirvana used) and
> people keep coming back to either one of those two.
>
>
>
>

>"You said - no one is playing extended chords because they prefer
power chords.

I'm saying they don't because it doesn't work with
distortion."

I was saying that both are true and are related. ;-)
Look again
Me>"walls of
distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like
13ths)"

Me>"of dead-simple power chords"
But, additionally, above I said/"meant to imply" and think another reason people like power chords is they are so simple and catchy.
In much the same way, arpeggios in things like dance songs are locked to the notes root,5ths, and octave...and there's no distortion problem there.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Kalle>"And if you want an example of a massively popular contemporary
> artist who uses "chords with semitones in them" try Alicia Keys"
> Wow...no complaints on that pick far as popularity. Most of her
songs "seem" to contain very simple chords...to my ears it's just
major and minor 7ths.
> So which chords in there are the crazy ones? :-)

Well, inverted major 7th chords have semitones. :)

And I think she often extends chords by singing extra tones on top of
the accompanying chords.

Another popular artist that often has very advanced harmonies is
Sting. But he is jazz-influenced, does that count?

I hope you now understand that semitones in chords are very common
in popular music (that you understand this wasn't always clear to
me). But I suppose there aren't many popular artists that use chords
with *consecutive* semitones (like more than one in row) in them if
that's what you want.

Kalle Aho

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Ah, no, rock n roll didn't kill harmony. This of the great progressive
> rock bands like Genesis, Yes, ELP, and even Rush.

I meant rock'n'roll as the first subgenre of rock music: Bill Haley &
His Comets and the like.

> However, there seems to be a point many are missing - if you play
> guitar with lots of distortion extended chords sound like "mud".

Yep, even triads can sound quite ugly.

Kalle Aho

>"Well, inverted major 7th chords have semitones. :)"
Ah ok, got it...IE a plain old major 7th C E G B can be inverted to B C E G. Didn't think of that...in that case I can think of plenty of currently-considered-popular artists who use semi-tones.

>"Another popular artist that often has very advanced harmonies is
Sting. But he is jazz-influenced, does that count?"
Sure...agreed his style isn't exactly typical...definitely counts as modern enough. :-)

>"But I suppose there aren't many popular artists that use chords
with *consecutive* semitones (like more than one in row) in them if
that's what you want. "
Then again, I can't expect the to considering the "western" 7-tone scales have the two semi-tones IE BC and EF maximally separated. Unless they play "out of key" by those standards IE D D# E in the key of C ala blues-ish style altering between major-minor scales.

Ugh, I think it's time to move this to its own topic...I'm getting tired of digging through these nested responses to find who replied to what...

Anyway...musical examples: on "Map of an Internal Landscape", "Audiospark Spring Bubbles Turquoise" is in 25-EDO Unfair Blackwood, "Protagonism in Violet" is in 15-EDO Blackwood, and "Sapphire Currents of Recursion" is in 20-EDO Blackwood. "Ideas on the Waterfall of Expression" is in 10-EDO, using the 7-note neutral scale on top of 5-EDO. I'm writing this while taking a break from recording a 15-EDO Blackwood pop-rock song on a refretted guitar, it will be up on the xenharmonic.ning page in probably a day or two. If you're interested, I've also retuned each of the "MoaIL" Blackwood tracks into different Blackwood species to compare harmonic and melodic properties, and I'd be happy to host them temporarily on my site so that you can download them. Hearing the 25-EDO Fair Blackwood next to the Unfair Blackwood makes it pretty plain how much more important the melodic properties are than the harmonic properties.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 19 April 2010 06:57, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> > If you're interested, I'd suggest reading my paper on 5n-EDOs <snip>
>
> You have a paper on 5n-EDOs? Oh, yes, I remember. It was in the MMM
> files folder, and I had to log in to get it, and then forgot about it,
> or something. And you said you weren't going to debate the
> terminology, and then got comments about the terminology. Anyway,
> Google found it here:
>
> http://xenharmonic.ning.com/forum/topics/a-brief-paper-on-edos-that-are
>
> It does indeed say what you say it says.
>
> Do you have musical examples that illustrate these ideas? I take it
> the answer is "yes" and good ones, but I don't know which tracks.
>
>
> Graham
>

Hi Michael,

Marcel,
> I got the sequence file, but it just shows a series of notes and not the
> scale directly
>
> Is the scale you are using just the following
> 1/1
> 16/15 (1.06666666) (need to check this note against other possible
> dyads)
> 10/9 (1.11111)
> 9/8 (1.125)
> 6/5 (1.2)
> 5/4 (1.25) over 1.066666 = 1.171875 conflict should be
> 1.16666666666 (conflict ok, less than 14 cents off)
> 4/3 (1.333)
> 27/20 (1.35) conflict should be closer to 1.3636363 AKA 15/11
> 3/2 (1.5)
> 8/5 (1.6) conflict with 27/20 should be closer to 1.18181 (13/11)
> 5/3 (1.666) conflict with 1.35 and conflict with 1.2 (5/3 over
> 6/5 is 1.3888888)...second conflict solvable by tempering 6/5 into 1.21
> 16/9 (1.777) conflict with 1.2 at 1.481 (sour 5th)
> 15/8 (1.875) conflict with 8/5 at 1.1718, conflict with 6/5 at
> 1.5625 should be nearer to 1.5714 and with 10/9 at 1.6875 should be nearer
> to 1.7.
> 2/1
>
> ....or am I missing any notes?
>

Well, my system does not have a fixed scale in the normal sense.
One could see my harmonic model as a scale, which is 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2
8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 for 6-limit (which the Drei Eqale No1 is), and it
transposes along the roots which I indicated in the transcription .png image
also on my site www.develde.net
Or one could see my tonal model as a scale, which is 1/1 25/24 16/15 10/9
9/8 75/64 6/5 5/4 4/3 27/20 25/18 45/32 3/2 25/16 8/5 5/3 27/16 16/9 9/5
15/8 2/1 in 6-limit, and it transposes if one modulates.
The Drei Equale no1 is completely in the 6-limit tonal model scale (in the
tonic of D) and plays only a subset of it's notes (and doesn't modulate).

The actual notes played in my tonal-ji version of Drei Equale no1 are the
following (D = 1/1)

1/1
16/15
10/9
9/8
6/5
5/4
4/3
27/20
45/32
3/2
8/5
5/3
16/9
9/5
15/8
2/1

So yes you missed a few :)

Marcel

Got it.
I was missing the 9/5 (1.8), 8/5 (1.6), and 45/32 (about 1.4).
I'm starting the think there's something special about x/5 format fractions: both John and you use them a lot and, in both cases, they work really well.
I've found they sometimes make decent substitute intervals for things like super-particular intervals (IE between 10/9 and 6/5 is/forms 1.08...which is virtually the same sounding as the super-particular interval 13/12 IE 1.083333)...even though they aren't,

Marcel wrote>"One could see my harmonic model as a scale, which is 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 for 6-limit (which the Drei Eqale No1 is), and it transposes along the roots which I indicated in the transcription .png image also on my site www.develde. net
The actual notes played in my tonal-ji version of Drei Equale no1 are the following (D = 1/1)
1/1
16/15
10/9
9/8
6/5
5/4
4/3
27/20
45/32
3/2
8/5
5/3
16/9
9/5
15/8
2/1"

Ok thanks, I'll give "optimizing" these a go. :-)

-- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

>If you're interested, I've also retuned each of the "MoaIL"
>Blackwood tracks into different Blackwood species to compare
>harmonic and melodic properties, and I'd be happy to host them
>temporarily on my site so that you can download them.

Yes please.

>Hearing
>the 25-EDO Fair Blackwood next to the Unfair Blackwood makes it
>pretty plain how much more important the melodic properties are
>than the harmonic properties.

What's fair/unfair mean?

-Carl

Hey, there's a lot more to grunge than power chords! I cut my guitar-playing teeth on that music, and I can assure you it's nowhere near that simple. Most of the popular grunge bands used extended-voice chords rather frequently, even with their heavy distortion. A random example: the song "Come Down" by Bush is based around a progression of B major-A major-F# major-G major, but with open high-E and B strings ringing throughout. So that B major and F# major both have added fourths on top of their major thirds, and that F# also has a minor seventh. A lot of alt-rock bands used those chords, actually. Grunge bands like Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, and Soundgarden FREQUENTLY used seventh or added-sixth and ninth chords with lots of distortion, too.

Really, certain types of distortion work just fine with crazy chords--it's only the types that favor odd harmonics that cause clashing (like the Fuzzface or Octavia, and to a degree the Big Muff). Even- or full-harmonic distortions (i.e. most overdriven amps) work just fine even with 12-tET's bad thirds and sixths. I will grant, though, that today's "alternative rock" has almost entirely given up the musical prowess even of grunge bands and the power chord dominates in a BIG way. But the pendulum always swings back eventually...
-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"You said - no one is playing extended chords because they prefer
> power chords.
>
> I'm saying they don't because it doesn't work with
> distortion."
>
> I was saying that both are true and are related. ;-)
> Look again
> Me>"walls of
> distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like
> 13ths)"
>
> Me>"of dead-simple power chords"
> But, additionally, above I said/"meant to imply" and think another reason people like power chords is they are so simple and catchy.
> In much the same way, arpeggios in things like dance songs are locked to the notes root,5ths, and octave...and there's no distortion problem there.
>

Carl:

> What's fair/unfair mean?

In the paper, I use them to differentiate between the two species of Blackwood found in 25-EDO. "Fair" is the species where the large step and small step are closer in size, and "Unfair" is the species where the large step is much larger than the small step.

I'll try to get a .zip file of mp3s up by tonight!

-Igs

> MikeB>"Is it really necessary to label all tetradic 12-tet music as "jazz?""
>     I never said that...I just get the impression such half-step-utilizing chords are, in general, considered a great deal more common in such more advanced genres. So where ever did you get the impression that I said all (when in fact the most extreme words I use on these forums are things like "most" and I do not resort to absolutes such as "all")?
>     The other thing is there are tons of tetrad-based-chords....and I never said the word tetrad...I said chords with a semi-tone; and we both know there are exponentially less chords using semi-tones than tetrad-based chords.  It's a whole different ballgame.

Every chord that has a major 7 in it by extension contains a semitone
in it when placed in any sort of inversion. I have never heard of
anyone insisting that chords with a maj7 in them have to be played in
root position to avoid this. Every chord that has a #11 in it will
contain a semitone against the fifth. Etc.

Both of these intervals are extremely common, especially the maj7.

>     Example...when I learned music, I learned by things like taking tablature and midi files for pop and rock songs.  Rarely did I see things like half steps held as chords in those types of music.  And when I use things like 13th chords in pop songs, people complain its too dissonant...but when I realize similar progressions in jazz or classical style songs far more people are open to them.

What type of 13 chord voicings are getting complaints of being "too
dissonant?" 13 chords have been used in popular music for a long time.

>     And, of course, I know the concept of using half-steps in chords has been around for a good while, it just doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity (hey, same thing goes with micro-tonal music , which has been around longer than 12TET has and IE much harmonic music is not 12TET through history...it's just such music has not kept popularity).  See the difference?

I get what you're saying and I'm saying you're wrong. The only genre
of music I can think of in which people voluntarily eschew chords with
close intervals would be metal or hard rock or some genre where that
interval would sound chaotic when played on an extremely distorted
guitar.

>      Kalle gave a few good examples of artists like Stevie Wonder and Cole Porter who use such chords and are not as directly in more "academic" genres like jazz, blues, or classical and can be considered by some as popularizing their use.

OK, let's put this silly "Jazz" nonsense to rest.

Here's Zeppelin's "The Rain Song," there's a half step in the second
chord: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4v-_p5dU34

Here's The Beatles' "Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds," there's a half
step in the fourth chord:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9P9TCpsbt0

Here's a song I just heard on the radio, the Doobie Brother's "Another
Park Another Sunday." The second chord is an Emaj7 where the root is
doubled an octave up, creating a half step between the root and the
maj7th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iTbzc2K4U

Here's Pink Floyd's "Hey You." Although they arpeggiate the chord
instead of playing the notes all at once, they still sustain each note
so that they all sound simultaneously. The first two chords both are
minor add2 chords, with the second being borrowed from the parallel
Phrygian mode of the first chord:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndYEdGd8Gs4

Then there's the famous guitar chord in the intro of Pink Floyd's
"Shine On You Crazy Diamond." It's basically a G dorian voicing in
which the half step lies between the maj6th and m7th. This is another
arpeggiatted chord that is "sustained," and you certainly hear ab it
of beating between the E and the F. Skip to 3:41:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAEmX0OpMk

Here's a Joni Mitchell song, "Coyote," in which 13th chords are used
pretty much constantly throughout, although I don't know if any half
steps appear in it, but I'm sure you can find one if you look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRTiGSF6iGc

Here's a D'Angelo song that uses 13th chords in a very novel way: the
chord progression is ||: Fmaj7#11 Dm13 | Gmaj7/A :||. It can be viewed
as an expansion of VI->iv->i, except when the i chord is finally
reached, the parallel Dorian mode is used as a substitute for the
usual Aeolian mode. I'll let you create your own impression of what
feelings and emotions that evokes, but here's the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatyuRx9BmE

Either way, these are a few songs by "relatively" (lol) popular bands
that have chords that have half steps in them. Furthermore, there is
nothing special about using a chord with a half step in it. I don't
see why you have intellectually singled this random interval out as
being "unsuitable" for use in chords. It has something to do with
critical band roughness or whatever, but when the chords aren't being
held for long periods of time, critical band roughness becomes much
less of an issue. And when they are, it still sounds fine to my ears.

On a slightly unrelated note, the last song is sort of a marvel of
5-limit harmony in my view and I wish I could figure out what the "big
picture" of what this progression is "saying," how it fits into
traditional theories of tonality (or how they could be modified to
accommodate it), and if any useful information is to be obtained by
regressing it into a JI interpretation. At the very least it shows
that there's still some "life" to be squeezed out of 5-limit (or
meantone) harmonies, and that the full gamut of possibilities in
12-tet has hardly been exhausted.

>     My point, again, is that while I believe use of such chords should not be stuck in use for more academic music, I hope it can manage to work its way into pop without a public reaction of "it's way too dissonant".

Nothing is "too dissonant" for pop music. Check out Floyd's album
Ummagumma. That album went to #5 on the UK pop charts and basically
consisted of the band members tripping and playing free the whole
time. People can be led anywhere, and when they avoid (or gravitate
towards) certain sounds, it's often a case more of marketing than of
psychoacoustics.

-Mike

Mike, THANK YOU for this post. You hit the nail on the head (except for the comment about hard rock/metal being excepted...there's a TON of metal out there that uses chords with semitones in them, even with buckets of distortion. Maybe not full hexads, but certainly more than power chords).

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > MikeB>"Is it really necessary to label all tetradic 12-tet music as "jazz?""
> >     I never said that...I just get the impression such half-step-utilizing chords are, in general, considered a great deal more common in such more advanced genres. So where ever did you get the impression that I said all (when in fact the most extreme words I use on these forums are things like "most" and I do not resort to absolutes such as "all")?
> >     The other thing is there are tons of tetrad-based-chords....and I never said the word tetrad...I said chords with a semi-tone; and we both know there are exponentially less chords using semi-tones than tetrad-based chords.  It's a whole different ballgame.
>
> Every chord that has a major 7 in it by extension contains a semitone
> in it when placed in any sort of inversion. I have never heard of
> anyone insisting that chords with a maj7 in them have to be played in
> root position to avoid this. Every chord that has a #11 in it will
> contain a semitone against the fifth. Etc.
>
> Both of these intervals are extremely common, especially the maj7.
>
> >     Example...when I learned music, I learned by things like taking tablature and midi files for pop and rock songs.  Rarely did I see things like half steps held as chords in those types of music.  And when I use things like 13th chords in pop songs, people complain its too dissonant...but when I realize similar progressions in jazz or classical style songs far more people are open to them.
>
> What type of 13 chord voicings are getting complaints of being "too
> dissonant?" 13 chords have been used in popular music for a long time.
>
> >     And, of course, I know the concept of using half-steps in chords has been around for a good while, it just doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity (hey, same thing goes with micro-tonal music , which has been around longer than 12TET has and IE much harmonic music is not 12TET through history...it's just such music has not kept popularity).  See the difference?
>
> I get what you're saying and I'm saying you're wrong. The only genre
> of music I can think of in which people voluntarily eschew chords with
> close intervals would be metal or hard rock or some genre where that
> interval would sound chaotic when played on an extremely distorted
> guitar.
>
> >      Kalle gave a few good examples of artists like Stevie Wonder and Cole Porter who use such chords and are not as directly in more "academic" genres like jazz, blues, or classical and can be considered by some as popularizing their use.
>
> OK, let's put this silly "Jazz" nonsense to rest.
>
> Here's Zeppelin's "The Rain Song," there's a half step in the second
> chord: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4v-_p5dU34
>
> Here's The Beatles' "Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds," there's a half
> step in the fourth chord:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9P9TCpsbt0
>
> Here's a song I just heard on the radio, the Doobie Brother's "Another
> Park Another Sunday." The second chord is an Emaj7 where the root is
> doubled an octave up, creating a half step between the root and the
> maj7th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iTbzc2K4U
>
> Here's Pink Floyd's "Hey You." Although they arpeggiate the chord
> instead of playing the notes all at once, they still sustain each note
> so that they all sound simultaneously. The first two chords both are
> minor add2 chords, with the second being borrowed from the parallel
> Phrygian mode of the first chord:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndYEdGd8Gs4
>
> Then there's the famous guitar chord in the intro of Pink Floyd's
> "Shine On You Crazy Diamond." It's basically a G dorian voicing in
> which the half step lies between the maj6th and m7th. This is another
> arpeggiatted chord that is "sustained," and you certainly hear ab it
> of beating between the E and the F. Skip to 3:41:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAEmX0OpMk
>
> Here's a Joni Mitchell song, "Coyote," in which 13th chords are used
> pretty much constantly throughout, although I don't know if any half
> steps appear in it, but I'm sure you can find one if you look:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRTiGSF6iGc
>
> Here's a D'Angelo song that uses 13th chords in a very novel way: the
> chord progression is ||: Fmaj7#11 Dm13 | Gmaj7/A :||. It can be viewed
> as an expansion of VI->iv->i, except when the i chord is finally
> reached, the parallel Dorian mode is used as a substitute for the
> usual Aeolian mode. I'll let you create your own impression of what
> feelings and emotions that evokes, but here's the song:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatyuRx9BmE
>
> Either way, these are a few songs by "relatively" (lol) popular bands
> that have chords that have half steps in them. Furthermore, there is
> nothing special about using a chord with a half step in it. I don't
> see why you have intellectually singled this random interval out as
> being "unsuitable" for use in chords. It has something to do with
> critical band roughness or whatever, but when the chords aren't being
> held for long periods of time, critical band roughness becomes much
> less of an issue. And when they are, it still sounds fine to my ears.
>
> On a slightly unrelated note, the last song is sort of a marvel of
> 5-limit harmony in my view and I wish I could figure out what the "big
> picture" of what this progression is "saying," how it fits into
> traditional theories of tonality (or how they could be modified to
> accommodate it), and if any useful information is to be obtained by
> regressing it into a JI interpretation. At the very least it shows
> that there's still some "life" to be squeezed out of 5-limit (or
> meantone) harmonies, and that the full gamut of possibilities in
> 12-tet has hardly been exhausted.
>
> >     My point, again, is that while I believe use of such chords should not be stuck in use for more academic music, I hope it can manage to work its way into pop without a public reaction of "it's way too dissonant".
>
> Nothing is "too dissonant" for pop music. Check out Floyd's album
> Ummagumma. That album went to #5 on the UK pop charts and basically
> consisted of the band members tripping and playing free the whole
> time. People can be led anywhere, and when they avoid (or gravitate
> towards) certain sounds, it's often a case more of marketing than of
> psychoacoustics.
>
> -Mike
>

First of all a foreword, my overall point is that, on the average, modern pop-music is too shallow far as what chords it considers to be "usable". And the anti-thesis to that, for example, could very well be making more chords available that allow similar levels of consonance yet sound dramatically different.

>"Every chord that has a major 7 in it by extension contains a semitone
in it when placed in any sort of inversion."
The thought hadn't come to mind when I wrote the original message. Of course I know 7ths and inversions are common, the 7th inversion = semi-one connection you mentioned just hadn't come to mind.

>"What type of 13 chord voicings are getting complaints of being "too
dissonant?" 13 chords have been used in popular music for a long time."
I guess it depends what you consider "popular music". I've looked at tons of current popular electronica and pop midi files (current meaning, within the last 20 years or so) and not seen many 13th chords. If pop did use advanced chords and voicing so much, why do so many major universities off music theory majors only classical or jazz as majors? Just a hunch...I'm guessing it has something to do with more complex chords and voicings.

>"The only genre of music I can think of in which people voluntarily eschew chords with close intervals would be metal or hard rock or some genre where that interval would sound chaotic when played on an extremely distorted guitar."
Well I've noticed the pattern in a lot of modern rock and popular electronica. For example, does Aqua, Britney Spears, Nickelback, Tody Keith, or P Diddy use a lot of sustained 13th chords (or even use them at all)? I seriously have my doubts. I'm not saying that kind of music is good...I'm saying I still there should be a push to expand what's "catchy" to most people to include more advanced tonal structures.

>"Here's Zeppelin's "The Rain Song," there's a half step in the second
Here's The Beatles' "Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds," there's a half
Here's a Joni Mitchell song, "Coyote,"
"
Right, but the first two are classic rock and the second classic folk, not exactly the modern music I'm hinting at as needing a change. "Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds" is actually one of my all time favorites...incredibly imaginative just, not modern. I think Kalle also agreed on this from his last message...pop music has gone backward to more and more primitive chord progressions from the time those songs were made until now. Ok, so they may use an occasional inverted 7th...but other than the I usually hear a whole lot of plain old major and minor triads.
Meanwhile what about groups like Way Out West, Steve Vai, or Brian Eno who use lots of weird chords and voicings? They only have a very limited fan base of often very academically minded people (I'm admittedly a huge fan of all three :-D).

>"Either way, these are a few songs by "relatively" (lol) popular bands
that have chords that have half steps in them. "
Ha, ok, bad explanation on my part. I should have been clear and said modern bands IE within the last 15 years.

>"Nothing is "too dissonant" for pop music. Check out Floyd's album Ummagumma. That album went to #5 on the UK pop charts and basically
consisted of the band members tripping and playing free the whole time."
Again, as I see it that was 1969 in an era where a lot was purposefully trippy and skewed...this is now. Not that there is anything wrong with the 60's (Beatles, Byrds, etc. ...a lot of the music was much more imaginative back then IMVHO...but just because someone could get away with it then doesn't mean it would necessarily work now. The other thing is a whole bunch of other factors come into play: rhythm, phrasing, lyrics, media attention and marketing. However (nowadays) if people think a musician is playing out of tune, most often they will lose respect for the group.

__,_._,__

Bizarre.
Look at the page section
http://www.musiccoach.com/ChordMine/Guitar_chords/
......tons of artists use the major 7th
http://www.musiccoach.com/ChordMine/Guitar_chords/Chord/chord_4.aspx

......but look at how relatively few use the 13th
http://www.musiccoach.com/ChordMine/Guitar_chords/Chord/chord_21.aspx
....and as for the minor 11th
http://www.musiccoach.com/ChordMine/Guitar_chords/Chord/chord_30.aspx
...and the major 9th
http://www.musiccoach.com/ChordMine/Guitar_chords/Chord/chord_16.aspx

I was wrong about the inverted 7th chords...but I still feel pretty confident in saying more advanced chords are generally reserved for things like jazz, classical, or not-so-current music (like rock groups from the 60's and 70's).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

I wrote:
> > Regualr temperaments *are* NOT equal divisions. They can be >modalities of equal divisions. See?

Gene responded:
> No. In my vocabulary at any rate, a rank one temperament such as 12et or 31et is regular. In fact, it looks to me like it's pretty hard to get any more regular.

So you would say: rank one temperaments are equal divisions therefore all regular temperaments are the same thing as equal divisions. That's not what you mean of course, but that's what it looks like.
A regular temperament can be generated using a rational interval- how on earth can you EQUATE regular temperaments with equal divisions?

> An n ndo, by definition, has a single step size of 2^(1/n) and the beginning, at least, of a tuning map in that it maps 2 to n steps. There are subtle distinctions to be made as to whether mapping 2, 3, and 5 in 12edo is the same temperament as mapping 2, 3, 5 and 7 in 12edo, or whether dividing a stretched or compressed octave into twelve parts counts as 12edo or not, or whether the step sizes need to be exactly the same, or if you can screw with them as in piano tuning, and on and on. But you don't seem to be worried about any of that; you seem to have the idea, in my thinking incorrect, that a rank one temperament shouldn't count as regular.
>

It only seems that I have such an absurd idea because you misunderstand the point completely. Let me put it this way: give me some practical subsets, like 12-24 notes, of orwell, hanson and schismic temperaments implemented in 53-edo. If these all consist of the same degrees of 72, we can dismiss the whole business as tomfoolery anyway. If they do not, then it is precisely as I said: they are functioning as (different!) modalities of an equal division.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> First of all a foreword, my overall point is that, on the average, modern pop-music is too shallow far as what chords it considers to be "usable".  And the anti-thesis to that, for example, could very well be making more chords available that allow similar levels of consonance yet sound dramatically different.

OK, sure. But that has nothing to do with people running away from
critical band roughness or the "common ear" being unable to handle it.
It has to do with record labels and marketing and fitting into an
established "sound."

