Marcel

Marcel,

you've been mentioned a few times in the messages I've read. What's the 'gist' of your system?

John.

>"Marcel,
you've been mentioned a few times in the messages I've read. What's the
'gist' of your system?"
Agreed. :-) Just about the only things I have heard about it is
A) It's designed around straight harmonic combinations (and not circles of fifths or anything like that)
B) It is expandable beyond 5-limit and beyond 12 tones...though it can be easily used for re-tuning 12-TET pieces
C) It sounds really strong with Beethoven's work
D) It's advertised as "perfectly in tune", even though mathematically is has some "Wolf" intervals...I suppose in-tune means "puts dissonance in more emotional/strategic/expressive places".

Man, I think you two (John and Marcel), Gene, Cameron, hopefully a bunch of others should get together what we each consider our best candidates to either
A) Make a 12-tone or so alternative for the 12TET system or
B) Make a 7-tone alternative competitive with the basic "modes" of 12TET so far as ability to make many chords
We've formed this situation where we all, IMVHO, have fairly competitive tuning and/or scale systems. So I'm beginning to think it's about time we start comparing things like which dyads are pure/impure in each of our systems vs. each other, which intervals are available, which chords are available...and make it easier to find possible points-of-improvement for our systems and maybe even write some documentation about which systems are generally more useful for what types of music. Any takers? :-)

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

> We've formed this situation where we all, IMVHO, have fairly competitive tuning and/or scale systems. So I'm beginning to think it's about time we start comparing things like which dyads are pure/impure in each of our systems vs. each other, which intervals are available, which chords are available...and make it easier to find possible points-of-improvement for our systems and maybe even write some documentation about which systems are generally more useful for what types of music. Any takers? :-)

You can't really do this without clearly specifying what it is you are trying to improve. What counts as better or worse, and how do you quantify that?

Hi John,

Marcel,
>
> you've been mentioned a few times in the messages I've read. What's the
> 'gist' of your system?
>
> John.
>

I should really type out my theory and put it on my website but have not yet
done so.
In these posts you can read some about my theory:

/tuning/topicId_87123.html#87218
/tuning/topicId_87123.html#87240
/tuning/topicId_87123.html#87246
/tuning/topicId_87123.html#87255
/tuning/topicId_87625.html#87625

And especially look at the result of my theory in the very easy to read
transcription of my tuning of drei equale no1 & no2, which you can find at
www.develde.net

If you've read the above etc and still wish to know more let me know and
I'll explain it.

Marcel

Michael,

I'm pretty sure that my NPT 12 tone scale is the best possible symmetric "Just" 12 tone scale. Using sine waves there are tons of good dyads/intervals but to my dismay I discovered that, using complex tones, there were very few "good" dyads among intervals that did not contain 1/1 or 3/2.

The next step is to "temper" my scale (something I would have thought unthinkable before) so that more (hopefully many more) good dyads occur. This might require a bit of programming to hit the maximum number.

I should have something in a few days.

Again, why the fascination with dense chords using narrow intervals?

And again I think that the 7/6 interval is dissonant and no matter how many wider intervals you add to the chord to compensate for this, if I listen carefully I can *still* hear the dissonance of the 7/6 interval.

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"Marcel,
> you've been mentioned a few times in the messages I've read. What's the
> 'gist' of your system?"
> Agreed. :-) Just about the only things I have heard about it is
> A) It's designed around straight harmonic combinations (and not circles of fifths or anything like that)
> B) It is expandable beyond 5-limit and beyond 12 tones...though it can be easily used for re-tuning 12-TET pieces
> C) It sounds really strong with Beethoven's work
> D) It's advertised as "perfectly in tune", even though mathematically is has some "Wolf" intervals...I suppose in-tune means "puts dissonance in more emotional/strategic/expressive places".
>
> Man, I think you two (John and Marcel), Gene, Cameron, hopefully a bunch of others should get together what we each consider our best candidates to either
> A) Make a 12-tone or so alternative for the 12TET system or
> B) Make a 7-tone alternative competitive with the basic "modes" of 12TET so far as ability to make many chords
> We've formed this situation where we all, IMVHO, have fairly competitive tuning and/or scale systems. So I'm beginning to think it's about time we start comparing things like which dyads are pure/impure in each of our systems vs. each other, which intervals are available, which chords are available...and make it easier to find possible points-of-improvement for our systems and maybe even write some documentation about which systems are generally more useful for what types of music. Any takers? :-)
>

Gene>"You can't really do this without clearly specifying what it is you are
trying to improve. What counts as better or worse, and how do you
quantify that?"
Again, there's no ultimate "better or worse", only different categories. A scale's being stronger in one category could easily come at the expense of it being weaker in a different one.