> >"What type of 13 chord voicings are getting complaints of being "too
> dissonant?" 13 chords have been used in popular music for a long time."
>    I guess it depends what you consider "popular music".  I've looked at tons of current popular electronica and pop midi files (current meaning, within the last 20 years or so) and not seen many 13th chords.  If pop did use advanced chords and voicing so much, why do so many major universities off music theory majors only classical or jazz  as majors?  Just a hunch...I'm guessing it has something to do with more complex chords and voicings.

It's more rare because the average songwriter doesn't know that they
exist, not because they're inherently more dissonant. And in genres of
music where the average songwriter tends to have a deeper musical
background (neo-soul, R&B, etc), those chords are used more. It's very
rare that songwriters in a rock group even know those chords exist,
and whenever I find a band that does, I tend to like them.

>     Well I've noticed the pattern in a lot of modern rock and popular electronica.  For example, does Aqua, Britney Spears, Nickelback, Tody Keith, or P Diddy use a lot of sustained 13th chords (or even use them at all)?

Britney Spears uses a dom7#11 chord in "Toxic" right before the chorus
starts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCRT8IItGpw

Britney Spears makes a slight use of polytonality in her new song "3"
- the verse has her singing a melody in F major whereas underneath it
the chord being played is clearly F minor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTs6oQx1WJY

Nickelback uses a maj6/9 chord in "Photograph" - the third chord
(Dbmaj add6/9). The "6" could also be called a 13 if you want. This
chord progression also utilizes some modal "tricks" by borrowing
chords from the parallel Mixolydian and Dorian modes of I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhJFkHlNfjQ

Nickelback also uses some extended harmonies in "How You Remind Me."
The chords in the beginning are C2 -> F add6/9 (omit 5) -> Bb2 -> Eb
add6/9 (omit5). It's a pretty unconventional sound as far as modern
pop goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enpWAuhvSjE

Disturbed's song "Stupify" is in C# phrygian, which has a half step
between C# and the root. I'm sure at some point they voice things so
that that occurs in the form of a half step:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQBNH3UFEC0

P Diddy's remix of Biggie's "One More Chance" is in F lydian, another
"unconventional" modern pop sound, and I'm sure the half step pops up
at some point in there too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=132OAFRqoFI

Kanye West's song "Spaceship" uses a sus13 chord at the end of the
chord progression that resolves as bVII->I: Ebsus13 -> F.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVpt_NIomNU

Jason Derulo's recent top 40 hit has half steps all over it. It uses
majsus chords that have both a major third and sus4 in it quite a bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBI3lc18k8Q

-Mike

Me> First of all a foreword, my overall point is that, on the average,
modern pop-music is too shallow far as what chords it considers to be
"usable". And the anti-thesis to that, for example, could very well be
making more chords available that allow similar levels of consonance
yet sound dramatically different.
MikeB>"OK, sure. But that has nothing to do with people running away from critical band roughness or the "common ear" being unable to handle it.
It has to do with record labels and marketing and fitting into an established "sound.""
To an extent I agree on this. The fact so many new songs copy exact chord progressions from each other would support that point.

>"It's more rare because the average songwriter doesn't know that they exist, not because they're inherently more dissonant."
That is another strong point. Although it does strike me as odd that, say, a whole bunch of listeners can be shown something like an advanced R&B song that's just as well promoted/marketed and then go straight back to hip-hop. Craig David comes to mind there...at least to me...he had a couple of hits which were very soul-oriented in harmonic feel....and then he quickly faded out.

>" And in genres ofmusic where the average songwriter tends to have a deeper musical
background (neo-soul, R&B, etc), those chords are used more."
Exactly. But I think that what happens on top of that...is that many rock musicians stop: they hear things like neo-soul and think it's over the top (not just for song-writing, but listening). Otherwise you'd think a whole slew of them be running around with jazz and R&B records. :-D

>" It's very rare that songwriters in a rock group even know those chords exist,
and whenever I find a band that does, I tend to like them."
True enough and, another way to take it, it's hard to find a rock group that uses those chords. Like I keep arguing, it's just not that common in pop music. When I look back at groups like Blue October or The Cure that I liked I keep thinking "aha...so maybe that's part of why their songs had a certain mystique to them".

>"Britney Spears uses a dom7#11 chord in "Toxic" right before the chorus
starts: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=uCRT8IItGpw"
Interesting...then again it's just one chord for one small tense part of a song, almost like a chord "stab". At least on the surface, it seems like the exception in that song rather than the norm. I know lots of odd pop songs with some sort of sudden orchestral stab, some almost sounding as if they were from a different key, for dramatic effect in some sort of breakdown (but rarely when a verse is in full-flow).

>"Nickelback uses a maj6/9 chord in "Photograph" - the third chord (Dbmaj add6/9). The "6" could also be called a 13 if you want. This
chord progression also utilizes some modal "tricks" by borrowing chords from the parallel Mixolydian and Dorian modes of I:http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=NhJFkHlNfjQ"
Not going to argue here...that's a good example: that third chord is a prominent held chord in there not just a "stab". Funny though, because I hear just a plain C# F G# IE a major triad as the third chord...at least for what the rhythm guitar is doing. I guess you could say the vocal is adding another tone...but (if such is the case) the voice isn't held very long during that part and therefore sounds (to me) a lot more like a neighboring tone than part of the chord.

>"P Diddy's remix of Biggie's "One More Chance" is in F lydian, another "unconventional" modern pop sound, and I'm sure the half step pops up
at some point in there too: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=132OAFRqoFI"
Another good one, even though I'll argue to an extent that one sounds very close to R&B.

>"Jason Derulo's recent top 40 hit has half steps all over it. It uses
majsus chords that have both a major third and sus4 in it quite a bit."
Again, another good one, though (again) I'll argue to an extent that one sounds very close to R&B. Maybe I should listen to the radio more (in this case)...I actually kind of like this song.

>"Disturbed's song "Stupify" is in C# phrygian, which has a half step between C# and the root. I'm sure at some point they voice things so
that that occurs in the form of a half step: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=CQBNH3UFEC0"
Joe Satriani is known to use odd modes like that as well. I can easily believe this uses half-step voicings. Though I'll also admit higher dissonance is considered more acceptable in such heavy music (Tool or Nine Inch Nails anyone?)

_,_._,___

Mike, except for country and folk music, muso's haven't really used major and minor triads since about 1910. It's standard to use four note chords with a seventh, so much so that a chord without one is even often regarded as incomplete. As I already said to you in a long email some time ago, the logic behind most western music is in the pattern of the *guide tones* between the thirds and sevenths as we cycle. Eg take II IV7 I as Dm7 G7 Cma7. The guide tones (in capitals) are Dm7 = d F a C, G7 = d F g B, and Cma7 = c E g B. If we instead take D7 G7 C7 we see that the guide tones are now descending tritone (b5) intervals: D7 = d F# a C, G7 = d F g B, and C7 = c E g Bb. All of these chords are hardly rare and 'esoteric' but make up the vast majority of the jazz standards (of which there are thousands). Just look up the real books. On every page you'll see a ma7 or a triangle which is the symbol for it. Even when later pop songwriters would write "C" instead of "Cma7", in 95% of cases the two chords are still interchangeable. Or else they represent C7 (blues) or C6 (country).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't avoid using 12TET
> at all. I love writing 12TET and taking advantage of some of the
> amusing less-commonly- used chords like 9ths and 13th and chords
> utilizing semi-tones like C E F A or C E F B.
>
> >"But Michael, these are very common chords in 12 EDO, especially in
> jazz. C E F A is just an inversion of Fmaj7 while C E F B is an
> incomplete Fmaj7(#11) as F A C E G B."
> I realize they are likely used a lot in jazz (one of the things I really like about jazz)...but how much common/popular music is jazz? Can you name many songs the average person would know about that uses such chords?
> I guess my point is (much as I love such chords)...I don't see much evidence outside academics (and to me, jazz is fairly academic due to it's tricky learning curve) that people consider them much when writing songs.
> I've even used things like the major 11th, minor 13th, and minor add9 chords when writing 12TET songs...often even called out for being "out of key" by using them. Apparently, most people I've talked to seem to think 6+ note chords are dissonant and a good few thing 5 note chords in 12TET are sour)...plus most of those chords only have use semi-tone, not both of the two available.
>
> That being said, what are your favorite semitone-intensive chords in 12TET and why? If nothing else, I think it's a step in the right direction to convince the public the idea chords denser than, say, a Cadd2 can be useful is definitely a step in the right direction toward micro-tonality. Even if we both blatantly disagree on how effective the semi-tone is in 12TET (with my opinion being that it's relatively limited in non-academic use with 12TET and micro-tonality could be a huge key to getting around that limitation).
>

> >" It's very rare that songwriters in a rock group even know those chords exist,
> and whenever I find a band that does, I tend to like them."
>    True enough and, another way to take it, it's hard to find a rock group that uses those chords.  Like I keep arguing, it's just not that common in pop music.   When I look back at groups like Blue October or The Cure that I liked I keep thinking "aha...so maybe that's part of why their songs had a certain mystique to them".

Sure, but none of this has to do with critical band roughness, which
is my point. If I had to pick a defining characteristic of modern
pop/rock music that I think makes it so bland, I would personally
choose the lack of MODAL chords, and especially of borrowed chords
from different modes. The 60's, 70's and 90's were full of that stuff,
and it's usually straight major or minor these days.

Songs that utilize modal progressions tend to come up every now and
then these days, and when they do, I usually like them.

But my point is that this is now us discussing sociological trends in
popular music. Hardly the type of thing to base a theory of consonance
on, or for the foundations of music. Theories resulting from this sort
of thing generally have huge gaping holes in them and are usually not
bigger than Pythagoras or Harry Partch combined.

> >"Nickelback uses a maj6/9 chord in "Photograph" - the third chord (Dbmaj add6/9). The "6" could also be called a 13 if you want. This
> chord progression also utilizes some modal "tricks" by borrowing chords from the parallel Mixolydian and Dorian modes of I: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=NhJFkHlNfjQ"
>      Not going to argue here...that's a good example: that third chord is a prominent held chord in there not just a "stab".  Funny though, because I hear just a plain C# F G# IE a major triad as the third chord...at least for what the rhythm guitar is doing.  I guess you could say the vocal is adding another tone...but (if such is the case) the voice isn't held very long during that part and therefore sounds (to me) a lot more like a neighboring tone than part of the chord.

The exact combined voicing that the three guitars are playing is Db Ab
Db F Ab Bb Eb Bb. I can't tell if some of those octave doublings are
actual fretted notes or just overtones of other notes.

Also, how did I miss the second chord? Bb F Bb D Eb. Another maj add4
chord, and another very common sound.

> >"P Diddy's remix of Biggie's "One More Chance" is in F lydian, another "unconventional" modern pop sound, and I'm sure the half step pops up
> at some point in there too: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=132OAFRqoFI"
>    Another good one, even though I'll argue to an extent that one sounds very close to R&B.

It is R&B.

> >"Jason Derulo's recent top 40 hit has half steps all over it. It uses
> majsus chords that have both a major third and sus4 in it quite a bit."
>      Again, another good one, though (again) I'll argue to an extent that one sounds very close to R&B.  Maybe I should listen to the radio more (in this case)...I actually kind of like this song.

I don't get it, how is this an argument? This song went all the way to
#1 on the Hot 100 and stayed there for a while. Is it R&B influenced?
Of course it is. And...?

You were saying that the only use of "extended" chords is in
"academic" styles of music, such as "jazz." Well here's a #1 modern
top 40 single that uses them and you're saying that it's invalid
because it's R&B? Why?

And for the record, this song samples another extremely popular song
from about a year ago, Imogen Heap's "Hide and Seek." There's chords
with intervals way within the critical band throughout it pretty much
the whole time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4OLQB7ON9w

> >"Disturbed's song "Stupify" is in C# phrygian, which has a half step between C# and the root. I'm sure at some point they voice things so
> that that occurs in the form of a half step: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=CQBNH3UFEC0"
>    Joe Satriani is known to use odd modes like that as well.  I can easily believe this uses half-step voicings.  Though I'll also admit higher dissonance is considered more acceptable in such heavy music (Tool or Nine Inch Nails anyone?)

Tool and NiN are both awesome. But I no longer get what you're saying anymore.

If you're just commenting that modern pop music generally sucks, I
agree. If you're saying that use of extended harmonies and modes is
more rare these days than in the 70s and 90s, I also agree (although
there are a few bands that are still creative these days, like
Radiohead and such).

But if you're going to elaborate on this and make generalizations
about the "capacity" of the modern listener to appreciate "extended"
chords, and say that it isn't possible because the latest trend in
popular music is to go simpler with the harmonies, then I disagree.
And I very strongly disagree if you think that it has anything to do
with beating or critical band resolution or psychoacoustics of any
kind, or whether a theory for what's "good and bad" in music can
result from it.

-Mike

> Mike, except for country and folk music, muso's haven't really used major and minor triads since about 1910. It's standard to use four note chords with a seventh, so much so that a chord without one is even often regarded as incomplete. As I already said to you in a long email some time ago, the logic behind most western music is in the pattern of the *guide tones* between the thirds and sevenths as we cycle. Eg take II IV7 I as Dm7 G7 Cma7. The guide tones (in capitals) are Dm7 = d F a C, G7 = d F g B, and Cma7 = c E g B. If we instead take D7 G7 C7 we see that the guide tones are now descending tritone (b5) intervals: D7 = d F# a C, G7 = d F g B, and C7 = c E g Bb. All of these chords are hardly rare and 'esoteric' but make up the vast majority of the jazz standards (of which there are thousands). Just look up the real books. On every page you'll see a ma7 or a triangle which is the symbol for it. Even when later pop songwriters would write "C" instead of "Cma7", in 95% of cases the two chords are still interchangeable. Or else they represent C7 (blues) or C6 (country).

^^^^ Yeah, that. Although I'd add that you do see 6 chords and 6/9
chords popping up in jazz too. It isn't even "jazz" I'm talking about,
it's like Great American Songbook type stuff. Which happened to make
up pretty much the entirety of American popular music for decades, so
I don't see why it deserves its own "special case" rules that are
somehow different from the rest of tonal music.

Although you still see straight major/minor triads being used pretty
often, the two styles ended up mixing pretty considerably in the 60's
and onward. Probably the late 60's and early 70's was when this style
reached its peak, with bands like Crosby Stills and Nash, and the
Moody Blues, and eventually all of the prog-rock groups. Except,
behold: when THOSE groups use these chords, it no longer sounds like
"jazz!" Unbelievable.

Music hasn't run away from the maj7 chord as being inherently
dissonant for about a century now.

-Mike

Gene:
>> No. In my vocabulary at any rate, a rank one temperament such as 12et or
>> 31et is regular. In fact, it looks to me like it's pretty hard to get any
>> more regular.

Cameron:
> So you would say: rank one temperaments are equal divisions therefore all
> regular temperaments are the same thing as equal divisions. That's not what
> you mean of course, but that's what it looks like.
> A regular temperament can be generated using a rational interval- how on
> earth can you EQUATE regular temperaments with equal divisions?

Funnily enough, a similar exchange came up on the Alternative Salads
list last week. Gerald, a big fan of root vegetables, said "In my
vocabulary, at any rate, a potato is a root vegetable." And then
Calvin, who cares more about the way vegetables are presented, said
"So you would say all root vegetables are potatoes. That's not what
you mean of course, but that's what it looks like. How on earth can
you EQUATE potatoes with root vegetables?"

Well, the argument seemed so good, and how silly we all thought Gerald
looked! We all know that carrots and turnips are also root
vegetables. How could Gerald have missed this? But in fact, it turns
out Calvin was making a logical error, and it is possible for potatoes
to be root vegetables without all root vegetables being potatoes.
Some cat called Aristotle worked it out a few years ago. Anyway, the
details are on the Alternative Salads list if you want to check.

I mention this because I think you might be falling into the same
trap, minus the distraction about "rank one temperaments" and "equal
divisions".

Graham

That's the funniest thing I've ever read on this list. Thanks, Graham!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Gene:
> >> No. In my vocabulary at any rate, a rank one temperament such as 12et or
> >> 31et is regular. In fact, it looks to me like it's pretty hard to get any
> >> more regular.
>
> Cameron:
> > So you would say: rank one temperaments are equal divisions therefore all
> > regular temperaments are the same thing as equal divisions. That's not what
> > you mean of course, but that's what it looks like.
> > A regular temperament can be generated using a rational interval- how on
> > earth can you EQUATE regular temperaments with equal divisions?
>
> Funnily enough, a similar exchange came up on the Alternative Salads
> list last week. Gerald, a big fan of root vegetables, said "In my
> vocabulary, at any rate, a potato is a root vegetable." And then
> Calvin, who cares more about the way vegetables are presented, said
> "So you would say all root vegetables are potatoes. That's not what
> you mean of course, but that's what it looks like. How on earth can
> you EQUATE potatoes with root vegetables?"
>
> Well, the argument seemed so good, and how silly we all thought Gerald
> looked! We all know that carrots and turnips are also root
> vegetables. How could Gerald have missed this? But in fact, it turns
> out Calvin was making a logical error, and it is possible for potatoes
> to be root vegetables without all root vegetables being potatoes.
> Some cat called Aristotle worked it out a few years ago. Anyway, the
> details are on the Alternative Salads list if you want to check.
>
> I mention this because I think you might be falling into the same
> trap, minus the distraction about "rank one temperaments" and "equal
> divisions".
>
>
> Graham
>

HI Mike B, I was actually talking to Mike S. But while I'm here, yeah I agree with pretty much everything you say here although my understanding of the great American songbook is that its just another name for the real books. Yeah 69's are very handy in jazz, especially on the guitar. (One of my favourite cliche's is C69 = A D G C on the top 4 strings moving chromatically down to E A D G). For prog rock, don't forget the Steeley Dan Mu chord Bb/C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Mike, except for country and folk music, muso's haven't really used major and minor triads since about 1910. It's standard to use four note chords with a seventh, so much so that a chord without one is even often regarded as incomplete. As I already said to you in a long email some time ago, the logic behind most western music is in the pattern of the *guide tones* between the thirds and sevenths as we cycle. Eg take II IV7 I as Dm7 G7 Cma7. The guide tones (in capitals) are Dm7 = d F a C, G7 = d F g B, and Cma7 = c E g B. If we instead take D7 G7 C7 we see that the guide tones are now descending tritone (b5) intervals: D7 = d F# a C, G7 = d F g B, and C7 = c E g Bb. All of these chords are hardly rare and 'esoteric' but make up the vast majority of the jazz standards (of which there are thousands). Just look up the real books. On every page you'll see a ma7 or a triangle which is the symbol for it. Even when later pop songwriters would write "C" instead of "Cma7", in 95% of cases the two chords are still interchangeable. Or else they represent C7 (blues) or C6 (country).
>
> ^^^^ Yeah, that. Although I'd add that you do see 6 chords and 6/9
> chords popping up in jazz too. It isn't even "jazz" I'm talking about,
> it's like Great American Songbook type stuff. Which happened to make
> up pretty much the entirety of American popular music for decades, so
> I don't see why it deserves its own "special case" rules that are
> somehow different from the rest of tonal music.
>
> Although you still see straight major/minor triads being used pretty
> often, the two styles ended up mixing pretty considerably in the 60's
> and onward. Probably the late 60's and early 70's was when this style
> reached its peak, with bands like Crosby Stills and Nash, and the
> Moody Blues, and eventually all of the prog-rock groups. Except,
> behold: when THOSE groups use these chords, it no longer sounds like
> "jazz!" Unbelievable.
>
> Music hasn't run away from the maj7 chord as being inherently
> dissonant for about a century now.
>
> -Mike
>

Concerning the word "jazz", it gets confusing because OTOH its now become a style while OTO its more like a 'way of doing'. Did you catch those doco's on the blues by Scorcese and Clint Eastward? I remember an old muso saying that before R n R "jazz" really meant everything besides classical music. But I think that the real problem is marketing, or rather, fake-marketing. I mean its ridiculous to think that Led Zep, Hendrix, the Beatle's etc... just came out of some cultural vacuum. Lennon/Macartney studied many of the jazz standards which you can hear on their early Decca recordings. Besame' Mucho, Taste of Honey, Till there was you. They then denied it after the fact. Hendrix was Little Richard's guitarist and began to study jazz and do an album with Miles Davis when he died. Jimmy Page was showing off with Les Paul who put him in his place by copying everything he did on the spot.

There is also the problem of racial prejudice of the time; unable to put a lid on the evil "jazz" music, the 'colonel Tom Parkers' of this world re-packaged it for the puritans under the name "rock n roll". Add to this the invention of the electric guitar (I believe by Les Paul who was himself a great jazz guitarist) and voila, a new 'style' of music was born.

To improvise on the spot requires an understanding that the whole pop marketing machine, based as it is on record sales, doesn't acknowledge. (It's almost impossible to capture real jazz on a record, the fact that Charlie Christian could play for 12 hrs straight or that Jaco could sit in with a band when he didn't know the song but still play without a mistake). Consequently many brilliant musicians live way below the poverty line, all because the true contribution and history of jazz has been conveniently rewritten and undermined by calling it a 'genre'. I for one grew up in my fathers guitar shop and had Jimmy Page, Hendrix, Dave Gilmore...etc under my belt before I started even learning jazz at about 16 yoa. I loved and still love listening to these records. But they rarely hold any harmonic surprises. And I'm by no means unique. Jazz isn't a style, it is style. I'm coming to think that bad taste is actually a form of theft. And why do those who claim that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' always have the same records?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > MikeB>"Is it really necessary to label all tetradic 12-tet music as "jazz?""
> >     I never said that...I just get the impression such half-step-utilizing chords are, in general, considered a great deal more common in such more advanced genres. So where ever did you get the impression that I said all (when in fact the most extreme words I use on these forums are things like "most" and I do not resort to absolutes such as "all")?
> >     The other thing is there are tons of tetrad-based-chords....and I never said the word tetrad...I said chords with a semi-tone; and we both know there are exponentially less chords using semi-tones than tetrad-based chords.  It's a whole different ballgame.
>
> Every chord that has a major 7 in it by extension contains a semitone
> in it when placed in any sort of inversion. I have never heard of
> anyone insisting that chords with a maj7 in them have to be played in
> root position to avoid this. Every chord that has a #11 in it will
> contain a semitone against the fifth. Etc.
>
> Both of these intervals are extremely common, especially the maj7.
>
> >     Example...when I learned music, I learned by things like taking tablature and midi files for pop and rock songs.  Rarely did I see things like half steps held as chords in those types of music.  And when I use things like 13th chords in pop songs, people complain its too dissonant...but when I realize similar progressions in jazz or classical style songs far more people are open to them.
>
> What type of 13 chord voicings are getting complaints of being "too
> dissonant?" 13 chords have been used in popular music for a long time.
>
> >     And, of course, I know the concept of using half-steps in chords has been around for a good while, it just doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity (hey, same thing goes with micro-tonal music , which has been around longer than 12TET has and IE much harmonic music is not 12TET through history...it's just such music has not kept popularity).  See the difference?
>
> I get what you're saying and I'm saying you're wrong. The only genre
> of music I can think of in which people voluntarily eschew chords with
> close intervals would be metal or hard rock or some genre where that
> interval would sound chaotic when played on an extremely distorted
> guitar.
>
> >      Kalle gave a few good examples of artists like Stevie Wonder and Cole Porter who use such chords and are not as directly in more "academic" genres like jazz, blues, or classical and can be considered by some as popularizing their use.
>
> OK, let's put this silly "Jazz" nonsense to rest.
>
> Here's Zeppelin's "The Rain Song," there's a half step in the second
> chord: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4v-_p5dU34
>
> Here's The Beatles' "Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds," there's a half
> step in the fourth chord:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9P9TCpsbt0
>
> Here's a song I just heard on the radio, the Doobie Brother's "Another
> Park Another Sunday." The second chord is an Emaj7 where the root is
> doubled an octave up, creating a half step between the root and the
> maj7th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iTbzc2K4U
>
> Here's Pink Floyd's "Hey You." Although they arpeggiate the chord
> instead of playing the notes all at once, they still sustain each note
> so that they all sound simultaneously. The first two chords both are
> minor add2 chords, with the second being borrowed from the parallel
> Phrygian mode of the first chord:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndYEdGd8Gs4
>
> Then there's the famous guitar chord in the intro of Pink Floyd's
> "Shine On You Crazy Diamond." It's basically a G dorian voicing in
> which the half step lies between the maj6th and m7th. This is another
> arpeggiatted chord that is "sustained," and you certainly hear ab it
> of beating between the E and the F. Skip to 3:41:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdAEmX0OpMk
>
> Here's a Joni Mitchell song, "Coyote," in which 13th chords are used
> pretty much constantly throughout, although I don't know if any half
> steps appear in it, but I'm sure you can find one if you look:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRTiGSF6iGc
>
> Here's a D'Angelo song that uses 13th chords in a very novel way: the
> chord progression is ||: Fmaj7#11 Dm13 | Gmaj7/A :||. It can be viewed
> as an expansion of VI->iv->i, except when the i chord is finally
> reached, the parallel Dorian mode is used as a substitute for the
> usual Aeolian mode. I'll let you create your own impression of what
> feelings and emotions that evokes, but here's the song:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GatyuRx9BmE
>
> Either way, these are a few songs by "relatively" (lol) popular bands
> that have chords that have half steps in them. Furthermore, there is
> nothing special about using a chord with a half step in it. I don't
> see why you have intellectually singled this random interval out as
> being "unsuitable" for use in chords. It has something to do with
> critical band roughness or whatever, but when the chords aren't being
> held for long periods of time, critical band roughness becomes much
> less of an issue. And when they are, it still sounds fine to my ears.
>
> On a slightly unrelated note, the last song is sort of a marvel of
> 5-limit harmony in my view and I wish I could figure out what the "big
> picture" of what this progression is "saying," how it fits into
> traditional theories of tonality (or how they could be modified to
> accommodate it), and if any useful information is to be obtained by
> regressing it into a JI interpretation. At the very least it shows
> that there's still some "life" to be squeezed out of 5-limit (or
> meantone) harmonies, and that the full gamut of possibilities in
> 12-tet has hardly been exhausted.
>
> >     My point, again, is that while I believe use of such chords should not be stuck in use for more academic music, I hope it can manage to work its way into pop without a public reaction of "it's way too dissonant".
>
> Nothing is "too dissonant" for pop music. Check out Floyd's album
> Ummagumma. That album went to #5 on the UK pop charts and basically
> consisted of the band members tripping and playing free the whole
> time. People can be led anywhere, and when they avoid (or gravitate
> towards) certain sounds, it's often a case more of marketing than of
> psychoacoustics.
>
> -Mike
>

>"But I think that the real problem is marketing, or rather,
fake-marketing. I mean its ridiculous to think that Led Zep, Hendrix,
the Beatle's etc... just came out of some cultural vacuum.
Lennon/Macartney studied many of the jazz standards"
That's the odd thing...I intended for the discussion to be about modern pop musicians and not older groups like "The Beatles" or "The Who", who I agree are quite advanced.

>"unable to put a lid on the evil "jazz" music, the 'colonel Tom Parkers'
of this world re-packaged it for the puritans under the name "rock n
roll". Add to this the invention of the electric guitar (I believe by
Les Paul who was himself a great jazz guitarist) and voila, a new
'style' of music was born. "
Ah interesting, so you are saying rock was born of Jazz (whereas I've been led to believe it was born of blues IE Robert Johnson). Then again both jazz and blues could easy be considered ultimately African-American music and looking back I do get the odd feeling a certain degree of nasty "white supremacy" was involved in distorting the history of such music.

>"Consequently many brilliant musicians live way below the poverty line,
all because the true contribution and history of jazz has been
conveniently rewritten and undermined by calling it a 'genre'."
I can believe it. I hear musicians playing on the street (jazz or not) who often sound far better than who I hear on the radio and can improvise beautifully for hours on end. The sad reality though is, genre or not genre, it seems obvious people fall for catchy songs with short/easy motifs, few complex chords, and virtually no modulations beside, say, an occasional transposition for the "bridge" part of a song.

>"Jazz isn't a style, it is style. I'm coming to think that bad taste is
actually a form of theft. And why do those who claim that 'beauty is in
the eye of the beholder' always have the same records?"
I actually don't like the idea of genres and agree it often convinces listeners to stereotype. When I say I make dance music, people automatically assume 4-on-the-floor-beat, simple chords, cheesy artificial sounding timbres, and a single-themed melody that repeats through the entire song with very little variation. And when people think of jazz, they often think of a bunch of guys on brass and a lead saxophone or the average guy playing on the street. IMVHO whenever someone is doing something like using a multi-key modulation in the middle of a verse or using certain extensive chords, they are playing out parts of the "style" jazz. And if anyone is doing fantastic things with meshing timbres to "morph" into each other and making beats with ghost notes that seem to flow seem-lessly and fit an insane amount of instruments into a song (more often, than even orchestral music) without harmonic clashing typical with using that many acoustic
instruments...they are playing out parts of the "dance" style (BT is a huge example of this for me).

The odd pattern is when I see people who say they make jazz music, the common thread is their high ability to deal with complex harmonic structures. Tina Cousins (a dance musician) actually studied jazz classics and music from before jazz and rock were "singled out" from each other (as you seem to have put it). Any of her bios hints at just how much jazz training she had. And her early songs (to me, at least) are truly beautiful with complex dark chords and shimmery vocals that have a lot of the soul and variation of such older music. And yet the songwriting style is catchy and very well done in a pop sense...it's not like she lost popularity because her arrangements/phrasing/beats/vocals... weren't in a catchy style.
But as time went on she degenerated into writing bubble-gum pop, and not because she didn't know how to write with the "jazz" attitude. Her latest records sound fabricated and are no more advertised than her old ones, yet they have sold exponentially more. Again, it seems there's a certain addictiveness the public wants that comes with those IMVHO boring pure consonant chords...minus the occasional record where the catchy-ness lies much more in the lyrics or vocal timbre/talent.

Well done Graham- but you do realize that I was making a satirical "analysis" in an attempt to get Gene stop trying to put stupid words in my mouth, don't you?

Look through the discussion, you'll see at least three times "by the logic..." or "it seems that you are saying..." followed by something patently stupid, then followed by me saying, no, that's NOT the logic, it goes like this...followed by something NOT stupid.

Well: anyone going to pony up some examples of orwell, schismic and hanson in 53-edo?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Gene:
> >> No. In my vocabulary at any rate, a rank one temperament such as 12et or
> >> 31et is regular. In fact, it looks to me like it's pretty hard to get any
> >> more regular.
>
> Cameron:
> > So you would say: rank one temperaments are equal divisions therefore all
> > regular temperaments are the same thing as equal divisions. That's not what
> > you mean of course, but that's what it looks like.
> > A regular temperament can be generated using a rational interval- how on
> > earth can you EQUATE regular temperaments with equal divisions?
>
> Funnily enough, a similar exchange came up on the Alternative Salads
> list last week. Gerald, a big fan of root vegetables, said "In my
> vocabulary, at any rate, a potato is a root vegetable." And then
> Calvin, who cares more about the way vegetables are presented, said
> "So you would say all root vegetables are potatoes. That's not what
> you mean of course, but that's what it looks like. How on earth can
> you EQUATE potatoes with root vegetables?"
>
> Well, the argument seemed so good, and how silly we all thought Gerald
> looked! We all know that carrots and turnips are also root
> vegetables. How could Gerald have missed this? But in fact, it turns
> out Calvin was making a logical error, and it is possible for potatoes
> to be root vegetables without all root vegetables being potatoes.
> Some cat called Aristotle worked it out a few years ago. Anyway, the
> details are on the Alternative Salads list if you want to check.
>
> I mention this because I think you might be falling into the same
> trap, minus the distraction about "rank one temperaments" and "equal
> divisions".
>
>
> Graham
>

Michael, I really dig your scales, they are often very similar to mine (lots of 13/12s and 14/13s for me), but I think you are laboring under a very big misconception. Pop music today is NOT consonant, it's "very familiar". And tons of swank timbres/sound colors. But far, far from consonant in any literal, physical sense.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"This is the first time ever I've heard anyone call blues academic."
> >"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Songbook"
> Well I would say a good deal of people (although mostly from the 70's or before) know at least a few of these. I know "Moon River", but only from choir...argh, yes, again "academic".
>
> >"It's true that Broadway, Hollywood musical and Tin Pan Alley tunes
> are used as "jazz standards" but once this music was practically
> synonymous with popular music."..."Tony
> Bennett and other "granny/grandpa/ old folks' music".
> I'll say this much...it's fair to say it was popular, even if it's not popular now.
>
> >"Rock'n'roll ruined harmony. :)"
> I'll say this much...a lot of "grandpa" music is actually much more advanced in many ways than modern music...and perhaps much of the reason I believe it has become academic, beside not quite meeting the public's ears for catchy-ness and consonance, is to teach people all the possibilities such music covers that modern music ignores. About rock and roll...I guess you could say once the world got turned on to the low-attention-span theatre of dead-simple power chords and walls of distortion (that IMVHO cause major problems with dense chords like 13ths) and the immensely simple hyper-confident and often somewhat "mono-phonically consonant" melodies of hip hop, apparently there was no turning back.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Pop music today is NOT consonant, it's "very familiar". And tons of swank timbres/sound colors. But far, far from consonant in any literal, physical sense.

And these kind of semantics are only important to the tuning community. I don't see anyone running down the street, screaming in pain from all the dissonant pop music streaming in from their earbuds.

Then again, this grand discerning public has no problem with degrading pristine audio down to a 128kb mp3 file, so I'd say the minor improvements to the consonance of their favorite songs would pretty much be missed.

(I really wanted to say "tuning nerds" instead of "the tuning community", but I'm sure the self-referential humorous nature would get taken the wrong way...)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Pop music today is NOT consonant, it's "very familiar". And tons of swank timbres/sound colors. But far, far from consonant in any literal, physical sense.
>
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
> And these kind of semantics are only important to the tuning >community. I don't see anyone running down the street, screaming in >pain from all the dissonant pop music streaming in from their >earbuds.

My aunt, when asked about how it was living and working under Stalin, thought a bit and said "loud music all the time". :-) I think of that every time I go shopping or to a bar or wherever. And I see people screaming in pain every day. Screaming in their souls.

Anyway, it's not semantics, don't even try it man. :-P Consonance in music on the physical level is a concrete and trippy thing. My wife just hates most JI, it drives her up the wall. She likes 13-limit on my saz (which has double courses and buzzes a tiny bit in any tuning anyway), Jacques' JI music, and some other JI, but not much.
>
> Then again, this grand discerning public has no problem with >degrading pristine audio down to a 128kb mp3 file, so I'd say the >minor improvements to the consonance of their favorite songs would >pretty much be missed.

Consonance isn't what's wanted in Pop. Didn't I just say that?
>
> (I really wanted to say "tuning nerds" instead of "the tuning >community", but I'm sure the self-referential humorous nature would >get taken the wrong way...)

I prefer to called a "dork" or "git" myself. You can call me what you want, just don't call collect.

Cameron>"Pop music today is NOT consonant, it's "very familiar"."
I am not going to argue that familiarity plays a huge role as to why pop music works for so many people. It also explains in part why, for example, 7-tone diatonic scales under 12TET sound "better" to people than JI diatonic, even though mathematically they are less consonant.

Though consonance obviously isn't the whole story of familiarity, I'm pretty sure a big part of it is that people expect intervals to be about 14 cents or less from perfect (just as 12TET arranges them as such). Surely I'm not talking "perfect consonance"...if I were I'd assume what people really wanted to hear was color-less harmonic series used as scales (IE harmonics 7-14 as a scale).
The other side is, the learning curve of music ("even" in 12TET) is admittedly quite high...and I still believe making scales where fewer mistakes are possible has potential to get people who would otherwise become impatient about the musical learning process to jump on board, turning bad musicians into decent ones, decent musicians into good ones, good to great ones, and great to fantastic ones.

>"but I think you are laboring under a very big misconception"
Response from my latest micro-tonal work seems to hint otherwise. It used to be I felt my songs would be public-response handicapped vis-a-vis 12TET ones far as ratings if they used micro-tonal scales, now it seems they are more handicapped if they don't.
And that's all-else-equal...I use the same composition and beat style for both 12TET and micro-tonal songs. Plus I've actually found songs in my new scales take less long to compose...call it lack of skill in 12TET theory (I'm certainly not a professional-grade composer), but the new scales I've made just seem to unravel into smooth chords and/or match moods closely with less fiddling around.

I'm open to other ideas of "instilling a sense of familiarity" (most likely to become a part of any future scale systems I 'attempt' to devise). However this go-around, I think it's fair to say one way to instill a sense of familiarity is through "par of better" consonance vis-a-vis 12TET. The other way of familiarity that's obvious to me, the use of only common-practice-style intervals in different patterns (or patterns very similar to 12TET ALA many mean-tone scales), seems much more limited to me.

If you can think of a third, fourth....ways to instill familiarity (using just scales/tunings and not things like compositional techniques) I'm all ears. :-)

/******************************************************/
BTW, speaking of new scales, here's my latest...still based on weaving webs around the admittedly quite standard double tetrachord-interval-based structure by modifying the 3 tones other than 1/1,4/3,3/2, and 5/3:

1/1
11/10
1.208 (6/5 tempered to mix better with 5/3 and nears 11/8 from 5/3)
4/3
3/2
5/3
9/5
2/1

The only intervals smaller than 11/10 (approximately the 7TET 'semi-tone') are
A) Between 11/10 and 6/5 (12/11)
and
B) Between 5/3 and 9/5 (about 13/12)

...so I'd say that's pretty close to optimizing the critical band.

Plus, so far as I can tell virtually all of the dyads within 2 octaves are within 10 cents or so of an x/12 level of periodicity.
You'd think (ah, sounds like a little tweak on your old scale) until you try plugging it into any song wrote with my old scale...at least to me, it's a significant difference.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Anyway, it's not semantics, don't even try it man. :-P Consonance in music on the physical level is a concrete and trippy thing.

No duh. I'm merely pointing out the man/woman-on-the-streets concept of consonant/dissonant. Because, for the most part, they couldn't care less.

> Consonance isn't what's wanted in Pop. Didn't I just say that?

I'll be honest: it wasn't clear exactly *what* you were trying to say. If what you are saying is that popular music of our time doesn't have any burning need for clinically-proven consonance, I couldn't agree more.

The misconception isn't in what you're doing- that's great, keep it up- but in the "why" of why it works.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron>"Pop music today is NOT consonant, it's "very familiar"."
> I am not going to argue that familiarity plays a huge role as to why pop music works for so many people. It also explains in part why, for example, 7-tone diatonic scales under 12TET sound "better" to people than JI diatonic, even though mathematically they are less consonant.
>
> Though consonance obviously isn't the whole story of familiarity, I'm pretty sure a big part of it is that people expect intervals to be about 14 cents or less from perfect (just as 12TET arranges them as such). Surely I'm not talking "perfect consonance"...if I were I'd assume what people really wanted to hear was color-less harmonic series used as scales (IE harmonics 7-14 as a scale).
> The other side is, the learning curve of music ("even" in 12TET) is admittedly quite high...and I still believe making scales where fewer mistakes are possible has potential to get people who would otherwise become impatient about the musical learning process to jump on board, turning bad musicians into decent ones, decent musicians into good ones, good to great ones, and great to fantastic ones.
>
> >"but I think you are laboring under a very big misconception"
> Response from my latest micro-tonal work seems to hint otherwise. It used to be I felt my songs would be public-response handicapped vis-a-vis 12TET ones far as ratings if they used micro-tonal scales, now it seems they are more handicapped if they don't.
> And that's all-else-equal...I use the same composition and beat style for both 12TET and micro-tonal songs. Plus I've actually found songs in my new scales take less long to compose...call it lack of skill in 12TET theory (I'm certainly not a professional-grade composer), but the new scales I've made just seem to unravel into smooth chords and/or match moods closely with less fiddling around.
>
> I'm open to other ideas of "instilling a sense of familiarity" (most likely to become a part of any future scale systems I 'attempt' to devise). However this go-around, I think it's fair to say one way to instill a sense of familiarity is through "par of better" consonance vis-a-vis 12TET. The other way of familiarity that's obvious to me, the use of only common-practice-style intervals in different patterns (or patterns very similar to 12TET ALA many mean-tone scales), seems much more limited to me.
>
> If you can think of a third, fourth....ways to instill familiarity (using just scales/tunings and not things like compositional techniques) I'm all ears. :-)
>
> /******************************************************/
> BTW, speaking of new scales, here's my latest...still based on weaving webs around the admittedly quite standard double tetrachord-interval-based structure by modifying the 3 tones other than 1/1,4/3,3/2, and 5/3:
>
> 1/1
> 11/10
> 1.208 (6/5 tempered to mix better with 5/3 and nears 11/8 from 5/3)
> 4/3
> 3/2
> 5/3
> 9/5
> 2/1
>
>
> The only intervals smaller than 11/10 (approximately the 7TET 'semi-tone') are
> A) Between 11/10 and 6/5 (12/11)
> and
> B) Between 5/3 and 9/5 (about 13/12)
>
> ...so I'd say that's pretty close to optimizing the critical band.
>
> Plus, so far as I can tell virtually all of the dyads within 2 octaves are within 10 cents or so of an x/12 level of periodicity.
> You'd think (ah, sounds like a little tweak on your old scale) until you try plugging it into any song wrote with my old scale...at least to me, it's a significant difference.
>

>"And these kind of semantics are only important to the tuning community. I don't see anyone running down the street, screaming in pain from all
the dissonant pop music streaming in from their earbuds."
Ha, it's certainly not "pure"...but it's often much more consonant than what often comes out, say, on these lists.
Sevish, I'd hate to summon you as a witness but....didn't you say ages ago the some 6+ years ago you heard micro-tonal music and thought it was all dissonant garbage and only much later came back realizing it was not always as such?
And if consonance isn't the beast stopping micro-tonality from going culturally "pop", then what is? What do we have to conquer to bridge the (ignorance?) gap?

>"Then again, this grand discerning public has no problem with degrading
pristine audio down to a 128kb mp3 file, so I'd say the minor
improvements to the consonance of their favorite songs would pretty much be missed."
But most of the discerning public also has crappy stereos and/or tiny I-Phone ear buds. ;-)

>"(I really wanted to say "tuning nerds" instead of "the tuning
community", but I'm sure the self-referential humorous nature would get
taken the wrong way...)"
Heck, I AM a tuning dork/nerd/geek...I don't do this for ego I do it for the sense of productivity and to some degree self-indulgence of being able to make new music theories that bend around what I want them to sound like. It's all good. ;-)

I said Pop doesn't have any consonance. Obviously it doesn't need it!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, it's not semantics, don't even try it man. :-P Consonance in music on the physical level is a concrete and trippy thing.
>
> No duh. I'm merely pointing out the man/woman-on-the-streets concept of consonant/dissonant. Because, for the most part, they couldn't care less.
>
> > Consonance isn't what's wanted in Pop. Didn't I just say that?
>
> I'll be honest: it wasn't clear exactly *what* you were trying to say. If what you are saying is that popular music of our time doesn't have any burning need for clinically-proven consonance, I couldn't agree more.
>

>"I'll be honest: it wasn't clear exactly *what* you were trying to say.
If what you are saying is that popular music of our time doesn't have
any burning need for clinically-proven consonance, I couldn't agree
more."

Well then I wonder, why hasn't micro-tonal music taken over?
The two complaints I hear the most from listeners and musicians is "it's too hard to learn" and "it just sounds like cacophony/dissonant". I rarely hear things like "it sounds boring" or "it has no attitude". If consonance didn't matter surely you'd think we'd have at least one Magic temperament top 40 song (without Setharesian spectral alignment) out by now. Or at least get someone adventurous like Herbie Hancock to pick it up. I just wish we all got taken more seriously by the rest of the larger music world (IE outside academia).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I said Pop doesn't have any consonance. Obviously it doesn't need it!

:facepalm:

Ok, whatever. Everyone get out their Dictionary of Tuning Terms, and make sure you are speaking correctly. Because, of course, consonance cannot possibly be a relative term.

Cameron>"The misconception isn't in what you're doing- that's great, keep it up-
but in the "why" of why it works."
Ok, this should be a funny little question: why do you think it works?
Beside dissonance and the added fact it has many followable symmetries/patterns, I have no clue. I've found scales based on symmetric patterns and much less so avoiding dissonance (IE the Silver Sections scale) have come across well to the public, but not nearly as well as those with consonance at least near that of 12TET.

BTW, to note, again I'm not saying perfect consonance is needed (in fact I think the public would think such consonance sounds a bit too "fabricated" and "flavorless")...but I figure that consonance approaching that of 12TET would be advisable for any kind of micro-tonal scale pitched from this list to the public. I think John's scale, Marcel's scale, and Erv Wilson's 6-tone MOS scales, for example, meet that mark....while decatonic scales and Sethares' "spectral-aligned" timbre/scale combinations at least seem to come close to it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Well then I wonder, why hasn't micro-tonal music taken over?

I'd say that both inertia and the concept of 'lingua franca' bear a lot of the responsibility.

Here's are some "counter-questions" about the role of dissonance in pop music
A) What's the most dissonant top-40 12TET pop song you've heard created within the last 10 years and (bonus questions)
B) What chords, modes, and such does it use that makes it dissonant?
C) What do you believe makes it grab the audiences attention in a positive way that has to do with only how what's in B) is used?

dissonance is a personal assessment.

to the monks of 1100 AD a dominant 7th would sound awful - let alone the
blues as a genre.

IMVHO what you are asking is making no sense.

It is up to YOU (and I) as the composer to present any musical idea in such
a way that the audience accepts it, assuming that is your goal. Just because
there are "awful" combinations in 31edo say doesn't mean the composer *has*
to use them.

But of course I really don't give a damn if another musician feels
"comfortable" with a tuning, scale, or "consonance level". Because their
close minded-ness is not my problem.

Chris

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Here's are some "counter-questions" about the role of dissonance in
> pop music
> A) What's the most dissonant top-40 12TET pop song you've heard created
> within the last 10 years and (bonus questions)
> B) What chords, modes, and such does it use that makes it dissonant?
> C) What do you believe makes it grab the audiences attention in a positive
> way that has to do with only how what's in B) is used?
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Carl:
>
> > What's fair/unfair mean?
>
> In the paper, I use them to differentiate between the two species of Blackwood found in 25-EDO. "Fair" is the species where the large step and small step are closer in size, and "Unfair" is the species where the large step is much larger than the small step.

Are you familiar with the scale property known as Rothenberg propriety? If the terms 'proper' and 'improper' will distinguish the scales you're working with, then it would be advisable not to introduce new terminology.

For a simple explanation of the term see:
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/proper.aspx

There is a more rigorous definition here, but after reading it, you're liable to end up scratching your head: 8-(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenberg_propriety

--George

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

> /******************************************************/
> BTW, speaking of new scales, here's my latest...still based on weaving webs around the admittedly quite standard double tetrachord-interval-based structure by modifying the 3 tones other than 1/1,4/3,3/2, and 5/3:
>
> 1/1
> 11/10
> 1.208 (6/5 tempered to mix better with 5/3 and nears 11/8 from 5/3)
> 4/3
> 3/2
> 5/3
> 9/5
> 2/1

You can turn it into a Scala file thusly:

! trance1.scl
Michael's scale
7
!
11/10
151/125 ! (6/5 tempered to mix better with 5/3)
4/3
3/2
5/3
9/5
2

29/24 in place of 151/125 would be a reasonable alternative.

Chris>"It is up to YOU (and I) as the composer to present any musical idea in
such a way that the audience accepts it, assuming that is your goal.
Just because there are "awful" combinations in 31edo say doesn't mean
the composer *has* to use them."
Completely agreed as in, a good enough composer can navigate around a scale's weak points...even if setting up those qualifications seems like a somewhat Spartan and highly Darwinian tactic.
What is frustrating me here though is that I'm asking a question about tuning meaning all-else-equal so far as composition technique...and I keep getting responses like "oh, well this tuning CAN be great given the right compositional technique". Heck, even a "terrible" tuning can shine with the right composer...that's no secret. What I'm trying to get at is what kind of scales would be more likely to allow the average composer to shine and the average listener to understand erm....a starting block to generate interest in our art of micro-tonality.

>"But of course I really don't give a damn if another musician feels
"comfortable" with a tuning, scale, or "consonance level". Because their close minded-ness is not my problem."
While you often do a great job with even the most supposedly inaccessible tunings, can you realize that attitude will likely keep many would-be-great micro-tonal musicians and would-be micro-tonal fans far away from micro-tonal music?

>"Just because there are "awful" combinations in 31edo say doesn't mean
the composer *has* to use them."
Right, but what's the learning curve for navigation and how do you get musicians and listeners interested enough to want to climb it? You don't start a first-time algebra student doing Calculus hoping that will magically make him/her like math more...why propagate the attitude people coming into the micro-tonal scene should either be that way or be consider "dumb" and ignorant?

Of course, if an average-ish musician gets through more accessible scales and then works his/her way up to extremely complex ones and is skilled enough to balance between many grey areas of consonance and dissonance in such scale, great...but pissing them off and making them feel dumb on the first try probably isn't going to help them "lose their ignorance" or want to gain the skills to "go advanced".

I thought I'd chime in because I had a few disagreements (not just with Michael S' post which I'm replying to, but with a lot in general).

> First of all a foreword, my overall point is that, on the average, modern pop-music is too shallow far as what chords it considers to be "usable". And the anti-thesis to that, for example, could very well be making more chords available that allow similar levels of consonance yet sound dramatically different.

Modern pop is not about consonance, it's about familiarity. Nobody who is into pop music will take to the new chords because they will be unfamiliar, as consonant as they may be. The same shallowness is applied to rhythm, lyrical content and melody too... I've heard hook melodies with 2 pitches. Lyrical content is barely important today, but I can say that the pop music in the 80s had some absolute nonsense waste lyrics so no change there.

If pop music is distasteful to anyone, I have to say that introducing new tunings isn't gonna save it. When the majority of pop-listeners are after familiarity and simple enjoyment, they will ignore our freaky lil' noodlings. These people tend to listen to music while multitasking anyway, so they will miss the details. These are just general TASTES that we all know are common - because today's pop is to be found everywhere.

General tastes WILL change in the future because everything changes. Tastes have changed from the 60s, for better or worse. I am not certain that a future change will occur because of some stylistic shift in popular music. I feel more confident that a change in the general public's taste will happen because of cultural reasons... A prospective example of a sufficiently significant cultural change: if the music recording industry falls to smush, forcing people to turn to small-time artists, that is more likely to cause changes in listening tastes.