One of our scales may, for example, have on the average purer thirds and fifths than the others. A different one may be better for narrowly-spaced chords. Yet another may better fit adaption of music from a certain composer or era (such as Marcel's tunings and Beethoven's music).
And, of course, I'm not saying the above things have to be the categories. I figure it could help a lot if we all individually make a list of strengths and weaknesses of our scales and then compare and then, say, see if any of each others' categories or strengths/weaknesses also apply to own own scales. The end result...I figure musicians can quickly look at the lists and examples of chords and such for each scale and quickly decide what they want, without needing to have the patience to spend hours experimenting with each one to learn partly by process of elimination what each scale is good at or where the chords are. Of course if you have any suggestions for categories I'm all ears. :-)

________________________________
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, April 23, 2010 2:56:58 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel

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

> We've formed this situation where we all, IMVHO, have fairly competitive tuning and/or scale systems. So I'm beginning to think it's about time we start comparing things like which dyads are pure/impure in each of our systems vs. each other, which intervals are available, which chords are available... and make it easier to find possible points-of-improveme nt for our systems and maybe even write some documentation about which systems are generally more useful for what types of music. Any takers? :-)

You can't really do this without clearly specifying what it is you are trying to improve. What counts as better or worse, and how do you quantify that?

On 23 April 2010 21:42, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Agreed. :-) Just about the only things I have heard about it is
> A) It's designed around straight harmonic combinations (and not circles of
> fifths or anything like that)
> B) It is expandable beyond 5-limit and beyond 12 tones...though it can be
> easily used for re-tuning 12-TET pieces
> C) It sounds really strong with Beethoven's work
> D) It's advertised as "perfectly in tune", even though mathematically is
> has some "Wolf" intervals...I suppose in-tune means "puts dissonance in more
> emotional/strategic/expressive places".
>
> Man, I think you two (John and Marcel), Gene, Cameron, hopefully a
> bunch of others should get together what we each consider our best
> candidates to either
> A) Make a 12-tone or so alternative for the 12TET system or
> B) Make a 7-tone alternative competitive with the basic "modes" of 12TET so
> far as ability to make many chords
> We've formed this situation where we all, IMVHO, have fairly
> competitive tuning and/or scale systems. So I'm beginning to think it's
> about time we start comparing things like which dyads are pure/impure in
> each of our systems vs. each other, which intervals are available, which
> chords are available...and make it easier to find possible
> points-of-improvement for our systems and maybe even write some
> documentation about which systems are generally more useful for what types
> of music. Any takers? :-)
>
>
>

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your kind words.
And I love your enthousiasm for creating the 12 and 7-tone scales.
But I'm afraid I'm of little help in this. My system is not scale based, but
based on what is beeing played.
So my system cannot give a fixed scale in which one can freely jam.
For 12-tones I personally even think that 12tet is best.
But best of luck with your quest.

Marcel

>"And again I think that the 7/6 interval is dissonant and no matter how
many wider intervals you add to the chord to compensate for this, if I
listen carefully I can *still* hear the dissonance of the 7/6 interval."

Hmm....let's see how a 7/6 dyad's first 5 (loudest) overtones match

---------7/6 overtones---------------
7/6 14/6 21/6 28/6 35/6
1.166
2.33333
3.5
4.66666666666
5.833333333333

--------root tone overtones-------------
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
-----------------------------------------------
Well 5 / 4.666666666 is a bit nasty, about 1.07 or 15/14....which has a good dose of critical band dissonance. Other than that, I can't see any reason why 7/6 would sound dissonant: the root tones are definitely spaced far away enough to avoid much dissonance...although still space closer than 6/5 (which may be a major part of the reason 6/5 passed your "consonance test" and 7/6 does not).