Until a change happens, we should take a pragmatic approach. Listeners of today's pop music are happy, and we should let them be happy doing their thing. There are types of people who SHUN such music, and look for exciting new things. Some of these people get so far that they actually stumble across microtonality. We are some of those people. There are others out there who will love microtonality but don't know it exists yet. Let's reach out to them by making good microtonal music - yes that qualitative word GOOD - music which might have pop sensibilities, sounds interesting/fun/profound/dance-y/whatever, does NOT insult the listener's intelligence - and share this fine music with as many people as possible. Forget the masses and stay positive being in a small wonderful community as we are in.

I want to learn to love the people who like pop music. I don't understand or appreciate fine food. I know what I like, but I can't analyse the food or experience it on an intellectual level. I don't seek out much new food; I don't challenge my diet. I acknowledge chefs but don't understand them, and I would be grateful if they didn't look down on me for eating poor food sometimes.

At the end of the day this is all talk. I just felt like a natter, and to see what you folks think of my ideas. I should be making music right now, but I got distracted. Let's get back to just making good music.

Sean

PS:
> Well I've noticed the pattern in a lot of modern rock and popular electronica. For example, does Aqua, Britney Spears, Nickelback, Tody Keith, or P Diddy use a lot of sustained 13th chords (or even use them at all)?

Yeah but 13ths sound like dirt, mate!! ;)

Hi George,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
> Are you familiar with the scale property known as Rothenberg propriety? If the terms >'proper' and 'improper' will distinguish the scales you're working with, then it would be >advisable not to introduce new terminology.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenberg_propriety

The fair/unfair distinction has nothing to do with propriety, because both fair and unfair are proper. In 25-EDO, the "Unfair Blackwood" scale is 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1, i.e. a large step is 4/25 and a small step is 1/25; the "Fair Blackwood" scale is 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2, i.e. a large step is 3/25 and a small step is 2/25. One can analogize these to the diatonic scales found in 19 and 22: 19 would be "Fair" since it is 3 3 2 3 3 3 2, and 22's would be "Unfair" since it is 4 4 1 4 4 4 1. The diatonic scale of 27-EDO would be REALLY unfair, as it is 5 5 1 5 5 5 1, and that of 26-EDO would be REALLY fair, as it is 4 4 3 4 4 4 3. In other words, "fairness" is a measure of the ratio of the size of the large step to the size of the small step, which is only possible to do in a strictly proper scale built from two sizes of interval. The closer the ratio to 1:1, the more fair the scale.

However, if anyone else has already come up with a terminology to describe this, I'd be happy to adopt it. The last thing I want to do is add to the clutter of microtonal terminology.

-Igs

Sean,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "sevishmusic" <sevish@...> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd chime in because I had a few disagreements (not just with Michael S' post which I'm replying to, but with a lot in general).

That was a very elegant and sensible missive.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:

> However, if anyone else has already come up with a terminology to
> describe this, I'd be happy to adopt it. The last thing I want to
> do is add to the clutter of microtonal terminology.
> -Igs

Doesn't Blackwood's "r" do the job?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > I said Pop doesn't have any consonance. Obviously it doesn't need it!
>
> :facepalm:
>
> Ok, whatever. Everyone get out their Dictionary of Tuning Terms, and make sure you are speaking correctly. Because, of course, consonance cannot possibly be a relative term.
>

Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.

No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones is just nasty. I would like an apology.

Brian McLaren uses this step-size relationship as a measure as well. I think he calls it roughness, IIRC.

It's a very good measure when there are two step sizes.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Hi George,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "gdsecor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
> > Are you familiar with the scale property known as Rothenberg propriety? If the terms >'proper' and 'improper' will distinguish the scales you're working with, then it would be >advisable not to introduce new terminology.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenberg_propriety
>
> The fair/unfair distinction has nothing to do with propriety, because both fair and unfair are proper. In 25-EDO, the "Unfair Blackwood" scale is 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1, i.e. a large step is 4/25 and a small step is 1/25; the "Fair Blackwood" scale is 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2, i.e. a large step is 3/25 and a small step is 2/25. One can analogize these to the diatonic scales found in 19 and 22: 19 would be "Fair" since it is 3 3 2 3 3 3 2, and 22's would be "Unfair" since it is 4 4 1 4 4 4 1. The diatonic scale of 27-EDO would be REALLY unfair, as it is 5 5 1 5 5 5 1, and that of 26-EDO would be REALLY fair, as it is 4 4 3 4 4 4 3. In other words, "fairness" is a measure of the ratio of the size of the large step to the size of the small step, which is only possible to do in a strictly proper scale built from two sizes of interval. The closer the ratio to 1:1, the more fair the scale.
>
> However, if anyone else has already come up with a terminology to describe this, I'd be happy to adopt it. The last thing I want to do is add to the clutter of microtonal terminology.
>
> -Igs
>

I don't get it. Why is modern pop music not consonant? I don't think
that that makes any more sense than saying that only modern pop music
is consonant (or only common practice music or only whatever).

-Mike

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:32 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I said Pop doesn't have any consonance. Obviously it doesn't need it!
> >
> > :facepalm:
> >
> > Ok, whatever. Everyone get out their Dictionary of Tuning Terms, and make sure you are speaking correctly. Because, of course, consonance cannot possibly be a relative term.
> >
>
> Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.
>
> No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones is just nasty. I would like an apology.
>
>

I'm not saying "average" composer is ignorant.

If you want people of any skill level to make nice sounding music without
effort then I suggest you stick to pentatonic.

Again, my position is that microtonal music will be more listened to when
(more) compelling microtonal music is written.

Let me put it to you this way.

You wanted to play shred guitar. And I presume because you thought it
sounded great. The reason you thought it sounded great is because some kick
ass guitarists recording awesome shred guitar. .

Would you have tried to play shred guitar if you had not heard it?

Now... think of all the work and effort it takes to play shred guitar. A lot
right? Those guitarists worked on playing scales and picking techniques and
more. It takes dedication, practice, skill. And if you put in that time it
still it doesn't mean what you come up with is original or listenable.

Now compare that to playing shred guitar on guitar hero.

Which do you value?

Chris

On T

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I don't get it. Why is modern pop music not consonant? I don't think
> that that makes any more sense than saying that only modern pop >music
> is consonant (or only common practice music or only whatever).
>
> -Mike

Don't you read before replying? I've now twice at least said "physical consonance". And Jon conceded that it is a concrete thing, which it is. Yes, low-limit JI IS a tangible thing. No/low beating. Some like it, some hate it. Whatever.

No, Mike, modern pop is NOT low-limit JI, nor does it need to be, nor is there inherent aesthetic superiority or inferiority whether it is or isn't. Modern pop IS full of dissonance, on the levels and in the ways we can measure, which are not necessarily in agreement with the subjecive ways we can't really measure outside of mutual (dis)agreement.

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:32 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I said Pop doesn't have any consonance. Obviously it doesn't need it!
> > >
> > > :facepalm:
> > >
> > > Ok, whatever. Everyone get out their Dictionary of Tuning Terms, and make sure you are speaking correctly. Because, of course, consonance cannot possibly be a relative term.
> > >
> >
> > Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.
> >
> > No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones is just nasty. I would like an apology.
> >
> >
>

> Don't you read before replying? I've now twice at least said "physical consonance". And Jon conceded that it is a concrete thing, which it is. Yes, low-limit JI IS a tangible thing. No/low beating. Some like it, some hate it. Whatever.
>
> No, Mike, modern pop is NOT low-limit JI, nor does it need to be, nor is there inherent aesthetic superiority or inferiority whether it is or isn't. Modern pop IS full of dissonance, on the levels and in the ways we can measure, which are not necessarily in agreement with the subjecive ways we can't really measure outside of mutual (dis)agreement.

And what in the hell does "physical consonance" mean now? The entire
discussion thus far has been in the vein of there being no singular
dimension of "consonance." You've even given it a name - "physical"
consonance - which I have never heard before. I assume you're talking
about Sethares-style roughness here?

-Mike

> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:32 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I said Pop doesn't have any consonance. Obviously it doesn't need it!
> > > >
> > > > :facepalm:
> > > >
> > > > Ok, whatever. Everyone get out their Dictionary of Tuning Terms, and make sure you are speaking correctly. Because, of course, consonance cannot possibly be a relative term.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.
> > >
> > > No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones is just nasty. I would like an apology.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

>
> And what in the hell does "physical consonance" mean now? The entire
> discussion thus far has been in the vein of there being no singular
> dimension of "consonance." You've even given it a name - "physical"
> consonance - which I have never heard before. I assume you're talking
> about Sethares-style roughness here?
>
> -Mike

For the third time, quoting from earlier:

"I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad".

Low-limit JI certainly is a tangible thing. I think there has been talk on this list of calling this "concordance" rather than "consonance", which might be a good idea. The coincidence of partials isn't "subjective", it is a real phenomenon. Once again, there is no aesthetic or moral or whatever judgement in this. It is a simple fact that this is NOT what happens in Pop music today, and therefore obvious that Pop doesn't "need" this.

> For the third time, quoting from earlier:
>
> "I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad".
>
> Low-limit JI certainly is a tangible thing. I think there has been talk on this list of calling this "concordance" rather than "consonance", which might be a good idea. The coincidence of partials isn't "subjective", it is a real phenomenon. Once again, there is no aesthetic or moral or whatever judgement in this. It is a simple fact that this is NOT what happens in Pop music today, and therefore obvious that Pop doesn't "need" this.

I would argue that that definition of "concordance" has almost nothing
to do with anything that could actually be called "consonance" then. A
JI major chord played through a chorus effect is going to be far from
"concordant" by that definition, but it will certainly be consonant.

Nonetheless yes, pop music makes use of detuned timbres all of the
time. I wouldn't call them "dissonant," but obviously by definition
they are "discordant."

-Mike

>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.
>
> No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones is just nasty. I would like an apology.

Ffs, Cam, lighten up.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.
> >
> > No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones is just nasty. I would like an apology.
>
> Ffs, Cam, lighten up.
>

Nope. I'm sick of the sophistries and sneering.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

>
> I would argue that that definition of "concordance" has almost nothing
> to do with anything that could actually be called "consonance" then. A
> JI major chord played through a chorus effect is going to be far from
> "concordant" by that definition, but it will certainly be consonant.

If we're going to make statements about consonance, we either have to have a mutual agreement, probably cultural, or deal only the "empirical". What's percieved as consonant is subjective, contextual, etc. obviously. Coincidence of partials is the only thing we could call "empirically" consonant. For whatever that is worth, as we can break the "empirical" part with ease, as in your example.

Regardless, that physical consonance is indeed not present in Pop music. So, Pop music obviously doesn't "need" it.

>
> Nonetheless yes, pop music makes use of detuned timbres all of the
> time. I wouldn't call them "dissonant," but obviously by definition
> they are "discordant."

We could just say "inharmonic" and be technically correct.

LOL, who's sneering? So far the last 3 days of conversation in this thread
have basically revolved around people misinterpreting what you say. What's
more likely:

1) that everyone is out to get you by maliciously twisting your posts to
make you look stupid, or
2) that we're just not understanding what you mean to say

I haven't been chiming in so far so as to not take sides, but when you were
arguing with Gene I took your meaning the same way he did at first (that
there is an aural difference between 1/4 comma meantone and 31-tet). The
same applied later on with your discussion with Graham.

Why assume such bad faith, my friend? As Jon said, "lighten up."

-Mike

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:52 PM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "jonszanto"
> <jszanto@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "cameron"
> <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sophistry, Jon. You left out what preceded. I was specifically refering
> to the physical consonance of low-limit JI, which can be described as the
> sensation of absence or paucity of beating, and you know it. Without putting
> aesthetic or value judgement on it good or bad.
> > >
> > > No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to
> be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid ones
> is just nasty. I would like an apology.
> >
> > Ffs, Cam, lighten up.
> >
>
> Nope. I'm sick of the sophistries and sneering.
>
>
>

> If we're going to make statements about consonance, we either have to have a mutual agreement, probably cultural, or deal only the "empirical". What's percieved as consonant is subjective, contextual, etc. obviously. Coincidence of partials is the only thing we could call "empirically" consonant. For whatever that is worth, as we can break the "empirical" part with ease, as in your example.
>
> Regardless, that physical consonance is indeed not present in Pop music. So, Pop music obviously doesn't "need" it.

> > Nonetheless yes, pop music makes use of detuned timbres all of the
> > time. I wouldn't call them "dissonant," but obviously by definition
> > they are "discordant."
>
> We could just say "inharmonic" and be technically correct.

I'm confused here, are you using "discordant" to mean something about
coinciding partials specifically, or "inharmonic" as in high-entropy
inharmonic?

-Mike

Sevish>"A prospective example of a sufficiently significant cultural change: if
the music recording industry falls to smush, forcing people to turn to
small-time artists, that is more likely to cause changes in listening
tastes."
Agreed there...and hopefully this will be for the better.

>"Until a change happens, we should take a pragmatic approach. Listeners
of today's pop music are happy, and we should let them be happy doing
their thing. There are types of people who SHUN such music, and look
for exciting new things. Some of these people get so far that they
actually stumble across micro-tonality."
Right but (reality strikes) that has been surprisingly few. Oddly there seem to be more fans of things like the noise music genre than of micro-tonality.

>"Until a change happens, we should take a pragmatic approach."
>"yes that qualitative word GOOD - music which might have pop
sensibilities, sounds interesting/ fun/profound/ dance-y/whatever ,
does NOT insult the listener's intelligence"
I may be hearing this incorrectly, but I think we may be on the same side of the fence so far as the "does NOT insult the listener's intelligence" issue. I also believe we all obviously have different opinions on what's "good"...but can at least judge certain characteristics as capable of making music at least appear as "decently talented" or "respectable" to a good percentage of all people.

I am not (and never had been) trying to imply we should all kiss the feet of major label tastes and, say, try to make ultra-catchy pop with dead simple themes and the like in an effort to be "more consonant". But rather we should at least lean close enough that many people can instinctively tell what we make is not random out-of-key-ness and have a second thought "hey, I could realistically see myself making music with said theories and/or listening to it on a regular basis and not just out of intellectual fascination"..

Again I'm not trying to be a downer but I've heard talked to a good few professional musicians who make very advanced music (far from bubble gum pop), and even they expressed the attitude that they felt micro-tonal music was too complex to the point of "insulting their intelligence".
Again somehow I am getting the impression people mistake what I say as trying to champion simple pop music and ultra-consonance...not at all, I'm trying to find a middle ground that's close enough to actually get people interested in micro-tonality who wouldn't be otherwise.

>"I want to learn to love the people who like pop music. I don't
understand or appreciate fine food. I know what I like, but I can't
analyse the food or experience it on an intellectual level. I don't
seek out much new food; I don't challenge my diet. I acknowledge chefs
but don't understand them, and I would be grateful if they didn't look
down on me for eating poor food sometimes."

Funny because often I see that as what fans of most 12TET music, and NOT just pop music, think of us.
They occasionally learn that we and our artform of micro-tonality exist, look at the formulas and hear the sounds and say "wow, that's different"...but then leave and talk amongst themselves saying things like "very impressive...but I can't imagine having the mental power to listen to or play it". In other words thinking "I don't challenge my diet. I acknowledge chefs (makers of this incredibly well-planned intricate micro-tonal music)
but don't understand them, and I would be grateful if they didn't look
down on me for eating poor food sometimes (IE not understanding terms used on these forums or instantly appreciating, say, the greater variety of consonance/dissonance).

(Even) if they are into more deviant and advanced types of music (Lord knows how many hardcore shred rock, jazz, even classical enthusiasts I've show leading micro-tonal music who scoffed at it)....we can't expect them to jump over bridges to get to where we are...we have to meet them half-way. That's what I'm (at least trying my hand at) getting at.

On 21 Apr 2010, at 12:07 PM, Michael wrote:

> (Even) if they are into more deviant and advanced types of music > (Lord knows how many hardcore shred rock, jazz, even classical > enthusiasts I've show leading micro-tonal music who scoffed at > it)....we can't expect them to jump over bridges to get to where we > are...we have to meet them half-way. That's what I'm (at least > trying my hand at) getting at.
>

Unfortunately there's no half way between so different style and aesthetical concepts. I'm fluent in many music styles as a composer and performer, whole my life I'm trying to do some style synthesis, but the more I know about it the more I think it's not possible.

Daniel Forro

>"No, Jon. Pop music today is NOT low-limit JI, and it does not need to
be. Trying to twist simple and accurate statements I make into stupid
ones is just nasty. I would like an apology."

Just a side note, I also never implied it "should be". Many of my tunings are chock-full of chords with beating and I think beating is not a bad thing, though I do believe it can become a problem far as public reception to micro-tonality if the beating, say, exceed 15 or so cents off a fairly low-limit interval. And, even then, I'd say a chord starting from the 11th harmonic with no interval in it closer than 13/12 would be "low-limit" enough for the public ear...not that hard of a limit on consonance IMVHO.

Another side note...why on earth (if it was in any way implied) would I be the guy to promote "pure JI or bust"...especially when I went head-on against the grain of so many JI purists on this list with things like my SIlver and PHI section scales and countered the conventional practice of rating consonance by JI periodicity with the method of rating it by critical-band?
Let's get something straight, I'm very very far from promoting micro-tonality on the basis of "making more pure intervals". What I'm trying to do is get 12TET-like consonance without using something very close to 12TET...and then use it to help give people something they can understand as a simple appetizer to the much more complex main course that is the world of micro-tonality.

>"I'm not saying "average" composer is ignorant.
If you want people of any skill level to make nice sounding music without effort then I suggest you stick to pentatonic. "
No one would stick with penta-tonic because of the lack of tonal variety. Some cultures have stuck with 6-tone scales, but it hasn't become a world-wide phenomenon like 7-tone scales. Heck, I'd even say Ptolemy's Homalon scales (un-optimized and un-tempered) give a pretty good compromise with "7-tone possibilities with the easy of learning of pentatonic". The whole point to me is NOT to stop at things like pentatonic theory and say "ah, that's the limit, let's not challenge it further".

>"You wanted to play shred guitar. And I presume because you thought it
sounded great. The reason you thought it sounded great is because some
kick ass guitarists recording awesome shred guitar."
Yes, his skills were great. But the part that really caught me was the simple harmonic section at the beginning (the song was "The Summer Song" by Joe Satriani). I learned the harmonics in a few days and it gave me confidence to say "I just might have found a hobby I can get somewhere at" and buy myself a guitar and try to figure out the rest. If ALL he'd had given me was crazy solos and no imaginative simpler melodic parts, I likely would have just given up early on thinking "oh damn, this is just too hard and I'm not getting anywhere...this is not for me". It was...compromise between pop sensibility that I could instantly understand and mystique and advanced skill that I couldn't yet understand. One led me to want to approach the other. And I never mastered shred...but I did spend a good 4 years trying and enjoyed every minute of it. ;-)

>"Now compare that to playing shred guitar on guitar hero.
Which do you value?"
If Joe hadn't given me the gateway of those "not so hard difficulty" parts in his songs...I'd probably enjoy listening to his songs now and then, but never really catch the groove of it all. I would have been prone to just occasionally playing Guitar Hero instead...I think the honest nature of the beast is playing music loses customers to crap like Guitar Hero when teachers of music end up giving students the impression music is way over their heads and it will take ages for them to turn their effort into reward.
Call it cruel....but I'm just trying to be realistic.

"rock was born of Jazz (whereas I've been led to believe it was born of blues IE Robert Johnson). Then again both jazz and blues could easy be considered ultimately African-American music". Like everything in America it was a melting pot of many ingredients. The blues was considered a part of jazz since both use blue notes. Jazz had its origins in New Orleans marching band music. But the Afro-Americans put in their own style by introducing blue notes and changing the rhythm from a march to a swing. The anticipation of the rhythm left gaps which were then filled by improvised phrases. Later this style was brought to the popular songs which came from Broadway and then Hollywood musicals. These make up the beginnings of the jazz standards. As Cam said below, it was the pop music of its day. And a great deal of its repertoire is blues. It uses minor thirds over major chords, plays flat fifths all over the place and replaces tonic triads with dom sevenths because they sound 'sexy', mischievous and even a form of protest and defiance. It is horn, piano and banjo based because only these instruments were loud enough. Guitar based 'blues' OTOH was spread more by recordings and radio. But it was really the invention of the electric guitar that allowed guitarists to solo like the horns. Don't people realise that Hendrix was doing on guitar what the horns had been doing all along? It was Louie Armstrong who really invented the extended solo, the mov't from trad to modern. Young white kids then began to imitate the old records and play them on their electric guitars. And what they're doing now is a distant memory of a dream.

As for most modern pop I hear nowadays, it just sounds to me like revolution without any stakes. This is particularly hypocritical since their sole motive seems to be money and fame for its own sake. IOW they are just adopting the signs of the revolution like the Che Guavarra T-shirt or the Smirnoff Vodka advertising campaign. Rock bands using Gibson Gold tops and double bass, singer/'songwriters' writing about poverty from the bedroom that their rich daddy provides, "blues" musicians who play the same three chords ad infinitum arriving at the gig in a gold-plated Cadillac. And worse still, the occasional 'Beatle's' chord thrown in like the minor fourth to show how 'creative and original' they are. The spoilt grandchildren of the baby boomers, the iGen. The difference between this and the "granny" music, as Cam put it, is that the latter came out of true poverty and repression, two world wars, a depression and racial segregation. In 100 years the honesty and sophistication of this "granny" era will still be remembered while Snoopy Katz and the nazi phlegms will be seen as an embarrassing social illness, the "American dream" gone horribly skewiff.

Look at me going on. My apologies

-Rick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"But I think that the real problem is marketing, or rather,
> fake-marketing. I mean its ridiculous to think that Led Zep, Hendrix,
> the Beatle's etc... just came out of some cultural vacuum.
> Lennon/Macartney studied many of the jazz standards"
> That's the odd thing...I intended for the discussion to be about modern pop musicians and not older groups like "The Beatles" or "The Who", who I agree are quite advanced.
>
> >"unable to put a lid on the evil "jazz" music, the 'colonel Tom Parkers'
> of this world re-packaged it for the puritans under the name "rock n
> roll". Add to this the invention of the electric guitar (I believe by
> Les Paul who was himself a great jazz guitarist) and voila, a new
> 'style' of music was born. "
> Ah interesting, so you are saying rock was born of Jazz (whereas I've been led to believe it was born of blues IE Robert Johnson). Then again both jazz and blues could easy be considered ultimately African-American music and looking back I do get the odd feeling a certain degree of nasty "white supremacy" was involved in distorting the history of such music.
>
> >"Consequently many brilliant musicians live way below the poverty line,
> all because the true contribution and history of jazz has been
> conveniently rewritten and undermined by calling it a 'genre'."
> I can believe it. I hear musicians playing on the street (jazz or not) who often sound far better than who I hear on the radio and can improvise beautifully for hours on end. The sad reality though is, genre or not genre, it seems obvious people fall for catchy songs with short/easy motifs, few complex chords, and virtually no modulations beside, say, an occasional transposition for the "bridge" part of a song.
>
> >"Jazz isn't a style, it is style. I'm coming to think that bad taste is
> actually a form of theft. And why do those who claim that 'beauty is in
> the eye of the beholder' always have the same records?"
> I actually don't like the idea of genres and agree it often convinces listeners to stereotype. When I say I make dance music, people automatically assume 4-on-the-floor-beat, simple chords, cheesy artificial sounding timbres, and a single-themed melody that repeats through the entire song with very little variation. And when people think of jazz, they often think of a bunch of guys on brass and a lead saxophone or the average guy playing on the street. IMVHO whenever someone is doing something like using a multi-key modulation in the middle of a verse or using certain extensive chords, they are playing out parts of the "style" jazz. And if anyone is doing fantastic things with meshing timbres to "morph" into each other and making beats with ghost notes that seem to flow seem-lessly and fit an insane amount of instruments into a song (more often, than even orchestral music) without harmonic clashing typical with using that many acoustic
> instruments...they are playing out parts of the "dance" style (BT is a huge example of this for me).
>
> The odd pattern is when I see people who say they make jazz music, the common thread is their high ability to deal with complex harmonic structures. Tina Cousins (a dance musician) actually studied jazz classics and music from before jazz and rock were "singled out" from each other (as you seem to have put it). Any of her bios hints at just how much jazz training she had. And her early songs (to me, at least) are truly beautiful with complex dark chords and shimmery vocals that have a lot of the soul and variation of such older music. And yet the songwriting style is catchy and very well done in a pop sense...it's not like she lost popularity because her arrangements/phrasing/beats/vocals... weren't in a catchy style.
> But as time went on she degenerated into writing bubble-gum pop, and not because she didn't know how to write with the "jazz" attitude. Her latest records sound fabricated and are no more advertised than her old ones, yet they have sold exponentially more. Again, it seems there's a certain addictiveness the public wants that comes with those IMVHO boring pure consonant chords...minus the occasional record where the catchy-ness lies much more in the lyrics or vocal timbre/talent.
>

>"And what in the hell does "physical consonance" mean now? The entire
discussion thus far has been in the vein of there being no singular
dimension of "consonance."

Ok, at least to me physical consonance is a combination of
A) Critical band dissonance (yes, as in Sethares-style dissonance)
B) Periodic dissonance (often expressed as JI o-tonality and u-tonality and through terms such as "11 limit"...and completely independent of the concept of critical-band dissonance)
C) Other factors we have yet to fully understand, such as symmetry between notes.

For actual consonance, things like personal preference over things like how much beating a person does/doesn't like comes in. To me the periodic buzz in overly large and pure JI chords is mechanical and annoying sounding...but some people adore it. People also have different ranges of what desirable physical consonance should be, "even" within things like 12TET.