>"Using sine waves there are tons of good dyads/intervals but to my
dismay I discovered that, using complex tones, there were very few "good"
dyads among intervals that did not contain 1/1 or 3/2."
I think your standards of "lack of dissonance" are really (at times
almost absurdly) high. :-D Truth is 3/2 and 1/1 are just about the
only intervals where those low/loud overtones will cause minimum
roughness, either aligning perfectly or showing up a maximum distance
any from each other between other partials (both of these
characteristics help avoid dissonance). That's just one of the catches
of using instruments with overtones, more dissonance. :-P

>"The next step is to "temper" my scale (something I would have thought
unthinkable before) so that more (hopefully many more) good dyads occur. This might require a bit of programming to hit the maximum number."
Same here and good luck. :-D It's like a magical game where you fix one interval and, more often than not, it "screws up" two or three more, one step forward two steps back.

>"My system is not scale based, but based on what is being played."
Ah I understand...the subset of notes you are in the "key" of is always changing.
This begs the question have you ever thought of making software that automatically chooses between intervals in your scale to optimize for harmony...sort of like adaptive JI, only intelligently choosing from just intervals in your scale to round 12TET songs to? Maybe you could even have a slider/control in the program that lets the user control whether he wants to use notes that maximize either consonance/"purity" or dissonance for added expression.

If you did ever make such a thing I would love to try it. And I'm sure it would bring the learning curve needed to use your system way down so it would be easy to introduce to 12TET musicians.

>"For 12-tones I personally even think that 12tet is best. But best of
luck with your quest."
Thank you, and yourself as well. :-)

________________________________
From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, April 23, 2010 3:23:35 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Marcel

On 23 April 2010 21:42, Michael <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Agreed. :-) Just about the only things I have heard about it is
>A) It's designed around straight harmonic combinations (and not circles of fifths or anything like that)
>>B) It is expandable beyond 5-limit and beyond 12 tones...though it can be easily used for re-tuning 12-TET pieces
>C) It sounds really strong with Beethoven's work
>D) It's advertised as "perfectly in tune", even though mathematically is has some "Wolf" intervals... I suppose in-tune means "puts dissonance in more emotional/strategic /expressive places".
>
> Man, I think you two (John and Marcel), Gene, Cameron, hopefully a bunch of others should get together what we each consider our best candidates to either
>A) Make a 12-tone or so alternative for the 12TET system or
>>B) Make a 7-tone alternative competitive with the basic "modes" of 12TET so far as ability to make many chords
> We've formed this situation where we all, IMVHO, have fairly competitive tuning and/or scale systems. So I'm beginning to think it's about time we start comparing things like which dyads are pure/impure in each of our systems vs. each other, which intervals are available, which chords are available... and make it easier to find possible points-of-improveme nt for our systems and maybe even write some documentation about which systems are generally more useful for what types of music. Any takers? :-)
>
>
Hi Michael,

Thanks for your kind words.
And I love your enthousiasm for creating the 12 and 7-tone scales.
But I'm afraid I'm of little help in this. My system is not scale based, but based on what is beeing played.
So my system cannot give a fixed scale in which one can freely jam.
For 12-tones I personally even think that 12tet is best.
But best of luck with your quest.

Marcel

Marcel,

how does 7/5 rate in your system? Good or bad?

John.

Hi John,

Marcel,
>
> how does 7/5 rate in your system? Good or bad?
>
> John.
>

I think this means you did not read the links to the posts I gave you in my
previous mail to you very well ;)
If you do you'll find the answers there.