If I were to assign a "point" the physical dissonance, it's that obeying it fairly well lessens the chance someone will mistake your music for random noise and dislike it. It's like wearing protective gear on a motorcycle EVEN if you are a great driver...and even then it won't necessarily save you, just give you much better chances of coming out of anything that could go wrong in "decent shape".

>"Coincidence of partials is the only thing we could call "empirically" consonant."
I seriously disagree...if you said that wouldn't that be saying Plomp and Llevelt's work based on critical band consonance is irrelevant and only periodic "partial related" consonance matters to the underlying physical of sound and human hearing? Any Audiologist on compressed audio format designer could tell you how important critical band is to how we hear.

> Regardless, that physical consonance is indeed not present in Pop music. So, Pop music obviously doesn't "need" it.
I argue not "pure JI" consonance, but at least consonance based on 12TET dyads' being within 14 cents of pure JI dyads. That and pop music's chords containing intervals with root tones generally far enough to satisfy the ears criticial band needs. Hence why you don't see many pop artists (if any) lumping together chords like BCDEG often at all. It's not that pop has to be perfectly consonant...it's that things that are terribly dissonant have an incredibly low chance of reaching the public ear to any fair extent (pop or not).

> > Regardless, that physical consonance is indeed not present in Pop music. So, Pop music obviously doesn't "need" it.
>            I argue not "pure JI" consonance, but at least consonance based on 12TET dyads' being within 14 cents of pure JI dyads.  That and pop music's chords containing intervals with root tones generally far enough to satisfy the ears criticial band needs.  Hence why you don't see many pop artists (if any) lumping together chords like BCDEG often at all.  It's not that pop has to be perfectly consonant...it's that things that are terribly dissonant have an incredibly low chance of reaching the public ear to any fair extent (pop or not).

LOL buddy I give up. I spent all that time coming up with like tons of
examples proving you wrong, and it seems to have gone in one ear and
out the other. Just believe what you want at this point.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> I'm confused here, are you using "discordant" to mean something about
> coinciding partials specifically, or "inharmonic" as in high-entropy
> inharmonic?

Con-sonance, sounding together. Partials coincide. In JI many partials coincide, few clash. That's not numerology, it's just physics. The fundamentals of each tone coincide with harmonic partials of other tones: it is literally, physically, "in tune". All this is measured in rates, which is how we percieve pitch. (Arguments about how we don't percieve intervals as ratios have no bearing on this- we percieve rates, and we percieve coincidence of rates.)

We could call the absence of these coincidences "inharmonic". A spectogram of the entire work would reveal that it is indeed very inharmonic. Add percussion to that.

There's no need to go to entropy theories to find that it is a simple fact that there is more harmonicity when partials coincide- that's like a truism or something- and more inharmonicity when they don't.

Do a spectral analysis of a Pop song. Yes it has tons of inharmonicity. No it does not have the physical consonance of a low-limit JI ensemble. No value judgements being made here, just measurable fact.

>"Con-sonance, sounding together"
Ah ok, meaning to say the root of the word means that exactly and doesn't, say, imply anything in tuning that creates a sense of resolve. In that case, perhaps "resolved-ness" is a better word. In that case, Plomp and Llevelt's experiment was not about consonance, but about a way other than consonance to achieve resolve.

>"There's no need to go to entropy theories to find that it is a simple fact that there is more harmonicity when partials coincide"
I realize that. My conclusion, though, is that's not the only way to acheive (ahem) "resolved-ness" via tuning.

>"Do a spectral analysis of a Pop song. Yes it has tons of inharmonicity.
No it does not have the physical consonance of a low-limit JI ensemble.
No value judgements being made here, just measurable fact."
Well drums are obviously in-harmonic (especially things like snares). But anyone who has programmed compressed audio formats such as MP3 or OGG can tell you all about frequency masking. If you have a clear harmonic tone louder than tones around it that are very close to it and/or significantly louder than tones that are close but not very close...the brain will only hear the tone and filter out nearby noise. This is much of how these formats achieve compression...they don't store the noise that is covered/hidden under the curve caused by the harmonics. So much of the inharmonicity is not audible...and this largely explains how a song can have so many drums without making the chords clash with them.
Same goes for the timbres of actual instruments...many of the in-harmonic partials cover each other up in the same way. So what you see in a spectrogram and what you hear are often quite different. One obvious example: a highly distorted sounding electric guitar playing a complex chord IE a 13th....certain notes become "hidden" beneath the huge layers of loud overtones.

But what if you have instruments at similar volume? Then you have to worry about harmonicity issues more as two sine waves/harmonic-partials have to be incredibly close (again the usual 7-13 cents point of critical band "dissonance" elimination comes in) to sound like a chorus effect and not like two tones clashing. Hence we have to be much more careful with tuning foreground instruments than things like drums and background instruments and noises...because so much of the latter ends up being "masked". Just because it's not, say, "pure" acoustic classical music, which has much tamer overtones and often few to no drums) doesn't mean it skews how important things like aligning prominent harmonics on the main/non-background instruments are. I don't know why I find myself feeling the need to say this on such a list but...tuning to enforce a fair degree of harmonicity and indirectly resolved-ness really does make a huge difference to most listeners
and musicians alike.

__,_._,__

Alright, since we're going in circles, I'll try to be as clear as
possible: there is more to "consonance" than the coinciding of
partials. As has been discussed here before, if there really were a
type of consonance that sort of syncs up with the usual layman's
definition of the term, it would probably be the entropy-based
consonance, over Sethares's "partials coinciding" consonance. I've
been personally calling the entropy-based consonance "harmonicity,"
because I think it's a pretty accurate description of what is really
going on. And in comparison, Sethares' notion of consonance I
attribute the more familiar term "accordance." I'm not married to
those words but I will use them as such in this message just to keep
confusion to a minimum.

Now, as to what you are saying - by your definition of "consonance"
(what I would call "concordance"), a triad played with sine waves is
not consonant at all, since it is by definition not "concordant," as
there are no partials to coincide with. Another problem is, as I
mentioned, that the whole concept breaks down even further when you're
dealing with detuned leads or leads with chorus or heavy vibrato on
them, as this will "smear" the partials (via convolution if you know
all about that).

A third problem is that for a great number of timbres the rolloff is
steep enough that by the time the 5th harmonic comes around it's
sitting low enough in volume to be almost completely "masked" by the
octave harmonic of the 12-tet major 3rd. If one tone is significantly
louder than the other, there isn't going to be a lot of beating. This
would be true of rhodes patches and such.

A fourth problem is that the beating if it does exist between the two
partials might even be low enough to not be heard at all, or be masked
by other things happening around the same frequency range that cover
it up. In tandem with this, a fifth problem is that the beating might
not last long enough to be heard anyway.

But assuming that we're dealing with a instrument tuned perfectly to
12-tet, with no vibrato, no partial inharmonicity (or the tuning
stretched to match it), with a timbre where the beating is audible,
and with the chord being sustained long enough - then yes, you're
right. It will be perceived as not completely concordant, but rather
with some "beating" (which is just another term for partial-dependent
vibrato). Of course, since vibrato and chorus aren't really that out
of place in modern pop music, most people won't even notice this, and
in fact they don't.

-Mike

The most advanced!

BTW Gene, and sorry for the abuse of the list for this, but have you been
getting my offlist PMs? I wrote you a few days ago and haven't gotten a
response. Not sure if you just haven't seen it, or if my "Chromosounds"
render was really so offensive that you couldn't stand to reply... :D

-Mike

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:52 AM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Battaglia
> <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Now, let's see if the tuning list is as hostile to this admission that I
> > have AP as my buddies from school usually are... :)
>
> So you have Advanced Placement do you, ya little punk? (SMACK)
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> The most advanced!
>
> BTW Gene, and sorry for the abuse of the list for this, but have you been
> getting my offlist PMs?

Sorry, no, I didn't get them. I'm sorry not to have heard your version of chromosounds, in that meaningless pile of notes called 46 equal.

Uh, you're genewardsmith@..., right? I sent two emails there...
maybe it's in your spam filter or something? Do you have a different email
address?

-Mike

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:26 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Battaglia
> <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > The most advanced!
> >
> > BTW Gene, and sorry for the abuse of the list for this, but have you been
> > getting my offlist PMs?
>
> Sorry, no, I didn't get them. I'm sorry not to have heard your version of
> chromosounds, in that meaningless pile of notes called 46 equal.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Uh, you're genewardsmith@..., right?

No, that's just for the spam which I get as a group maximum leader. Try me at gmail instead, as I read that.

On 21 April 2010 07:48, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>   No one would stick with penta-tonic because of the lack of tonal variety.

Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively) pentatonic.
They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic. Thai classical music is
pentatonic (taken from roughly 7 note equal temperament). As lack of
tonal variety seems to be what you're looking for, maybe you should be
looking at pentatonics. There's nothing at all wrong with them.

Graham

Are you (yournamewithnospaces) at gmail dot you know what to do?
-Mike

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:34 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Battaglia
> <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Uh, you're genewardsmith@..., right?
>
> No, that's just for the spam which I get as a group maximum leader. Try me
> at gmail instead, as I read that.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> >> > Take a closer look, and you'll see that 11:13:15 in 29-ET
> >> > and 58-ET are exactly the same, hence the result will sound
> >> > exactly alike.  Since 29 is less complex than 58, it is
> >> > better.
> >>
> >> Not quite.  Note that the numbers in the val I gave aren't
> >> divisible by 2.  -Carl
> >
> > That's irrelevant.
>
> Well, it should be relevant, because the val gives the mapping into
> equally tempered steps. If an interval maps to an odd number of
> steps, you can't divide it by two.
>
> So what's happening here is that <201 215 227] contains *only* odd
> numbers. The interval between any pair of these harmonics is an
> even number of steps, and so the chord belongs in 29-ET but the
> phantom 1:1 doesn't.

That's right. The code that gave me that 58-ET val considers
the error of 11:1. If you only care about 13:11 and 15:11, then
29-ET will apparently do the job.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > The most advanced!
> >
> > BTW Gene, and sorry for the abuse of the list for this, but have
> > you been getting my offlist PMs?
>
> Sorry, no, I didn't get them.

I also sent you a msg at your svpal address. Can you check it?

-Carl

Yes, Japanese music as well. Asian cultures very often use pentatonics in the melody and western functional or modal harmony in accompaniment, so there is tonality.

Nothing to say about quantity of works of classical European music using pentatonics, or diatonics with emphasizing pentatonics subsets (Liszt, Moussorgski, Debussy, Dvorak, Ravel, Skriabin, Janacek, Bartok, Messiaen...), jazz and pop...

Daniel Forro

On 21 Apr 2010, at 4:31 PM, Graham Breed wrote:

>
> On 21 April 2010 07:48, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > No one would stick with penta-tonic because of the lack of > tonal variety.
>
> Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively) pentatonic.
> They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
> microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic. Thai classical music is
> pentatonic (taken from roughly 7 note equal temperament). As lack of
> tonal variety seems to be what you're looking for, maybe you should be
> looking at pentatonics. There's nothing at all wrong with them.
>
> Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Are you (yournamewithnospaces) at gmail dot you know what to do?
> -Mike

That's I'm!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

"All this is measured in rates, which is how we percieve pitch.
(Arguments about how we don't percieve intervals as ratios have no
bearing on this- we percieve rates, and we percieve coincidence of
rates.)"

I don't understand. Do you mean we hear pitches in the same way
we hear tempos? I don't think this is true. Yes, pitch correlates
with frequency but pitch of a pure tone might be different at the
two ears (binaural diplacusis). Also, some absolute pitch possessors
have reported a shift in pitch as they age. On the other hand both
ears have the same sense of time and I don't think there is much of
a change in the sense of time (of present happenings I should add)
as we age.

Kalle Aho

But! Daniel, as you know full well, Chinese music has extremely developed inflection, whole poetries in single lilting bend so to speak. Pentatonic skeleton, yes. Pentatonic, no. (I have performed in China, probably going again this year- I'm speaking from limited, but first hand, experience).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 21 April 2010 07:48, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >   No one would stick with penta-tonic because of the lack of tonal variety.
>
> Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively) pentatonic.
> They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
> microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic. Thai classical music is
> pentatonic (taken from roughly 7 note equal temperament). As lack of
> tonal variety seems to be what you're looking for, maybe you should be
> looking at pentatonics. There's nothing at all wrong with them.
>
>
> Graham
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> "All this is measured in rates, which is how we percieve pitch.
> (Arguments about how we don't percieve intervals as ratios have no
> bearing on this- we percieve rates, and we percieve coincidence of
> rates.)"
>
> I don't understand. Do you mean we hear pitches in the same way
> we hear tempos? I don't think this is true. Yes, pitch correlates
> with frequency but pitch of a pure tone might be different at the
> two ears (binaural diplacusis). Also, some absolute pitch possessors
> have reported a shift in pitch as they age. On the other hand both
> ears have the same sense of time and I don't think there is much of
> a change in the sense of time (of present happenings I should add)
> as we age.
>
> Kalle Aho
>

All I meant was, "pitch correlates with frequency". Artistically, there's that whole Cowell thing (Europeans think it is Stockhausen but he just lifted it from Cowell) of the rhythm/pitch continuum. I buy that on an artistic level, not on a physics level.

As far as the the sense of time, it was determined by extensive testing by NASA (and at Bajkonur I imagine) that human sense of time is temperature-dependent. And so, as body temperature decreases with age, time "speeds up" in perception. Mars mission testing, in Scientific American in the 90's. I can ask Dragan ®ivadinov personally if there's Bajkonur lit on the topic, gravity and time are his specialties in art and he's a graduate of Bajkonur kosmonaut training to boot, LOL. In youth and in the tropics, time therefore "feels slower". But you quite suavely qualified with "of present happenings", nice!

-Cameron Bobro

I heard a brief mention of microtonality online about 5-6 years ago and went googling for audio. The first thing I heard was some awful quartertone percussion music, so dissonant and unlistenable; I felt like microtonal music was purely an avant garde movement and it had no use in actually improving music as I knew it then.

First impressions are important, and it's enough to put someone off microtonal music completely. It's only because of my own nature that I came back a year later to explore more and start to read further into microtonality. For most people, their interest in microtonality would extinguish in mere seconds.

The last thing I would do is make microtonal music similar in style to the early stuff I heard. I don't want to give anybody else a bad impression of such a lively musical technique.

Sean

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Sevish, I'd hate to summon you as a witness but....didn't you say ages ago the some 6+ years ago you heard micro-tonal music and thought it was all dissonant garbage and only much later came back realizing it was not always as such?

If this is for me (because you answered to Graham), I can say only
that almost all Chinese music I've heard until now or performed was
in pentatonics, major or its modes. They use also modulations, and of
course western harmony (prevailing simple triads). But it was
probably something like the main, official, let's say "governmental"
music, Chinese opera, and pop music... and some contemporary (which
is not so much contemporary from the western point of view)... To
talk about Chinese music we would have to define which one, as there
are lot of nations, languages, religions, traditions... For sure
music of Uygurs is different then south China, and music for Buddhist
liturgy will differ from Chinese pop etc.

Daniel Forro

On 21 Apr 2010, at 9:41 PM, cameron wrote:

>
> But! Daniel, as you know full well, Chinese music has extremely
> developed inflection, whole poetries in single lilting bend so to
> speak. Pentatonic skeleton, yes. Pentatonic, no. (I have performed
> in China, probably going again this year- I'm speaking from
> limited, but first hand, experience).
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 21 April 2010 07:48, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Â No one would stick with penta-tonic because of the lack of
> tonal variety.
> >
> > Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively)
> pentatonic.
> > They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
> > microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic. Thai classical music is
> > pentatonic (taken from roughly 7 note equal temperament). As lack of
> > tonal variety seems to be what you're looking for, maybe you
> should be
> > looking at pentatonics. There's nothing at all wrong with them.
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
>

And this adds to my point is that if you want interest in non-12edo
music then write some good compelling music in a micro/macro tonal
tuning. That is much more important, IMVHO, than trying find an idiot
proof tuning.

I would think one very big point of entry for discovery of microtonal
is world music.... Which brings me to the point => other cultures have
figured out how to write pleasant non12 edo music without using
tunings with training wheels. Why do you suppose westerners can't do
the same?

For the record I became aware of micro music during music theory class
when the teacher explained the development of keyboard tunings from
vocal music through mean tone to the compromise of 12 tet. According
to him choirs sang more or less in adaptive JI and that good choirs
still do. Another point made was that tuning is "fuzzy" when you get a
group of different instruments together.

After this I heard a show on WFMT chicago with Ben Johnston explaining
different edos with a synthsizer and examples - and I was really
impressed with the sound of 22 edo.

BUT I wasn't able to follow up on composing microtonally until I
obtained a computer with a soundcard (adlib card and then
soundblaster) and suitable software (adlib composer and tracker
software).

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, sevishmusic <sevish@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I heard a brief mention of microtonality online about 5-6 years ago and went googling for audio. The first thing I heard was some awful quartertone percussion music, so dissonant and unlistenable; I felt like microtonal music was purely an avant garde movement and it had no use in actually improving music as I knew it then.
>
> First impressions are important, and it's enough to put someone off microtonal music completely. It's only because of my own nature that I came back a year later to explore more and start to read further into microtonality. For most people, their interest in microtonality would extinguish in mere seconds.
>
> The last thing I would do is make microtonal music similar in style to the early stuff I heard. I don't want to give anybody else a bad impression of such a lively musical technique.
>
> Sean
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> > Sevish, I'd hate to summon you as a witness but....didn't you say ages ago the some 6+ years ago you heard micro-tonal music and thought it was all dissonant garbage and only much later came back realizing it was not always as such?
>

On 21 Apr 2010, at 10:29 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> I would think one very big point of entry for discovery of microtonal
> is world music.... Which brings me to the point => other cultures have
> figured out how to write pleasant non12 edo music without using
> tunings with training wheels. Why do you suppose westerners can't do
> the same?
>

Yes, that's good for the beginning with microtonality. But it's only one and very limited way what microtonality can offer for future of the music. Just few points:

Don't forget this music has different structure than western music - there's usually only monophonic melody, maybe sustained drone as accompaniment. Very often the music uses only one scale, or one tuning, and improvised variations of course have some patterns but we westerners need to get use to it and listen carefully to hear such things like motifs and their development, this music uses different principles than western music. Also orchestration is simple, something like western big orchestras playing multi-layered or polyphonic music with different instrument groups is rare in non-western music (Japan, China, to name some...). So there's usually nothing like western counterpoint or harmony, and using this for making the emotions. World music emphasizes expressivity, detailed work with different modulations of pitch, timbre, articulation, also metrorhythmics is based on different principles, much more complex than western music. There's a lot of improvisation, only some cultures have something like artificially composed music fixed in some kind of score and played always the same (like the western classical music).

So of course we westerners can learn to do the same, but why? It has no sense. For sure we can learn from it and continue, develop and enrich our own traditions, that means highly sophisticated music structures based on lot of mathematics. And we can use different tunings and scales, range is much greater than limited ethnics scales. And we can use electronic instruments and computers with their unlimited possibilities in pitch accuracy, speed, layering and layer synchronization (like polytempi), timbre, expressivity and articulation...

Daniel Forro

Daniel, why do you suppose I meant no development?

I am very aware of all the issues you cited.

However, it is a starting point and "westernized" world music is
already putting microtonal inflected melodies over 12 edo. which is a
bit further than a starting point.

Chris

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2010, at 10:29 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > I would think one very big point of entry for discovery of microtonal
> > is world music.... Which brings me to the point => other cultures have
> > figured out how to write pleasant non12 edo music without using
> > tunings with training wheels. Why do you suppose westerners can't do
> > the same?
> >
>
> Yes, that's good for the beginning with microtonality. But it's only
> one and very limited way what microtonality can offer for future of
> the music. Just few points:
>
>

>"Now, as to what you are saying - by your definition of "consonance"
(what I would call "concordance" ), a triad played with sine waves is
not consonant at all, since it is by definition not "concordant, " as
there are no partials to coincide with."

This seems to be crossing terms. Sethares algorithm may, to an extent, reveal how much partials intersect or near-intersect...but he comes to this conclusion by comparing every overtone in a timbre to every other one to form a result from a dyadic critical band formula straight from Plomp and Llevelt. The intersection is an effect and not a cause...many of Sethares' timbres do not intersect when played with their suggested scales but rather "either intersect or avoid each other fairly well on the average", thus avoiding the peak areas of the critical band dissonance curve. The only exception where this works where all harmonics intersect perfectly is with TET scales where the timbre IS the scale.

Periodicity/"harmonic entropy", meanwhile, far as I know tries to use low-limit fractions in order to ensure the harmonics intersect directly and not. This also has the side effect of enforcing periodicity, which Sethares' algorithm does not.
----Periodicity can exist regardless of whether we use sine waves or full-on timbres with overtones: two 3/2 apart sine waves will always repeat in a shorter period than two sine waves 6/5 apart...that's just basic physics. So if not more "consonant", in your words, a more periodic interval (even with just sine waves) does sound more resolved...and again, I think of consonance/concordance/etc. ...as simply being pathways to the emotional aspect that is "resolvedness".-----

>"A third problem is that for a great number of timbres the rolloff is steep enough that by the time the 5th harmonic comes around it's sitting low enough in volume to be almost completely "masked" by the octave harmonic of the 12-tet major 3rd."
Right...which is why I think may of these algorithms, including Sethares' derivation of JI diatonic assuming fairly influential amplitude peaks over the 5th harmonic, are flawed. I've actually brought this up a few times before. I'm not convinced JI diatonic, in many ways, is an ideal solution for the problem, even with full-on harmonic timbres. Nice to see also...that you are mentioning/taking-into-account masking this time around...I don't hear that a lot beside from people who do audio compression and/or are audiologists.

>"with a timbre where the beating is audible, and with the chord being sustained long enough - then yes, you're right. "
Oh man, for about the 10th time this is not what I'm saying. I'm not trying to imply we should all go for "beat-less consonance"...but rather reach a compromise where we have, say, most audible partials (about the 5th and under) collide within 13 cents or so of intersection of other partials and root tones and with a decent degree of periodicity ("x/12" or so is close enough in my book).

12TET DOES satisfy this and makes a fine system for harmony when "used by the experts" but
A) It requires musicians to take many years of intense theory to find all the sweet spots so far as chords...in part because things like putting many whole steps in a row in a chord or putting more than one semi-tone within a chord are virtually illegal (do them, and many people will assume you just don't know chord theory). The fact that many people "need a Doctorate to jam" (and supposedly really know all the ins and outs of using just 12 tones) is a fleeting example of this. 12 years to learn 12 notes really isn't that uncommon...so much for a "simple/easy and elegant system"...in some ways. IMVHO we need so much theory to get around 12TET in a large part because there are so many "holes" in it.

We also have side-effects like different modes that have the exact same notes as whole other keys and relative major/minor scales that contain the same notes in order (as I've seen) to stress certain roots as "tonic" or "dominant" and decide which chords should be able to "deserve" the label "consonant" in that mode. We have guideline terms like "X type of chord always resolves to Y type of chord" rather than having the option of using either as a point of resolve.
And this may sound normal to us, but it often sounds really off-putting to a starting musician or even a somewhat intermediate one.

Thus we are stuck with a global system with a learning curve that scares off a whole lot of people, no matter how beautiful or "worth it" others may say the result is. And, IMVHO, the more time and effort composers have to use working through theory while writing a song, the less time they have to focus on the emotional aspects of the song and "make it sound like they are having fun and not just an academic exercise" when the listener hears it.

B) Has exhausted a lot of its own potential. So many of the possible combinations of 12TET chords have already been used and new artists often have to resort to changes in things like different phrasing, different arrangements, different effects, and slight changes in melody to breath any life into it. A scale which allowed some extra completely new sounding chords and intervals and allowed musicians to "start fresh" without ending up virtually copying other people's work, would be much appreciated for the sake of musical growth IMVHO.

I don't have anything against 12TET because it's "not pure enough", "beats to much", or "has too much critical band dissonance"...indeed I think, to most people, it is close enough to pure to work. I am just frustrated with its monopoly mainly for reasons A and B.

>"Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively) pentatonic.
They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic."

My apologizes. Still I think most people would consider the above too a bit off the edge. Otherwise I figure you'd see people using penta-tonic modes under 12TET a lot.
I'm a bit confused as well as I thought much Chinese and other Eastern music was 6-tone and not 5. My bad.

I don't know where you got Sethares from- great guy, great books, but the term Tonverschmelzung (the melting together of tones, that is, coincident partials) is a hundred or hundreds of years old.

All of what you said is well thought out. But let's not beat around the bush: it's low-limit JI that has that distinct and recognizable sound of physical concordance (kind of tautology or something there), and that's what we were talking about. Surely you agree that contemporary Pop music isn't in low-limit JI.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Alright, since we're going in circles, I'll try to be as clear as
> possible: there is more to "consonance" than the coinciding of
> partials. As has been discussed here before, if there really were a
> type of consonance that sort of syncs up with the usual layman's
> definition of the term, it would probably be the entropy-based
> consonance, over Sethares's "partials coinciding" consonance. I've
> been personally calling the entropy-based consonance "harmonicity,"
> because I think it's a pretty accurate description of what is really
> going on. And in comparison, Sethares' notion of consonance I
> attribute the more familiar term "accordance." I'm not married to
> those words but I will use them as such in this message just to keep
> confusion to a minimum.
>
> Now, as to what you are saying - by your definition of "consonance"
> (what I would call "concordance"), a triad played with sine waves is
> not consonant at all, since it is by definition not "concordant," as
> there are no partials to coincide with. Another problem is, as I
> mentioned, that the whole concept breaks down even further when you're
> dealing with detuned leads or leads with chorus or heavy vibrato on
> them, as this will "smear" the partials (via convolution if you know
> all about that).
>
> A third problem is that for a great number of timbres the rolloff is
> steep enough that by the time the 5th harmonic comes around it's
> sitting low enough in volume to be almost completely "masked" by the
> octave harmonic of the 12-tet major 3rd. If one tone is significantly
> louder than the other, there isn't going to be a lot of beating. This
> would be true of rhodes patches and such.
>
> A fourth problem is that the beating if it does exist between the two
> partials might even be low enough to not be heard at all, or be masked
> by other things happening around the same frequency range that cover
> it up. In tandem with this, a fifth problem is that the beating might
> not last long enough to be heard anyway.
>
> But assuming that we're dealing with a instrument tuned perfectly to
> 12-tet, with no vibrato, no partial inharmonicity (or the tuning
> stretched to match it), with a timbre where the beating is audible,
> and with the chord being sustained long enough - then yes, you're
> right. It will be perceived as not completely concordant, but rather
> with some "beating" (which is just another term for partial-dependent
> vibrato). Of course, since vibrato and chorus aren't really that out
> of place in modern pop music, most people won't even notice this, and
> in fact they don't.
>
> -Mike
>

yeah if pentatonic was popular you'd think a genre like Blues would use
it...

http://www.cyberfret.com/scales/blues/index.php

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> >"Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively) pentatonic.
> They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
> microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic."
>
> My apologizes. Still I think most people would consider the above too
> a bit off the edge. Otherwise I figure you'd see people using penta-tonic
> modes under 12TET a lot.
> I'm a bit confused as well as I thought much Chinese and other Eastern
> music was 6-tone and not 5. My bad.
>
>
>
>

Graham lives in China I think, hopefully he will comment. I also heard only the most insufferable sugary pentatonics and westernized stuff, with a few exceptions: in Lou Harrison's lectures long long ago; when I was learning some Chinese songs (the artists just sung them to me, so, folk versions); and when I was in China. The amateur musicians in the parks and the professional street musicians (clearly of various ethnic backgrounds from jungle to steppe) were very much as I described: simple pentatonic or diatonic base, but completely buried in bird-song-like microtonal inflections.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> If this is for me (because you answered to Graham), I can say only
> that almost all Chinese music I've heard until now or performed was
> in pentatonics, major or its modes. They use also modulations, and of
> course western harmony (prevailing simple triads). But it was
> probably something like the main, official, let's say "governmental"
> music, Chinese opera, and pop music... and some contemporary (which
> is not so much contemporary from the western point of view)... To
> talk about Chinese music we would have to define which one, as there
> are lot of nations, languages, religions, traditions... For sure
> music of Uygurs is different then south China, and music for Buddhist
> liturgy will differ from Chinese pop etc.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2010, at 9:41 PM, cameron wrote:
>
> >
> > But! Daniel, as you know full well, Chinese music has extremely
> > developed inflection, whole poetries in single lilting bend so to
> > speak. Pentatonic skeleton, yes. Pentatonic, no. (I have performed
> > in China, probably going again this year- I'm speaking from
> > limited, but first hand, experience).
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21 April 2010 07:48, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Â No one would stick with penta-tonic because of the lack of
> > tonal variety.
> > >
> > > Excuse me! Chinese music is heavily (but not exclusively)
> > pentatonic.
> > > They get by without the tonal variety. Gamelan music, one of the
> > > microtonal world's darlings, is pentatonic. Thai classical music is
> > > pentatonic (taken from roughly 7 note equal temperament). As lack of
> > > tonal variety seems to be what you're looking for, maybe you
> > should be
> > > looking at pentatonics. There's nothing at all wrong with them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham
> > >
> >
>

Chris>"And this adds to my point is that if you want interest in non-12edo
music then write some good compelling music in a micro/macro tonal
tuning. That is much more important, IMVHO, than trying find an idiot
proof tuning."

I've learned from experience that (at least for "average-ish" composers like myself) one (IE working the heck out of a tuning) feeds the other. It's the same lesson I learned from back at TraxInSpace where I'd just write a song and forget to polish the production...and then found that by creating and fine-tuning polished production instruments and arrangements first it made song writing much easier and the results much better received.
If I spend longer on my tuning, the composition process becomes much easier and more fluid.
Plus it brings more attention to the fact the micro-tonality ends of playing a huge part in making my songs sound good (or at least decent, lol) rather than, say, great drum lines, instrument arrangements, or phrasing making them "work".
If you make good music that's good because of the latter thing, people are somewhat likely to say "it sounds great because of the drums/instruments-used etc. ...didn't like the tuning so much but the rest is so good it makes up for it" and walk away liking the song but not having much interest in the tuning.

>"After this I heard a show on WFMT chicago with Ben Johnston explaining different edos with a synthsizer and examples - and I was really impressed with the sound of 22 edo."
And IMVHO rightfully so, 22TET seems to have the merits (at least to me) of fairly-near 12TET consonance with enough difference in interval and chords possible to make it feel fresh. It's among my top 6 or so tuning or scale system candidates for "first micro-tonal system I'd show to a non-micro-tonalist".

Chris> "Which brings me to the point => other cultures have
> figured out how to write pleasant non12 edo music without using
> tunings with training wheels."

Yet often they suffer the following issues to achieve this
A) less notes and less melodic possibilities

Daniel>"Don't forget this music has different structure than western music -
there's usually only monophonic melody"...
B) less or no harmony and/or copying of chords from 12TET (exactly!)
>"Also orchestration is simple, something like western big orchestras
playing multi-layered or
polyphonic music with different instrument groups is rare in non-
western music (Japan, China, to name some...)."
C) Using only fairly simple chords or harmony (again, Daniel nailed this one)

A side note...I'm quite impressed by what Ozan Yarman has done with his "polyphonic Maqam" tunings as a middle ground. But I certainly don't think cultural scales that are competitive with A, B, and C above are anything near common.

Mike,

there is danger in trying to extrapolate your personal experience to
the world at large.

The Pond is a piano solo 17 ET - so I can't "hide" the microtonal
nature behind drums. It was received well by nearly all segments of my
listeners.

http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=38

So I'd classify this as a popular micro piece for me. I'm not at all
trying to say I'm a better composer than you - but I am saying one can
write accessible micro music. Now... this piece is probably not very
exciting to members of this list... and so it goes.

Chris

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris>"And this adds to my point is that if you want interest in non-12edo
> music then write some good compelling music in a micro/macro tonal
> tuning. That is much more important, IMVHO, than trying find an idiot
> proof tuning."
>
>     I've learned from experience that (at least for "average-ish" composers like myself) one (IE working the heck out of a tuning) feeds the other.  It's the same lesson I learned from back at TraxInSpace where I'd just write a song and forget to polish the production...and then found that by creating and fine-tuning polished production instruments and arrangements first it made song writing much easier and the results much better received.
>

Then it's questionable if it was really intentional microtonality, or just out-of-tune performance because of bad tuned instrument or bad player. Here in Japan I have very often feeling the second case is true. Amateur musicians (and here is music hobbyist sector very strong, which is bad for us professionals} don't take care too much about tuning issues, they don't mind to be out of tune. Fortunately it doesn't disturb the music itself, its structure allows it as there's no harmony element, chord accompaniment. And distuning of ceremonial Buddhist or Shinto music for sure IS intentional, but until now I couldn't find any order in it. It looks like they play that detuned heterophony randomly, and the reason can be purely acoustic - to get more loud music, shrill. Exact tuning is not important, important is to have unison or octaves almost half tone out of tune. If they would use the same instruments, it would be difficult to listen, but fortunately distuned different instruments and human voice (like high flute shinobue, reed instrument hichiriki and singing) are not so bad together. One easily get used to it and even enjoy it, it's exciting experience. Similar principles can be found in Balcan music, Bulgarian folk music chorus singing - they use parallel half-tone mixtures to get stronger tone.

Daniel Forro

On 22 Apr 2010, at 12:05 AM, cameron wrote:

>
> Graham lives in China I think, hopefully he will comment. I also > heard only the most insufferable sugary pentatonics and westernized > stuff, with a few exceptions: in Lou Harrison's lectures long long > ago; when I was learning some Chinese songs (the artists just sung > them to me, so, folk versions); and when I was in China. The > amateur musicians in the parks and the professional street > musicians (clearly of various ethnic backgrounds from jungle to > steppe) were very much as I described: simple pentatonic or > diatonic base, but completely buried in bird-song-like microtonal > inflections.
>

>"The Pond is a piano solo 17 ET - so I can't "hide" the micro-tonal nature behind drums. It was received well by nearly all segments of my
listeners."
http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=38 Tried it, quite beautiful.
Of course...obviously it doesn't "hide behind good drums or arrangements"...as it's a one-instrument solo. At least to my ears though, the intervals used sound incredibly diatonic, with only the very occasional odd chord (like that at 3:48) hinting that it's micro-tonal and fairly low levels of polyphony used. I'd say it's too simple for my ears...but I applaud the way it mediates between micro-tonal complexity and pop sensibility to "meet half way" so the average Joe can manage to crack a smile about the art of micro-tonality. Also to note about 17TET...it really isn't that weird a scale: the third tone intersects the just major 2nd and the 7th or so tone virtually hits the just major third...so at least for things like basic triadic harmony it seems it should sound normal to the public ear...it's certainly not, say, 10TET (even though I enjoy 10TET for my own socially disconnected reasons ;-) ).

The perfectionist in me says..."so ok...some people may have the urge try occasional simple micro-tonal piano solos now...but what about full fairly high-polyphony songs". Micro-tonal songs on the polyphonic complexity level of, say, Pearl Jam's music or other now-virtually-classic rock? Good start, of course...and easily one of the most accessible micro-tonal pieces I've heard along with things like "African Stick" by Neil Haverstick and "Trading Tykes" by Marcus Satellite...even if both those pieces seem to only occasionally veer off 12TET style intervals.

But I think we all have a good ways to go (though I'd consider Marcus and Neil are fairly close to breaking past the threshold of far-from monophonic, fairly easy to identify as not 12TET, publicly viable micro-tonal music). And I can only believe it's going to become harder if we use very complex and/or with few areas of 12TET-like-consonance scales (Marcus uses 6-tone MOS scales by Erv Wilson and Neil uses 34TET and 19TET to apparently veer strategically off the near 12TET subsets of those scales as a way to "compromise" between variety and consonance...no coincidence in my book).

Mike said : The perfectionist in me says..."so ok...some people may
have the urge try occasional simple micro-tonal piano solos now...but
what about full fairly high-polyphony songs".

You are asking us to write motets? Rock / electronic music isn't
usually very polyphonic...

What I have been saying all along is that usage of any tuning is a
matter of selection and choice by the composer.

You may remember I was challenged to write something that didn't sound
like Debussy et al. in a whole tone scale because "Debussy and Satie"
had done it all. And then I was asked to try 18 ET.
Both are here http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=3

It was actually very easy to do. All one needs to do is take a fresh
approach sometimes. And that is a choice by the composer.

Look - you keep saying "its impossible, its too complex" and all I see
are members of this list doing the complex impossible thing time after
time.

I agree that your tunings are great - several people have said so and
I have the statistics of pieces written in your tunings to prove it.
So you have a talent and ear for devising accessible tunings.

On the other hand I think your view of composition is strangely narrow minded.

Chris

>"You are asking us to write motets? Rock / electronic music isn't
usually very polyphonic.. ."
Not hugely polyphonic, but often much more so than that piano solo, for example. Again I think Marcus Satellite, for example, has reached a level of polyphony large enough to convince the average musician or listener that non-12TET-based easy to listen to micro-tonal harmony is within reach. Marcus sticks with 6 notes and not the full 7 of flexibility musicians come to expect but, hey; it's a start.

>"You may remember I was challenged to write something that didn't sound like Debussy et al. in a whole tone scale because "Debussy and Satie" had done it all."
No, but I'm listening. :-)

>" And then I was asked to try 18 ET. Both are here http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=3"
It's indeed quite different, but some consonance issues mean I wouldn't want to pitch it to a first-time micro-tonal listener (even though I consider it good myself for selfish-personal listening).

>"It was actually very easy to do. All one needs to do is take a fresh approach sometimes. And that is a choice by the composer."
Well damn...here we go yet again with a "let's change the composer style to optimize and not the tuning" approach. Of course enough deviance (and admittedly a fair deal of cleverness) on the part of a composer can twist even a "predictable" interval system in all sorts of weird ways. My take on, say, the above example is you did manage to make it sound original, but lost listen-ability among less avant-garde listeners (IE very well could be the majority of listeners). Again my perspective is...the limitations of the scale had a great part in preventing you from making something sound original without losing a lot of listen-ability.

>"Look - you keep saying "its impossible, its too complex" and all I see are members of this list doing the complex impossible thing time after time."
I don't think it's "impossible" as in can't be done...I just think it's a very very long shot in getting the average listener to understand and champion things like your example above, regardless of how original it is and, say, how different it manages to be from Debussy or Satie.

>"I agree that your tunings are great - several people have said so and
I have the statistics of pieces written in your tunings to prove it.
So you have a talent and ear for devising accessible tunings."

Well thank you! "even" I don't think I'm there yet with regards to a tuning that will satisfy the double-standard of highly original and very easy for the general public to understand...but I'm glad I seem to be getting there. The rubber will really hit the road if, say, I can get my professional jazz guitarist brother to buy a fret-less guitar and start playing using my scales live. I think it's a good ultimate test...to stick a micro-tonal tuned song in the middle of a set of 12TET live music and see how the crowd responds.

>"On the other hand I think your view of composition is strangely narrow
minded."
Meaning, the view that certain tunings open up new worlds of composition to average musicians and listeners alike that can't be at all readily created (without large losses of listenability) by all but the most clever composers using not-so-consonance-calculated ones?
I don't think there's a limit to composition. What I do think there is...is a limit for the average musician and listener to digest complexity (not everyone can be or digest a Debussy whole, lol)...and I'm trying to sneak some serious fiber supplement into the "micro-tonal" diet and swap the "12TET diet" for it at times when no one is looking. ;-)

Yes, that could be the case. But I believe it's related to the tonal language- so the melody has to be like a voice, varying and not "straight", but for a true knower of Chinese music there is probably a distinct difference between sloppy and intentional. For example, people who don't speak English would not know, from the sound alone, that there is anything wrong with this sentence:

"Oh Heathcliffe," she glasped clamidistuntiously, snorkel in wrong end.

And that is basically what contemporary neo-classical music actually sounds like many times to those who are familiar with the "language".
But in music that thing kind fly, I mean, look at RTF's "Romantic Warrior". By "classical" composition standards... come on. But it's a fine work of art regardless, I like it.

So... I dunno. It's kind of a mystery.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Then it's questionable if it was really intentional microtonality, or
> just out-of-tune performance because of bad tuned instrument or bad
> player. Here in Japan I have very often feeling the second case is
> true. Amateur musicians (and here is music hobbyist sector very
> strong, which is bad for us professionals} don't take care too much
> about tuning issues, they don't mind to be out of tune. Fortunately
> it doesn't disturb the music itself, its structure allows it as
> there's no harmony element, chord accompaniment. And distuning of
> ceremonial Buddhist or Shinto music for sure IS intentional, but
> until now I couldn't find any order in it. It looks like they play
> that detuned heterophony randomly, and the reason can be purely
> acoustic - to get more loud music, shrill. Exact tuning is not
> important, important is to have unison or octaves almost half tone
> out of tune. If they would use the same instruments, it would be
> difficult to listen, but fortunately distuned different instruments
> and human voice (like high flute shinobue, reed instrument hichiriki
> and singing) are not so bad together. One easily get used to it and
> even enjoy it, it's exciting experience. Similar principles can be
> found in Balcan music, Bulgarian folk music chorus singing - they use
> parallel half-tone mixtures to get stronger tone.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2010, at 12:05 AM, cameron wrote:
>
> >
> > Graham lives in China I think, hopefully he will comment. I also
> > heard only the most insufferable sugary pentatonics and westernized
> > stuff, with a few exceptions: in Lou Harrison's lectures long long
> > ago; when I was learning some Chinese songs (the artists just sung
> > them to me, so, folk versions); and when I was in China. The
> > amateur musicians in the parks and the professional street
> > musicians (clearly of various ethnic backgrounds from jungle to
> > steppe) were very much as I described: simple pentatonic or
> > diatonic base, but completely buried in bird-song-like microtonal
> > inflections.
> >
>

I always thought about poor composers who do music on tonal languages, where relative pitch of syllables has meaning... Do they keep tonal accents when creating melodies? Or do they compose freely, against tonal accent? I'll try to find something about it, seems to be interesting. Japanese language has two tones, Chinese is more complex in this.

Nice English example! It gave me some inspiration for future music projects :-)

I know Romantic Warrior since it's publishing, love it and learned a lot from it those times. It's great music even after so many years. Kind of classics to me.

Music is mystery.

Daniel Forro

On 22 Apr 2010, at 2:05 AM, cameron wrote:

>
> Yes, that could be the case. But I believe it's related to the > tonal language- so the melody has to be like a voice, varying and > not "straight", but for a true knower of Chinese music there is > probably a distinct difference between sloppy and intentional. For > example, people who don't speak English would not know, from the > sound alone, that there is anything wrong with this sentence:
>
> "Oh Heathcliffe," she glasped clamidistuntiously, snorkel in wrong > end.
>
> And that is basically what contemporary neo-classical music > actually sounds like many times to those who are familiar with the > "language".
> But in music that thing kind fly, I mean, look at RTF's "Romantic > Warrior". By "classical" composition standards... come on. But it's > a fine work of art regardless, I like it.
>
> So... I dunno. It's kind of a mystery.
>

Michael,

I question your definition of polyphony. A piano solo can be extremely
polyphonic. And lets say keyboard because essentially all Bach's music
is very polyphonic like the Well Tempered Clavier series - which is
for a solo keyboard. - Bach even pulled off polyphony for a violin
solo http://solomonsmusic.net/bachacon.htm

See "

Implied Counterpoint

Counterpoint for solo violin? That is exactly what Bach achieved. It
is primarily implied counterpoint, or "compound melody". The most
obvious example is in var 8"

(though I like the solo guitar transcription by Segovia better)

And I am not asking any composer to change their style - that is what
you are doing!!
You are saying the average composer is incapable of understanding
microtonal music so you want to help.

I say bullocks to this.

The vast majority of musicians and composers actually learn mostly if
not completely by ear.
This by passes all of the "academic" stuff you complain about having to learn.

It goes back to this - writing something compelling and people will
want to learn how to do it and expand on it.

And once again.... The Blues has microtonal inflections that don't fit
a 12 tet guitar - but boat loads of guitarists play the micro
inflections just fine without ever learning any thing about microtonal
"theory".

It amazes me that you don't see this as your starting point and
instead you want to create electronic timbre altering devices and
create tunings that only really work in one key.

*bangs head on wall*

Chris

Chris>"I question your definition of polyphony. A piano solo can be extremely
polyphonic."
True, but for what I heard it wasn't in the case of your song/sample. That's why I said "simple piano solo". Of course...you can do things like go the extremes and use all 10 fingers at once on a piano or all strings at once on a violin.

>"Counterpoint for solo violin? That is exactly what Bach achieved. It
is primarily implied counterpoint, or "compound melody". The most
obvious example is in var 8""
Agreed, I'm not arguing with you on this. I agree solos can be polyphonic.

>"And I am not asking any composer to change their style - that is what
you are doing!! You are saying the average composer is incapable of understanding
microtonal music so you want to help."
I wouldn't say they are ultimately incapable, I am saying they are not capable at the beginning of their "micro-tonal careers".
A good learning progression in, say, math, may start with algebra and lean into calculus later...but teaching someone who's never even had the time to learn algebra calculus could very well scare them off...even if they have the ultimate potential to learn calculus. Another example...the average musician may well eventually be able to digest your "hyper-modal" tuning=scale style of composition or ultimately even make similar things themselves...but very likely won't get there if you hit them with it full-force on the first shot. Throughout music history change in style happened incrementally...there was no sudden "sweep" when everyone gained the ability to use a new style as an alternative.

I don't see how I'm "forcing a style"...I see it as giving an alternative or "allowing people to get the chance to digest the algebra before they tackle the calculus if they want to do it that way". I surely never want, say, one of my scales to become a somewhat monopolistic standard everyone has to learn as "the only alternative" (the sort of thing 12TET has become).

>"The vast majority of musicians and composers actually learn mostly if not completely by ear. This by passes all of the "academic" stuff you complain about having to
learn."
Good point, many musicians do. But the same musicians, I'm betting, often run into trouble when trying to by-ear process complex chords and such. Lord knows I've played with enough of them. They may hit 95% of the notes correctly and 5% of the notes sour (even from the point of the more basic physics in psycho-acoustics) and keep on re-adjusting and "skewing" the chord again and again trying to get that last tone or so to fit. I've been there and done that. The other option seems to be limit your style to more simple chords and the "reason" why complex chords aren't used as often being that many musicians "don't know they exist"...I'm guessing many of them simply can work out simpler chords and moods by ear and not more complex ones. Case in point...a whole bunch of the modern "by ear" rock bands who have never been to music school.
So even with playing by-ear, I believe, the 12TET learning curve can leave many inspiring musicians impatient about the learning process. And if you're not careful with what micro-tonal theory you introduce them to as a first step, I'm betting they will see it as even more patience testing and even end up walking away to play Guitar Hero (doh!).

>"And once again.... The Blues has micro-tonal inflections that don't fit a 12 tet guitar - but boat loads of guitarists play the micro
inflections just fine without ever learning any thing about microtonal "theory"."
I wouldn't exactly call that "micro-tonal theory"...they are quite often (if not most often) wavering between major and minor scales on those few "blue notes". The other thing is...those blue notes are mostly used in melody, not in the actual backing chords...so it doesn't exactly cover the polyphonic struggles of micro-tonal music popularity IMVHO.

Mike,

I'm finding this conversation being very narrow minded.

You are convinced your view of how composers view microtonal music is the
only possible view. Me and a few others here don't seem to be able to shake
your conviction even though there is contrary evidence.

I honestly disagree with your reasoning for your method of bringing micro
music to the masses. On the other hand I like your tunings.

I'll just state this - the person writing the music has to *choose* more
complexity. No matter how easy you may think you will make 7, 8, 9 note
chords to play, the composer still has to have a reason to choose more
complexity. And this is where I find that your argument falls apart.

With the technology available today it is easier than ever to experiment
with microtonal music. You can do it for free if you already own a computer.
In my view all they need is a reason to explore. And the only one I can find
is for them to hear ass kicking microtonal music. Even with one of your
super consonant tunings there will not be a reason until someone writes some
compelling music.

Sincerely,

Chris

Chris>"You are convinced your view of how composers view microtonal music is
the only possible view. Me and a few others here don't seem to be able
to shake your conviction even though there is contrary evidence. "

I don't think it's the only possible view...but I do think it's a view that summarizes what a fairly vast majority of people not on the list have communicated back to me about micro-tonal music after being shown it.
Several times I've asked: any other ideas for alternatives?...and received answers like (paraphrased) "you can't just meet half-way with the public or mixed styles...the more I've tried to do that the more I realize it's impossible" or "pick tunings like 53TET that merge on 12TET as compromise" or (in general) "the answer is in the same tunings that have been around for decades" (yet mysteriously haven't made it to the public eye even on modestly sized "indie" labels). I just don't give up that easily... :-D

So I seriously doubt I'm on the "narrow minded" (can't be fixed, only one solution) side of things...I just see very few presented alternatives on this side of the fence. If they were there, believe me, I'd take them...but it far too often feels like the same "geezers" with the same old "use x old scale" arguments.

The general gist I sadly get from the micro-tonal community to the public is often "well if they can't understand it or appreciate...they just need to get smarter and/or be shown the same thing we've always made more times with just a couple new bells and whistles (if any)".
The way I see it trying virtually the same things the micro-tonal community has been pushing for the last 30 or so years in general likely isn't going to work. It hasn't worked for the last 30+ years, so why now would it all of sudden take off without new options? Point is if it's not "selling"...sure the marketing could be sour, but there's an overwhelming chance people just can't find a good basic "starting" use for our "product" and we need some degree of re-structuring to break through.

>"I honestly disagree with your reasoning for your method of bringing
micro music to the masses. On the other hand I like your tunings. "
Ha well....you hate the method but you like some of what comes out of the logic of it (IE the tunings). I admittedly get that a lot, the cause stinks and is "narrow minded" but the effect/symptom is somehow cool and in some cases "opens new possibilities". :-D

>"With the technology available today it is easier than ever to experiment with microtonal music. You can do it for free if you already own a
computer. In my view all they need is a reason to explore. And the only
one I can find is for them to hear ass kicking microtonal music. Even
with one of your super consonant tunings there will not be a reason
until someone writes some compelling music. "

Agreed. I have a funny feeling Sevish may be the first to really break down that barrier. His last example he sent me with even the "flawed" 12-tone version of my scale sounded fantastic. And I just handed him a version of my scale rounded to 22TET (it actually rounds pretty well, BTW).
I agree with you the technology is there and all people need is a good reason to compose. One route: great micro-tonal music (the type that's easily identifiable as different than 12TET) + quick to learn theory = lots of people at least giving micro-tonal an initial shot. My as you called them "ultra-consonant" scales are simply one option of making scales with dead easy to learn theory that still have enough flexibility to make fairly expansive and impressively varied music with (thus trying to hit both points dead-on). Again, if you know of any other routes...please speak now....I'm not saying there aren't any but I don't know of many convincing ones (Wilson's 6-tone MOS scales and Ptolemy's Homalon scales are two of my other favorite options for that purpose...22TET decatonic isn't bad either but the learning curve (minus maybe the Blackwood scale) may intimidate some).

-Michael

"Again, if you know of any other routes...please speak now....I'm not
saying there aren't any but I don't know of many convincing ones
(Wilson's 6-tone MOS scales and Ptolemy's Homalon scales are two of my
other favorite options for that purpose...22TET decatonic isn't bad
either but the learning curve (minus maybe the Blackwood scale) may
intimidate some)."

Yes, I do - but like the 17 ET piano improvisation The Pond you reject
them out of hand because they don't meet some criterion or criteria of
yours.

So, there is nothing I can do.

chris

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris>"You are convinced your view of how composers view microtonal music is the only possible view. Me and a few others here don't seem to be able to shake your conviction even though there is contrary evidence. "
>
>     I don't think it's the only possible view...but I do think it's a view that summarizes what a fairly vast majority of people not on the list have communicated back to me about micro-tonal music after being shown it.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > "All this is measured in rates, which is how we percieve pitch.
> > (Arguments about how we don't percieve intervals as ratios have no
> > bearing on this- we percieve rates, and we percieve coincidence of
> > rates.)"
> >
> > I don't understand. Do you mean we hear pitches in the same way
> > we hear tempos? I don't think this is true. Yes, pitch correlates
> > with frequency but pitch of a pure tone might be different at the
> > two ears (binaural diplacusis). Also, some absolute pitch possessors
> > have reported a shift in pitch as they age. On the other hand both
> > ears have the same sense of time and I don't think there is much of
> > a change in the sense of time (of present happenings I should add)
> > as we age.
> >
> > Kalle Aho
> >
>
> All I meant was, "pitch correlates with frequency". Artistically,
there's that whole Cowell thing (Europeans think it is Stockhausen
but he just lifted it from Cowell) of the rhythm/pitch continuum. I
buy that on an artistic level, not on a physics level.

I remember messing with a Rhythmicon applet on some site but
couldn't find it now.

> As far as the the sense of time, it was determined by extensive
testing by NASA (and at Bajkonur I imagine) that human sense of time
is temperature-dependent.

Thanks for this, I'm getting some nice cold war psi-fi vibes! :D

> And so, as body temperature decreases with age, time "speeds up" in
perception. Mars mission testing, in Scientific American in the 90's.

I think this phenomenon has been studied also before like already in
the 50s or so.

> I can ask Dragan ®ivadinov personally if there's Bajkonur lit on
the topic, gravity and time are his specialties in art and he's a
graduate of Bajkonur kosmonaut training to boot, LOL. In youth and in
the tropics, time therefore "feels slower". But you quite suavely
qualified with "of present happenings", nice!

It makes sense because body temperature correlates with the rate of
metabolism so brain activity speeds up too. As a nice coincidence
I have a fever right now so I can do some first hand phenomenology on
the matter! I don't know if 38 degrees Celsius is enough to notice a
difference. So far the clock hands seem to move at the usual rate.

Kalle Aho

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

> Several times I've asked: any other ideas for alternatives?...and received answers like (paraphrased) "you can't just meet half-way with the public or mixed styles...the more I've tried to do that the more I realize it's impossible" or "pick tunings like 53TET that merge on 12TET as compromise" or (in general) "the answer is in the same tunings that have been around for decades" (yet mysteriously haven't made it to the public eye even on modestly sized "indie" labels). I just don't give up that easily... :-D

There's a great liberation to be had in just saying screw what people think. We can compose in anything we like, though playing in it is another issue, admittedly. But I'm not the guy who is going to convince the public that microtonality is good for them, so my point of view is a bit irrelevant to your project.

I would guess the easiest approach to introducing microtonality would be to use 12 note scales with good harmonic resources, accurate tuning and enough xenharmonicity in them to sound exotic, as for example smithgw_dhexmarv.scl which I mentioned a few days ago.

> So I seriously doubt I'm on the "narrow minded" (can't be fixed, only one solution) side of things...I just see very few presented alternatives on this side of the fence. If they were there, believe me, I'd take them...but it far too often feels like the same "geezers" with the same old "use x old scale" arguments.
>
> The general gist I sadly get from the micro-tonal community to the public is often "well if they can't understand it or appreciate...they just need to get smarter and/or be shown the same thing we've always made more times with just a couple new bells and whistles (if any)".
> The way I see it trying virtually the same things the micro-tonal community has been pushing for the last 30 or so years in general likely isn't going to work. It hasn't worked for the last 30+ years, so why now would it all of sudden take off without new options? Point is if it's not "selling"...sure the marketing could be sour, but there's an overwhelming chance people just can't find a good basic "starting" use for our "product" and we need some degree of re-structuring to break through.
>
> >"I honestly disagree with your reasoning for your method of bringing
> micro music to the masses. On the other hand I like your tunings. "
> Ha well....you hate the method but you like some of what comes out of the logic of it (IE the tunings). I admittedly get that a lot, the cause stinks and is "narrow minded" but the effect/symptom is somehow cool and in some cases "opens new possibilities". :-D
>
> >"With the technology available today it is easier than ever to experiment with microtonal music. You can do it for free if you already own a
> computer. In my view all they need is a reason to explore. And the only
> one I can find is for them to hear ass kicking microtonal music. Even
> with one of your super consonant tunings there will not be a reason
> until someone writes some compelling music. "
>
> Agreed. I have a funny feeling Sevish may be the first to really break down that barrier. His last example he sent me with even the "flawed" 12-tone version of my scale sounded fantastic. And I just handed him a version of my scale rounded to 22TET (it actually rounds pretty well, BTW).
> I agree with you the technology is there and all people need is a good reason to compose. One route: great micro-tonal music (the type that's easily identifiable as different than 12TET) + quick to learn theory = lots of people at least giving micro-tonal an initial shot. My as you called them "ultra-consonant" scales are simply one option of making scales with dead easy to learn theory that still have enough flexibility to make fairly expansive and impressively varied music with (thus trying to hit both points dead-on). Again, if you know of any other routes...please speak now....I'm not saying there aren't any but I don't know of many convincing ones (Wilson's 6-tone MOS scales and Ptolemy's Homalon scales are two of my other favorite options for that purpose...22TET decatonic isn't bad either but the learning curve (minus maybe the Blackwood scale) may intimidate some).
>
> -Michael
>

>"Yes, I do - but like the 17 ET piano improvisation The Pond you reject
them out of hand because they don't meet some criterion or criteria of
yours."
Ugh, so harsh.

Maybe I didn't state myself clearly enough...but when I responded about that track I basically said it was "on the right track". Just because I didn't say it was fantastic doesn't mean I did not appreciate it. Just because I don't think something meets all of what meets the public criteria doesn't mean that thing does not meet a whole lot of it. Same goes for Erv Wilson's "Six Hexanies" scale (namely in the hands of Marcus Satellite's music), deca-tonic scales, and other things I keep bringing back up. And to be fair, for example...I think decatonic scales have more harmonic flexibility and polyphonic chords possible than my scale but a steeper learning curve. "Six Hexanies" has a startlingly bright happy interval sound (at least judging by Marcus Satellite's works) and I'm guessing is (even) easier to use than my scale, but probably has less possible chords and melodies due to being limited to 6 tones. All three of these scales (and more)
IMVHO have strong potential for public consumption...but each has a slight advantage with certain people seeking certain characteristics.

So each scale has different strengths and weaknesses far as ability to "compete" with 12TET in my eyes...and I also realize that typical patterns can be derived from a-typical tunings (as you managed to do in your 17TET example). Different people may favor different scales and I certainly don't think one scale will (or should!) have a monopoly for "following the right path", but, on average, I'm pushing for at least some music in scales that fit in a general area I'm pretty sure will be taken seriously by the general public.

Gene>"There's a great liberation to be had in just saying screw what people
think."
Which I see and use often. To an extent, I did that with my PHI and Silver Scales and my old 8-tone 19TET pieces.

The thing I see is I'm providing little new to this scene by doing that...so many people in this scene already think that way that we have a pretty strong case of "perfect competition" for the "screw what people think" attitude. I feel a certain buzz of productivity when I'm not trying to do what's apparently already there in abundance in this scene.

>" We can compose in anything we like, though playing in it is
another issue, admittedly."
Exactly...which is why I mentioned having a traditionally 12TET professional musician play micro-tonal live in the middle of a bunch of 12TET songs would probably be a good litmus test.

>" But I'm not the guy who is going to convince
the public that microtonality is good for them, so my point of view is a bit irrelevant to your project."
I'm certainly not going to say "well please stop what you're doing for a sec and help out" and realize the movement has by-and-large survived thanks to people who think "screw what people think".
But, put it this way, I do hope a few people on this list, at least, can help debate some theories and write some songs (or maybe even new scales) for this "quest" to break micro-tonality into the public eye/ear. The major labels are dying...this is as good a time as any to make a break.

>"I would guess the easiest approach to introducing micro-tonality would be to use 12 note scales with good harmonic resources, accurate tuning and enough xenharmonicity in them to sound exotic, as for example
smithgw_dhexmarv. scl which I mentioned a few days ago."

Dualhex in 11-limit minimax Marvel ({225/224, 385/384}-planar)

gap total (estimated) "just"
115 1.0686 1.0686 16/15
151 1.021 1.091 10/9
267 1.0686 1.16666 7/6
383 1.0686 1.2476 5/4
468 1.05 1.31 13/10
575 1.0388 1.4 14/10
700 1.1 1.5 15/10
767 1.0388 1.55 14/9
852 1.05 1.63 13/8
968 1.0686 1.75 7/4
1084 1.0686 1.87 15/8
1200

I don't remember the exact mentioning of the scale, but it does look quite promising.
I can see the (under 30th harmonic) super-particular ratios between consecutive tones and common just intervals like 10/9, 7/6, 5/4 and 16/15 (around 1.0686)...but also interesting and odd ones like the approximate 27/26 (1.0388) interval and the 14/13 interval between 468 and 575 cents and 5ths of various sizes.
Plus I see a whole lot of near-major thirds wavering between 1.3 and 1.3333 (although with varying step sizes between them).

I'll have to experiment with this one a bit, but it looks good (at least on the surface) and thank you for bringing it up.

You are talking in circles Mike.

A piece of music does not have to be complex to be good. The only
requirement that I know of for popular music is that the audience
relates to it in some fashion - and that does not mean 9 note chords
or liquid beats or this or that are required.

This is why someone with an acoustic guitar, and an on pitch (not even
great!) voice and a sincere message can get across to people.

Carl at one point asked me to write a piece of microtonal music as
good as Break it Down - a Floydish blues piece.
http://www.traxinspace.com/song/44801

I intend to do so once I've worked out the technical aspects of my
instruments - not the music mind you.
The music is dead simple.

Complexity itself is a tool.

Chris

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Yes, I do - but like the 17 ET piano improvisation The Pond you reject
> them out of hand because they don't meet some criterion or criteria of
> yours."
>    Ugh, so harsh.
>
>     Maybe I didn't state myself clearly enough...but when I responded about that track I basically said it was "on the right track".   Just because I didn't say it was fantastic doesn't mean I did not appreciate it.  Just because I don't think something meets all of what meets the public criteria doesn't mean that thing does not meet a whole lot of it.  Same goes for Erv Wilson's "Six Hexanies" scale (namely in the hands of Marcus Satellite's music), deca-tonic scales, and other things I keep bringing back up.  And to be fair, for example...I think decatonic scales have more harmonic flexibility and polyphonic chords possible than my scale but a steeper learning curve.  "Six Hexanies" has a startlingly bright happy interval sound (at least judging by Marcus Satellite's works) and I'm guessing is (even) easier to use than my scale, but probably has less possible chords and melodies due to being limited to 6 tones.  All three of these scales (and more) IMVHO have strong potential for public consumption...but each has a slight advantage with certain people seeking certain characteristics.
>
>      So each scale has different strengths and weaknesses far as ability to "compete" with 12TET in my eyes...and I also realize that typical patterns can be derived from a-typical tunings (as you managed to do in your 17TET example).  Different people may favor different scales and I certainly don't think one scale will (or should!) have a monopoly for "following the right path", but, on average, I'm pushing for at least some music in scales that fit in a general area I'm pretty sure will be taken seriously by the general public.
>
>

Plus I guarantee you that people today love beating. That's the whole
reason detuned leads are so common these days.

Beating is just partial-dependent vibrato. It's nothing to be scared
of. Maybe if you're addicted to the sound of all of the partials
colliding, then you won't like it. Most people could care less.

-Mike

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> You are talking in circles Mike.
>
> A piece of music does not have to be complex to be good. The only
> requirement  that I know of for popular music is that the audience
> relates to it in some fashion - and that does not mean 9 note chords
> or liquid beats or this or that are required.
>
> This is why someone with an acoustic guitar, and an on pitch (not even
> great!) voice and a sincere message can get across to people.
>
> Carl at one point asked me to write a piece of microtonal music as
> good as Break it Down - a Floydish blues piece.
> http://www.traxinspace.com/song/44801
>
> I intend to do so once I've worked out the technical aspects of my
> instruments -  not the music mind you.
> The music is dead simple.
>
> Complexity itself is a tool.
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Yes, I do - but like the 17 ET piano improvisation The Pond you reject
>> them out of hand because they don't meet some criterion or criteria of
>> yours."
>>    Ugh, so harsh.
>>
>>     Maybe I didn't state myself clearly enough...but when I responded about that track I basically said it was "on the right track".   Just because I didn't say it was fantastic doesn't mean I did not appreciate it.  Just because I don't think something meets all of what meets the public criteria doesn't mean that thing does not meet a whole lot of it.  Same goes for Erv Wilson's "Six Hexanies" scale (namely in the hands of Marcus Satellite's music), deca-tonic scales, and other things I keep bringing back up.  And to be fair, for example...I think decatonic scales have more harmonic flexibility and polyphonic chords possible than my scale but a steeper learning curve.  "Six Hexanies" has a startlingly bright happy interval sound (at least judging by Marcus Satellite's works) and I'm guessing is (even) easier to use than my scale, but probably has less possible chords and melodies due to being limited to 6 tones.  All three of these scales (and more) IMVHO have strong potential for public consumption...but each has a slight advantage with certain people seeking certain characteristics.
>>
>>      So each scale has different strengths and weaknesses far as ability to "compete" with 12TET in my eyes...and I also realize that typical patterns can be derived from a-typical tunings (as you managed to do in your 17TET example).  Different people may favor different scales and I certainly don't think one scale will (or should!) have a monopoly for "following the right path", but, on average, I'm pushing for at least some music in scales that fit in a general area I'm pretty sure will be taken seriously by the general public.
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
>  tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
>  tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
>  tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
>  tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
>  tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
>  tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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

> >"I would guess the easiest approach to introducing micro-tonality would be to use 12 note scales with good harmonic resources, accurate tuning and enough xenharmonicity in them to sound exotic, as for example
> smithgw_dhexmarv. scl which I mentioned a few days ago."
>
> Dualhex in 11-limit minimax Marvel ({225/224, 385/384}-planar)

> I don't remember the exact mentioning of the scale, but it does look quite promising.
> I can see the (under 30th harmonic) super-particular ratios between consecutive tones and common just intervals like 10/9, 7/6, 5/4 and 16/15 (around 1.0686)...but also interesting and odd ones like the approximate 27/26 (1.0388) interval and the 14/13 interval between 468 and 575 cents and 5ths of various sizes.
> Plus I see a whole lot of near-major thirds wavering between 1.3 and 1.3333 (although with varying step sizes between them).

It's got two entire hexanies, four major triads, three minor triads, two major and two minor tetrads, and a bunch of 11-limit stuff all within a few cents of just, with the 13 limit lurking a bit farther out of tune.

Chris>"You are talking in circles Mike. A piece of music does not have to be complex to be good."
Meanwhile you appear to be talking in extremes, which is not what I'm saying and never what I said. I never said music has to be complex, I said it usually has to achieve a certain minimum level of complexity to gain interest. For example (even) in today's simplest hip hop you usually have, say, more than a few drums and at least 3 note chords. When you're talking even basic rock, you're talking 4 note chords (including the bass-line). Ask just about any listener if something without that sort of minimum level of complexity sounds like a complete song and something they'd buy or want to hear live at a major venue (not a $5 club or bar) and I'm betting most would say no.
If there were no minimum level of complexity someone singing a monophonic vocal alone or just doing a sax solo with one drum behind it could make it as popular music. Could it happen? Of course. Is it anywhere near realistic for the average musician (or poet?) to accomplish. I highly doubt it.

>"This is why someone with an acoustic guitar, and an on pitch (not even great!) voice and a sincere message can get across to people."
I don't get the point. I'm trying to figure out certain optimizations far as >tuning< (and the aspect of polyphony related to it) and meanwhile you seem more interested in getting your message across that people can relate to things that have nothing to do with optimized tuning or polyphony. Fine, so some people can, say, relate to, for example, the William Hung's of the world or those like Bob Dylan who many say wasn't good at all with the exception of his lyrics. Would people say, hate him more if he put some more surprising polyphony over his already classic lyrics? I'm betting on yes...I don't see any way that "adding more dimensions of talent" could hurt his cause. Easy example of a group that did both classic lyrics and added IMVHO clever use of polyphony and got even much better known because of that: The Beatles.

Ok, so maybe some guys like him could make audio-tape poems with a single drum in the background and monophonic lyrics and charts of some sort. How does knowing that somehow help us micro-tonalists make better music...by saying "our music is good because of compositional skill and not much at all because it's micro-tonal"? I'm confused...you almost seem to be saying the art of micro-tonality perhaps shouldn't matter beyond, say, simply being different than 12TET and almost seeming to approach the idea of "why even bother with trying to improve chords or find new ones in micro-tonality...it's a pointless cause".

>"and that does not mean 9 note chords or liquid beats or this or that are required."
Pardon my "French", but now it seems you're just being a bastard for its own sake. Just because I don't think something like 2 note chords are likely to become pop means I'd ever insist on 9 note chords. If you're going on that route, you might as well blame Sethares for "indirectly insisting musician MUST write music in scales that sound terrible with harmonic-series timbres" just because he wrote the song "Ten Fingers" in 10TET.
I can relate to him. I'm not demanding people with music with 9-note chords...rather, I'm shooting evidence in the face of the stereotype that micro-tonal must lean toward either small chords or dissonance...in the same way Sethares was shooting evidence in the face that you can't make 10TET music consonant using instruments with overtones. I think it's obvious he wasn't saying "down with music in non-weird keys", he was saying "now you have these weird keys as a realistic/added option if you want to use it in a way that sounds fairly understandable by most people. Heck, if you look at Erv Wilson's descriptions of why A) he makes his MOS scales near TET spaced, but B) not so near they veer from harmonic relationships...you can see in A) he's referencing critical band dissonance and in B) he's referencing periodicity/harmonic-entropy...both related to the "added option" of creating consonant micro-tonal chords. And both of those "guys" talk
about making accessible tunings and make deliberate efforts to reduce the micro-tonal learning curve for polyphonic music.

Those/these guys wouldn't be considered leaders in the field if they were not onto something. I don't think my ideals are so alien to what could realistically help micro-tonal music theory connect better with the public and those who write it.

So what are you trying to improve or open up here anyhow? So far I'm not quite getting it...sounds like you're saying that giving an extra option is somehow hurting the musical community.

MikeB>"Plus I guarantee you that people today love beating. That's the whole reason detuned leads are so common these days."
Hmm...detuned lead = chorus effect (to the human ear), barely any added dissonance. Looking at Plomp and Llevelt's critical band curve gives us that: notes that are extremely close actually have very low dissonance and very little beating/"roughness". Or play two sine waves tuned just a few cents apart. I just figure...this maybe not the best example of 'why the public likes some beating". I will agree that some people dislike the sound of periodicity buzz caused by several successive intervals perfectly along the harmonic series in a row IE 6:7:8:9:10 (6 = 600hz) with sine wave. Heck, I dislike periodicity buzz, sounds like a robot gnawing on something to a constant banging beat which modulates at 100hz...to me at least, there definitely is such a thing as "too perfect" or "too just".

>"Beating is just partial-dependent vibrato. It's nothing to be scared of. "
True, that's all it is. But it can make a sound choppy and, at least as I've heard, make it harder to decipher all the "virtual roots" in a chord. There actually does seem to come a point where more dissonance via beating leads to a lower sense of tonal color IE what "tonal color" does your snare drum hiss or semi-tone cluster have?

>"Maybe if you're addicted to the sound of all of the partials colliding, then you won't like it. Most people could care less."
Hmm...well then why do people say things like chords in 24TET that don't stick in a 12TET subset sound unbearable? I'm betting a good chunk of that reasoning had something to do with beating....

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Plus I guarantee you that people today love beating. That's the whole
> reason detuned leads are so common these days.
>
> Beating is just partial-dependent vibrato. It's nothing to be scared
> of. Maybe if you're addicted to the sound of all of the partials
> colliding, then you won't like it. Most people could care less.
>
> -Mike

Vibrato is a frequency modulation, beating an amplitude modulation, so you could say it is a kind of tremolo. The confusion between the two is understandle in my opinion, for in acoustic instruments applying or failing to stop one usually causes the other as well, to small or great degree. This is easily verified by the synthetic sound of applying srictly only one to a synthesized sound.

In 12-tET or any other tuning containing strongly non-Just intervals, detuning, chorusing, etc. usually MASK beating, by drowning it out in itself so to speak.

> Vibrato is a frequency modulation, beating an amplitude modulation, so you could say it is a kind of tremolo. The confusion between the two is understandle in my opinion, for in acoustic instruments applying or failing to stop one usually causes the other as well, to small or great degree. This is easily verified by the synthetic sound of applying srictly only one to a synthesized sound.

Yeah, whoops, sorry. Tremolo I meant. It's 3:30 AM here... :)

> In 12-tET or any other tuning containing strongly non-Just intervals, detuning, chorusing, etc. usually MASK beating, by drowning it out in itself so to speak.

I guess my point really was that you could say that the amplitude
changes that are happening all across the frequency spectrum over time
are a very abstract form of "beating." In fact, if you really do the
math, the two turn out to be the same thing. Any time a frequency
changes in amplitude, the mechanism by which is it doing so is
effectively the same mechanism that causes "beating" (although the
amplitude change v time may not have a sinusoidal envelope).

So again... there's nothing wrong with "beating." It's just perceived
as partial-dependent "tremolo" (whee), and I would hardly call tremolo
"dissonant." What is far more relevant is the actual inharmonicity of
the fundamentals of, say, a 12-tet major chord. And it's still not
quite inharmonic enough to be perceived as anything besides 4:5:6, in
my view.

-Mike

At any rate (ka-ching!) people certainly do like beating, and lots of it, not just smooth sound. I like having both.

I was just thinking how strong an effect physical consonance really is. I'm recording a tune in 13-limit JI, which is usual for me, and it's really more JI on a technicality, lots of very complex intervals. But that melted-together sound of coincident partials is still clearly audible, amazing.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Vibrato is a frequency modulation, beating an amplitude modulation, so you could say it is a kind of tremolo. The confusion between the two is understandle in my opinion, for in acoustic instruments applying or failing to stop one usually causes the other as well, to small or great degree. This is easily verified by the synthetic sound of applying srictly only one to a synthesized sound.
>
> Yeah, whoops, sorry. Tremolo I meant. It's 3:30 AM here... :)
>
> > In 12-tET or any other tuning containing strongly non-Just intervals, detuning, chorusing, etc. usually MASK beating, by drowning it out in itself so to speak.
>
> I guess my point really was that you could say that the amplitude
> changes that are happening all across the frequency spectrum over time
> are a very abstract form of "beating." In fact, if you really do the
> math, the two turn out to be the same thing. Any time a frequency
> changes in amplitude, the mechanism by which is it doing so is
> effectively the same mechanism that causes "beating" (although the
> amplitude change v time may not have a sinusoidal envelope).
>
> So again... there's nothing wrong with "beating." It's just perceived
> as partial-dependent "tremolo" (whee), and I would hardly call tremolo
> "dissonant." What is far more relevant is the actual inharmonicity of
> the fundamentals of, say, a 12-tet major chord. And it's still not
> quite inharmonic enough to be perceived as anything besides 4:5:6, in
> my view.
>
> -Mike
>

I am being a bastard because I don't agree with you?

Mike, I have a teenage daughter. I know what her and her friends listen to.

What you are saying about popular music is simply dead wrong from what
I can see.

Her and her friends represents a substantial, if not the majority, of
the music buying public. Though.... besides buying music they suck
down stuff from youtube like no tomorrow as well.

It is weird that I am a bastard from trying to politely and patiently
telling you that I think you are wrong.

Why was I not a bastard when I wrote music in your tuning?

I've seen you accuse Carl (and others?) of being a bastard. It seems
he also was disagreeing with you.

You have so many times complained about personal attacks on this list
- yet you call me a bastard for no legitimate reason I can find.

Chris

> >"and that does not mean 9 note chords or liquid beats or this or that are required."
> Pardon my "French", but now it seems you're just being a bastard for its own sake. Just because I don't think something like 2 note chords are likely to become pop means I'd ever insist on 9 note chords. If you're going on that route, you might as well blame Sethares for

>"So again... there's nothing wrong with "beating." It's just perceivedas partial-dependent "tremolo" (whee), and I would hardly call tremolo"dissonant."
But excessive tremolo creates its own sense of frequency. Hence if you take two sine waves about 16/15 apart you see what looks like one sine wave changing amplitude and that "change" is to a large extent the second frequency. I doubt that my own ears, Plomp and Llevelt, and the fact most people don't like hearing things like quickly stuttering/"broken" records could all be wrong. I'm not saying beatless-ness is good (that would likely leave us with boring scales with all consecutive notes a 5th or octave so apart!)...but that excessive beating interferes with the brain's ability to hear what's going on. Put a huge and fairly quick "high depth" amplitude modulator/Tremelo/"gargle" effect over music and try to say what the chords are or digest/enjoy the full feel of them...not so easy is it?

>"What is far more relevant is the actual inharmonicity of the fundamentals of, say, a 12-tet major chord."
Inharmonic just because it's not 100% just?...that is barely in-harmonic, almost un-noticably in-harmonic.

>"And it's still not quite inharmonic enough to be perceived as anything besides 4:5:6, in my view."
With the third with 14 cents accuracy, of course it isn't a problem that would "skew" how the chord is viewed (for many if not most people, who don't have incredibly trained hearing). For beating issues to really start to "bite", 20+ cents off (to cause beating between partials) is probably more like it...even many non-trained musicians would hear the 20 cents difference. But, overall, beating does (of course) have a fair "slack" period we can and do take advantage of for things like tempering.

>"I was just thinking how strong an effect physical consonance really is.
I'm recording a tune in 13-limit JI, which is usual for me, and it's
really more JI on a technicality, lots of very complex intervals. But
that melted-together sound of coincident partials is still clearly
audible, amazing."
Again I'd say beating = fine even good and excessive beating is often harmful as parts of the sound end up blocking out each other thus giving you less to listen to and enjoy.

I am actually a huge fan of "11-limit" (as ...as in chords such as 11:12:14)...and although I think 13-limit is a tad off the deep end I would by no means say it has beating issues to the point of disturbing the feel of chords significantly.
Most of my new scales admittedly have a good few x/11 dyads. The problem area seems to come where you have, say, chords approaching 17-limit and the first/last notes of the chord spaced at a decisively non-periodic interval. There's a lot of slack in my book before the sort of "extreme beating" that makes it hard to tell sound from noise overrides actual clear sound. I'd also take a 13-limit scale that's well spaced over a 7 or even 5-limit one that uses "extreme"-harmonic intervals like 1.52 (35/23) where the partials beat so violently deciphering all of the sound becomes an issue or 24/23 where the beating of the root tones seems so violent you can't hear the tones as individual elements and the "value of 2 sounds of variety seems more like the value of 1".

If I hear a scale that sounds incredibly new and fresh, I've found chances are it's around 9 to 11 limit and sometimes 7-limit. And I've seen lots of 11-limit scales, including the last Marvel tuning Gene posted here, which actually sound virtually as "smooth" to me as 5-limit much due to clever use of near-super-particular intervals and good root-tone spacing. I've also tried making JI scales from harmonics 7-14 and such and couldn't stand the lack of tonal color or periodic buzz due to the so called "lack of beating" in those scales. Again, moderate/controlled beating seems to be a good thing.

On 21 April 2010 17:05, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> Graham lives in China I think, hopefully he will comment. I also heard
> only the most insufferable sugary pentatonics and westernized stuff,
> with a few exceptions: in Lou Harrison's lectures long long ago; when
> I was learning some Chinese songs (the artists just sung them to me,
> so, folk versions); and when I was in China. The amateur musicians in
> the parks and the professional street musicians (clearly of various
> ethnic backgrounds from jungle to steppe) were very much as I described:
> simple pentatonic or diatonic base, but completely buried in bird-song-like
> microtonal inflections.

I lived in China for a few years, only Jiangsu province, but I've
moved on now. Certainly I can comment. In fact, I think I will now.

Yes, there's a lot of sugar. Apparently in the north there's more
rock music. The musicians I knew best were, as it happens, a student
rock band, and there was nothing characteristically Chinese about
their style. Pop music is westernized in the sense of having harmony.
There's also the dreadful TV folk music that's harmonized with
textbook 5-limit consonance.

What they sing in the parks is mostly Mao-era songs. It's the old
people reliving their youth. So what's written down is the government
approved style of that time, based on traditional Chinese music but
with some western harmony. The tunings, though, are what makes sense
to those musicians. They seem to vary regionally, even from one group
to another in the same park. But I swear they know what they're
doing. I've heard out of tune music from students, and it's not the
same. The people in the parks will tune while the rest of the band's
playing, even though the result is that they're all out of tune with
each other. It's deliberate.

A lot of people in the traditional music scene can read jianpu -- that
is, numerical notation, western in origin but similar to some older
Chinese notations. All the children who learn traditional instruments
(which is fashionable now) learn it. Sometimes they put up a sheet in
the park and people sing from it. If you learn an exotic instrument
like piano or guitar, you'll use an exotic notation for it, but
traditional instruments are always jianpu. It's naturally diatonic.
I've never seen a traditional piece written with accidentals, although
it is possible. The actual music, then, is more or less pentatonic.
Some songs completely so. And songs from the Chinese heartlands may
have diatonic inflections, but songs from Korea or Tibet may not. Of
course, there's a filter behind all the books these things get
published in.

The microtonal inflections are never written down and I never
encountered any theory about it. They don't seem to be interested in
it. It could be equal temperament (which is Chinese of course) for
all they care on paper. I know there are old theories about the guqin
but I only know about that from the Internet. I never worked out any
middle path tunings that sounded Chinese.

Another thing: Take Me Home Country Roads is very popular in class. I
noticed that the verses are in the Chinese pentatonic (except for the
one that isn't). Maybe that's why they like it.

Graham

Chris>" I am being a bastard because I don't agree with you?"
Funny (Chris) you didn't quote anything in my original message. I was saying that because you randomly accused me saying
"and that does not mean 9 note chords or liquid beats or this or that are required." -Chris
...obviously not because I simply don't agree with you. Just because Mike(me) writes a song with 9-tone chords partly for his own amusement and partly to explore the extremes of micro-tonal polyphony does not mean he thinks everyone else should do so. You were stuffing words into my mouth and that's just uncalled for.

>"It is weird that I am a bastard from trying to politely and patiently telling you that I think you are wrong."
>"What you are saying about popular music is simply dead wrong from what I can see."
>"You have so many times complained about personal attacks on this list
- yet you call me a bastard for no legitimate reason I can find."

I accept that you appear to think, for example, that trying to stand up against the stereotype that harmony is only possible to do properly in 12TET (partly in order to get other musicians to write micro-tonal harmony of varying levels of complexity), is a lost cause and that music that avoids the issue entirely can be amazingly successful. Or perhaps that consonance related to such harmony has little place in pop music or that my trying to optimize what the maximum level of dissonance in a scale is somehow makes my scales less able to be used in popular music.

Here's why I'm saying you were being/acting-like a bastard (I never said you "are" a bastard, btw). I just can't see why you think it's such an attitude problem that I'm trying out new options for ideas in micro-tonal harmony and seeing if maybe a few others could help out (and not necessarily using my scales, but any scales with that goal in mind).

I have never said anything to the effect of "compose in my scales or you won't be helping expand micro-tonality to the public" I've been saying "he are some options I've made to help introduce beyond-12-TET polyphony to the public...do you have other examples?" Yes, I'm basing a path on the ideas of consonance...namely because "knock on wood" people's main complaint about micro-tonality that I've heard is it's too dissonant...not because I don't think dissonant music can "ever" succeed. The input is coming from them, not me...I'm trying to simply be realistic.

And yes I did say your example was IMVHO "pretty good and definitely on the right path, but not great". I could easily say the same of many of my own songs. If you are taking it personally, please don't.
----------------------------
>"I've seen you accuse Carl (and others?) of being a bastard. It seems he also was disagreeing with you."
I'll say this much, I have no problem with others disagreeing with me or noting points for improvement, but I have a huge problem with those who say "stop what you're doing, it's a lost cause" and giving me no options along those lines to improve.

Carl said that about my developing the Silver and Phi scales...and even I began to believe him and quit the cause. Then we both see how your songs made with those scales panned out...surprisingly well. How? Because of advice and constructive criticism that actually helped the cause.

>"Why was I not a bastard when I wrote music in your tuning?"
It sounds like you're making it out to be all flowers. Come on, we both know it wasn't. Time and time again you complained about things like the same chords sounding different in different places AKA "ET like transposition", lack of a wide range of tones (far over 7), and other admitted areas of improvement where my scale didn't accommodate to your composition style well. Guess what? I took your saying I was wrong as constructive criticism and listened. My new scales are much closer to TET tunings and a good few of them have 9+ notes (including my 9-tone "infinity" scale)...because I realized you had good points and ran with them rather than just "stuck with what I had".

And all the while you compose in my tunings, your songs in such tunings sometimes doing disproportionately well, you say you like them...but somehow you also manage to say something along the lines of "the cause behind these scales is useless".
I've just seen what you can do...you've been a huge help and strong (in a good way) critic in the past...both in making songs with my tunings and providing realistic criticism in issues with using them as a composer. But this new side you are taking seems to contradict a whole lot of what you've done in the past and seems to make the only alternative to proving polyphony to be "make music with very little polyphony", which comes across as one step away from saying "your cause is pointless...look at all the great songs I wrote that prove you are wrong...despite all the times you've taken my advice, and my alternative to you is turn around and start over".

Now can you see, why I'm frustrated? Not only are you saying "I don't like this" but all indirectly seeming to imply "other people have no business helping your point out either".

I just want to get polyphonic (and I mean the usual 4-5 note stuff, not 9+!) microtonal-music more widely accepted as an alternative for musicians via my scales or anyone else's...that's all. If some people hate my scales and those of others working along these lines...so be it....I'm working for the people who do appreciate what I'm doing and I'm not about to shoot myself or anyone else working in this direction in the foot.

I know Gene has already given a Marvel tuning as a reply to this general question...but I'm interested in what others think.

What would you recommend as an alternative to 12TET (hopefully with cent, fraction, or decimal values included or even music samples)?

I am trying to find something that meets as many of the below criteria as possible
A) 7+ tones of melodic flexibility (no need for all 12 tones...can be "scales" and not just "tunings")
B) Several 4 note or higher chords possible with near-12TET level consonance in your opinion. Note this does >not< mean "must be 5-limit", "must be JI", or anything like that...though having all tones within 13 cents or so of pure could help in many cases.
C) Nearly as easy to learn as 12TET or easier (IE should be teachable to someone who has never played music)
D) Has no excessive number of tones that can't be fitted easily on to instruments or played easily by many people.
E) Sounds significantly different than 12TET and is not a "for re-tuning of 12TET music" type of scale.

If you have some outstanding issues that any of these standards are odd without any alternative solutions beside "drop that standard", that's fine but it's not going to help to clutter this thread with it. That's apparently a lot of what happened with the love/hate 12TET thread.
Of course, if you have criticisms that are constructive, of course, that's fair game and helps.

I realize perhaps only very few people will chip into this thread and that's fine.

My goal is to have at least a handful (IE 8 or so) scales I can quickly show to professional musicians I know and/or am in contact with to "lobby" for some use of micro-tonality on their part. ;-)

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

> My goal is to have at least a handful (IE 8 or so) scales I can quickly show to professional musicians I know and/or am in contact with to "lobby" for some use of micro-tonality on their part. ;-)

What do you think of the following 8 note scale:

! octo.scl
octone in 612 equal
8
!
119.60784
350.98039
386.27451
617.64706
701.96078
933.33333
968.62745
1200.0000

This could also be tuned

15/14 "neutral third" 5/4 10/7 3/2 12/7 7/4 2

but note that there are 11-limit implications. It should tend to break someone out of old habits of thought.

Mike,

This is yet another conversation that has hyper-spaced into the nether
regions of tenuous logic.

If you respect me as a composer then I ask that you give some respect
to my opinion as to why this or that song works and why this or that
song doesn't work.

explain - from your view of popular - why this cover has over half a
million hits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Ha8oeQIFk

and links to a half dozen more covers on the right hand side. Some
with just as many hits.

and over half a million hits for the original
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz5H3iVjAlw&feature=related which is
really not much music than the cover.

I think for all of your concern with technicalities you have lost
sight of the fact that music with a soul - with a message - will touch
an audience.

And go ahead and call me a bastard if you don't like hearing that
music doesn't need "ultra confident consonant tunings and nine note
chords" to interest an audience.

In my opinion you have missed an entire forest because you've smashed
your forehead into a tree. In my opinion you will limit yourself until
you get past the maze of technicalities you have created for yourself.
Music needs a soul. Microtonal or 12tet or a freaking drum circle at a
Native American pow-wow.

In my opinion if you want to create, or help create, popular
microtonal music *this* is where you need to start and always keep
in mind.

And as far as I can tell I am not putting words into your mouth. You
talked again and again about consonance and 7, 8, 9 note chords as a
goal. You've made demonstrations, one after another, trying to obtain
these goals. Nothing wrong with that certainly. What I am taking issue
with is your concept of "popular music" and your concept of what
"popular music needs to be popular". (paraphrasing mind you)

You don't need to agree with me. But I also don't deserve to be told
I'm acting like a bastard because you don't see what I'm talking
about. And I doubt I can explain it any clearer than that.

Chris

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris>"  I am being a bastard because I don't agree with you?"
> Funny (Chris) you didn't quote anything in my original message.  I was saying that because you randomly accused me saying
>    "and that does not mean 9 note chords or liquid beats or this or that are required." -Chris
> ...obviously not because I simply don't agree with you.  Just because Mike(me) writes a song with 9-tone chords partly for his own amusement and partly to explore the extremes of micro-tonal polyphony does not mean he thinks everyone else should do so.  You were stuffing words into my mouth and that's just uncalled for.
>
> >"It is weird that I am a bastard from trying to politely and patiently telling you that I think you are wrong."
> >"What you are saying about popular music is simply dead wrong from what I can see."
> >"You have so many times complained about personal attacks on this list
> - yet you call me a bastard for no legitimate reason I can find."
>
>
>     I accept that you appear to think, for example, that trying to stand up against the stereotype that harmony is only possible to do properly in 12TET (partly in order to get other musicians to write micro-tonal harmony of varying levels of complexity), is a lost cause and that music that avoids the issue entirely can be amazingly successful.  Or perhaps that consonance related to such harmony has little place in pop music or that my trying to optimize what the maximum level of dissonance in a scale is somehow makes my scales less able to be used in popular music.
>
>     Here's why I'm saying you were being/acting-like a bastard (I never said you "are" a bastard, btw).  I just can't see why you think it's such an attitude problem that I'm trying out new options for ideas in micro-tonal harmony and seeing if maybe a few others could help out (and not necessarily using my scales, but any scales with that goal in mind).
>
>     I have never said anything to the effect of "compose in my scales or you won't be helping expand micro-tonality to the public" I've been saying "he are some options I've made to help introduce beyond-12-TET polyphony to the public...do you have other examples?"  Yes, I'm basing a path on the ideas of consonance...namely because "knock on wood" people's main complaint about micro-tonality that I've heard is it's too dissonant...not because I don't think dissonant music can "ever" succeed.  The input is coming from them, not me...I'm trying to simply be realistic.
>
>    And yes I did say your example was IMVHO "pretty good and definitely on the right path, but not great".  I could easily say the same of many of my own songs.  If you are taking it personally, please don't.
> ----------------------------
> >"I've seen you accuse Carl (and others?) of being a bastard. It seems he also was disagreeing with you."
>     I'll say this much, I have no problem with others disagreeing with me or noting points for improvement, but I have a huge problem with those who say "stop what you're doing, it's a lost cause" and giving me no options along those lines to improve.
>
>     Carl said that about my developing the Silver and Phi scales...and even I began to believe him and quit the cause.   Then we both see how your songs made with those scales panned out...surprisingly well.  How?  Because of advice and constructive criticism that actually helped the cause.
>
> >"Why was I not a bastard when I wrote music in your tuning?"
>    It sounds like you're making it out to be all flowers.  Come on, we both know it wasn't.  Time and time again you complained about things like the same chords sounding different in different places AKA "ET like transposition", lack of a wide range of tones (far over 7), and other admitted areas of improvement where my scale didn't accommodate to your composition style well.  Guess what?  I took your saying I was wrong as constructive criticism and listened.    My new scales are much closer to TET tunings and a good few of them have 9+ notes (including my 9-tone "infinity" scale)...because I realized you had good points and ran with them rather than just "stuck with what I had".
>
>
>     And all the while you compose in my tunings, your songs in such tunings sometimes doing disproportionately well, you say you like them...but somehow you also manage to say something along the lines of "the cause behind these scales is useless".
>    I've just seen what you can do...you've been a huge help and strong (in a good way) critic in the past...both in making songs with my tunings and providing realistic criticism in issues with using them as a composer.  But this new side you are taking seems to contradict a whole lot of what you've done in the past and seems to make the only alternative to proving polyphony to be "make music with very little polyphony", which comes across as one step away from saying "your cause is pointless...look at all the great songs I wrote that prove you are wrong...despite all the times you've taken my advice, and my alternative to you is turn around and start over".
>
>     Now can you see, why I'm frustrated?  Not only are you saying "I don't like this" but all indirectly seeming to imply "other people have no business helping your point out either".
>
>   I just want to get polyphonic (and I mean the usual 4-5 note stuff, not 9+!) microtonal-music more widely accepted as an alternative for musicians via my scales or anyone else's...that's all.  If some people hate my scales and those of others working along these lines...so be it....I'm working for the people who do appreciate what I'm doing and I'm not about to shoot myself or anyone else working in this direction in the foot.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> And go ahead and call me a bastard if you don't like hearing that
> music doesn't need "ultra confident consonant tunings and nine note
> chords" to interest an audience.
>
> In my opinion you have missed an entire forest because you've smashed
> your forehead into a tree. In my opinion you will limit yourself until
> you get past the maze of technicalities you have created for yourself.
> Music needs a soul. Microtonal or 12tet or a freaking drum circle at a
> Native American pow-wow.

You talk as if everyone is interested in the same kind of music, which is certainly not the case. While there was nothing to offend in the cover you linked to, and I would have said something nice about it if she had been my next door neighbor, basically I thought it was an amateurishly performed cover of something which was in any case boring. So what audience do you aim at?

To be honest Gene, I mostly have been writing music for myself. But it
doesn't mean I have not thought about why the Beatles were popular, why I
listen to what I listen to, etc.

And since I may be hanging a composer for hire sign out on the internet (not
sure about this yet) I will be having to do "work" I have been even further
thinking about these issues.

However, I do think my point of view has some validity.

What I didn't cover are things like - why people end up liking music they
hate - hooks and such - and why people that I've know have bought music
heard on the radio, almost compulsively, only to be totally disappointed
when played at home.

that being said let me say this - there is a lot of different music out
there. And almost none of it appeals to everyone. Yet - I think one of the
universal reasons why a particular piece of music is popular is this soul
issue. That does not mean Birds and Boats will appeal to you. But obviously
it appeals to a lot of people. A lot more than any song I've written so far.
(I've only done > 10 k)

What I am saying is that the different songs that appeal to different
segments of the world wide audience do so for some similar reasons - and
what I'm labeling as "soul" is being one of them. Simple or complex - micro
or 12 tet - the music we'd examine from any group will probably be something
that touches the audience. and that is the important part of the fortune
cookie to grasp.

that is what I'm saying.

and it only matters if you care about writing popular music.

I hope that clarifies Gene.

Chris

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > And go ahead and call me a bastard if you don't like hearing that
> > music doesn't need "ultra confident consonant tunings and nine note
> > chords" to interest an audience.
> >
> > In my opinion you have missed an entire forest because you've smashed
> > your forehead into a tree. In my opinion you will limit yourself until
> > you get past the maze of technicalities you have created for yourself.
> > Music needs a soul. Microtonal or 12tet or a freaking drum circle at a
> > Native American pow-wow.
>
> You talk as if everyone is interested in the same kind of music, which is
> certainly not the case. While there was nothing to offend in the cover you
> linked to, and I would have said something nice about it if she had been my
> next door neighbor, basically I thought it was an amateurishly performed
> cover of something which was in any case boring. So what audience do you aim
> at?
>
>
>

I wrote:

> > However, if anyone else has already come up with a terminology to
> > describe this, I'd be happy to adopt it. The last thing I want to
> > do is add to the clutter of microtonal terminology.
> > -Igs
>
> Doesn't Blackwood's "r" do the job?

This went over like a lead balloon. For the uninitiated,
Blackwood's R is the ratio of the two step sizes in a... scale
with two step sizes.

-Carl

Gene>"15/14 "neutral third" 5/4 10/7 3/2 12/7 7/4 2"
There are a "different" spots, like the dyad between 7/4 and 15/14 (around 18/11...11-limit) and between 7/4 and 12/7 (very narrow) that are new.
In general I see a whole lot of the usual solid intervals imitated by 12TET along with a couple interesting avant-garde 11-limit ones that are split in such a way.
I don't think the 11-limit ones should be much of a problem as everything seems quite well spaced for the most part.

One major question though...how does one learning such scales learn what to do with the small gap IE between 12/7 and 7/4?

A lot of the rest seems pretty obvious (though please let me know if I'm on the wrong track): there are a bunch of notes that can form x/4 chords IE 5/4, 3/2, 7/4 (5:6:7 chord) and a some for x/7 chords IE 10/7 and 12/7 (4:5:6 chord)). I suppose the 7/4 and 12/7 are designed to help "switch gears" between these sets of harmonic series since they are so close to each other (or maybe even help chain those two chords together somehow)? The only bizarre learning curve challenge I really see here in introducing this to people is what to do with the narrow intervals.

Anyhow, I must say I see some good potential in here (at least mathematically). I'll just have to try composing in it to make sure, of course.

________________________________
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, April 22, 2010 12:18:12 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Alternatives to 12TET (with similar consonance but distinctly different sounds)

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

> My goal is to have at least a handful (IE 8 or so) scales I can quickly show to professional musicians I know and/or am in contact with to "lobby" for some use of micro-tonality on their part. ;-)

What do you think of the following 8 note scale:

! octo.scl
octone in 612 equal
8
!
119.60784
350.98039
386.27451
617.64706
701.96078
933.33333
968.62745
1200.0000

This could also be tuned

15/14 "neutral third" 5/4 10/7 3/2 12/7 7/4 2

but note that there are 11-limit implications. It should tend to break someone out of old habits of thought.

Chris>"In my opinion you will limit yourself until
> you get past the maze of technicalities you have created for
yourself.
> Music needs a soul. Microtonal or 12tet or a freaking drum circle
at a
> Native American pow-wow."
First of all, why the whiny tone of voice?

How to say this. I try to make scales in such a way that the scale itself solves a lot of the technicalities so a musician doesn't have to worry about them and can just "jam". To me, this seems like an obvious pathway to help make soulful music, obviously not for everyone but at least a good few people. BTW, I 100% agree on the "soul" aspect of music, my question is how can tuning help musicians more easily get to that point.

I have experienced this countless times myself...that I've written songs worried about things like consonance only to have listeners complain I sounded like I was doing an academic exercise far as the mood. Or, on the other hand, make a song purely for fun and by ear not worrying about theory and have listeners say "interesting, but the chords just clash".
And the songs I've had best luck with are ones where I make a few motifs for fun and then fine-tune them with theory...those are the songs I've made that came across as having "soul" to people the best. However, that fine-tuning can be frustrating and I understand how it can scare a lot of people out of music composition.

Chris, maybe you can compose solely by ear, not even staying within, same, the same scale in a verse (modulating like crazy), and get virtually everything right, but realize many of us can't.
Is it really that irrational to think that a good amount of people who compose music can do a better job at adding "soul" into their music when half their brain isn't stuck working out which notes will/won't fit so far as harmonic theory (and the scale used takes care of much of that for them)?
-----------------------------

>"What I didn't cover are things like - why people end up liking music
they hate - hooks and such - and why people that I've know have bought
music heard on the radio, almost compulsively, only to be totally
disappointed when played at home. "
I think you're crossing comparisons of composition techniques with tuning here...although I think the simple answer is people get addicted to things that have obvious patterns they can easily memorize and that obviousness makes the music annoying in the long run.
But since this is supposedly a tuning list and the topic was originally about how tuning can help popular music work (and not other non-tuning techniques in such music)...why not stick with talking about how tuning can improve the composition process and/or make songs "catchy" rather than how unrelated aspects of composition can do the same thing?

Micheal,

Your stated goal "I try to make scales in such a way that the scale itself
solves a lot of the technicalities so a musician doesn't have to worry about
them and can just "jam". "

What is the insurmountable technicalities involved in jamming in a 12 tet
based 7 note scale that need to be fixed?

Who exactly is having problems jamming?

And I guess I should be signing my posts "whiny bastard" from now on eh?
:-)

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Chris>"In my opinion you will limit yourself until
>
> > you get past the maze of technicalities you have created for yourself.
> > Music needs a soul. Microtonal or 12tet or a freaking drum circle at a
> > Native American pow-wow."
> First of all, why the whiny tone of voice?
>
> How to say this. I try to make scales in such a way that the scale
> itself solves a lot of the technicalities so a musician doesn't have to
> worry about them and can just "jam". To me, this seems like an obvious
> pathway to help make soulful music, obviously not for everyone but at least
> a good few people. BTW, I 100% agree on the "soul" aspect of music, my
> question is how can tuning help musicians more easily get to that point.
>

>"What is the insurmountable technicalities involved in jamming in a 12
tet based 7 note scale that need to be fixed?"
They aren't "insurmountable". 12TET is pretty good at it, actually. It's polyphonic micro-tonal scales that far too often confuse people, IMVHO. That and the challenge of making chord progressions under 12TET that aren't almost exactly the same as many already made.