But anyhow, 7/5 is a harmonic-7-limit interval.
It is not normal in common practice music which is basically
harmonic-6-limit. (though a harmonic-7-limit interval does occasionally show
up in common practice music)
But as a 7-limit interval (I understand little of actual 7-limit music
though) 7/5 is (or more specifically, can be, depending on the context) a
"consonant" harmonic-7-limit interval, it can be for instance 1/1 * 6/5 *
7/6, or 1/1 * 7/6 * 6/5
But even a 35/24 is a "consonant" harmonic-7-limit interval (as for instance
1/1 * 5/4 * 7/6, or 1/1 * 7/6 * 5/4)
And where harmonic-6-limit knows only major and minor with regard to wether
the 5/4 come before or after the 6/5, in harmonic-7-limit things are more
complex.
As there's 5/4 * 6/5 * 7/6, and 5/4 * 7/6 * 6/5, and 6/5 * 5/4 * 7/6, and
6/5 * 7/6 * 5/4, and 7/6 * 5/4 * 6/5, and 7/6 * 6/5 * 5/4 (with any other
intervals at any place inbetween or before or after, this doesn't matter).
So instead of normal major and minor, harmonic-7-limit knows 6 such
"states".
Several of these "states" are very unusual, and are what many people would
allready call "dissonant".
So it's not so easy to say wether 7/5 is good or bad.

Marcel

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

> But even a 35/24 is a "consonant" harmonic-7-limit interval (as for instance
> 1/1 * 5/4 * 7/6, or 1/1 * 7/6 * 5/4)

I think it makes more sense to see it as a detuned 11-limit interval, namely 16/11. (16/11) * (385/384) = 35/24.

> I think it makes more sense to see it as a detuned 11-limit interval,
> namely 16/11. (16/11) * (385/384) = 35/24.
>

Well I don't ;)
One of the differences would be that in actual music the 16/11 won't work
nice at all in other chords / chord progressions.
Same for for instance 45/32 or 25/18, harmonic-6-limit intervals very common
in common practice music.
If you make it a 7/5 for instance you'd seriously mess up the music,
wouldn't work at all.

Marcel

> I think it makes more sense to see it as a detuned 11-limit interval,
>> namely 16/11. (16/11) * (385/384) = 35/24.
>>
>
> Well I don't ;)
> One of the differences would be that in actual music the 16/11 won't work
> nice at all in other chords / chord progressions.
> Same for for instance 45/32 or 25/18, harmonic-6-limit intervals very
> common in common practice music.
> If you make it a 7/5 for instance you'd seriously mess up the music,
> wouldn't work at all.
>
> Marcel

Just one other thing.
It's more than just "working nice in chord progressions" etc.
There's something fundamentally different in my theory which sees the
harmonic intervals as THE basic building blocks of music.
So 2/1, 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, 6/5, 7/6
As I've shown below, this logic leads to very large scales allready for
harmonic-7-limit.
20 notes per octave for the harmonic model, that is 20 different pitches per
octave seen from the harmonic root.
And this is allready 86 different intervals between any of these pitches,
per octave.
All these 86 different intervals per octave can be in harmonic-7-limit
music.
And all of these can be understood to come from (or form between) simple
intervals (of which 7/6 is the least simple) , without reptition, simply by
re-ordering the harmonic series, all from a single harmonic root.
An 11-limit interval is so much more complex than any of these intervals.
One would get harmonic-8-limit, 9, 10 and only then harmonic-11-limit.
We've left "music" long before this.
Harmonic-7-limit will give all the music imaginable allready.

Here the list of 86 intervals that occur in harmonic-7-limit harmonies:
Interval class (*: not unique), Number of incidences, Size:
1: 1 225/224 7.712 cents septimal kleisma
1: 1 64/63 27.264 cents septimal comma, Archytas' comma
1: 6 36/35 48.770 cents septimal diesis, 1/4-tone
1: 4 28/27 62.961 cents Archytas' 1/3-tone
*: 6 25/24 70.672 cents classic chromatic semitone, minor
chroma
1: 4 21/20 84.467 cents minor semitone
2: 8 16/15 111.731 cents minor diatonic semitone
*: 6 15/14 119.443 cents major diatonic semitone
2: 2 27/25 133.238 cents large limma, BP small semitone
3: 1 175/162 133.633 cents
2: 4 35/32 155.140 cents septimal neutral second
3: 2 192/175 160.502 cents
*: 8 10/9 182.404 cents minor whole tone
3: 3 28/25 196.198 cents middle second
*: 8 9/8 203.910 cents major whole tone
*: 7 8/7 231.174 cents septimal whole tone
4: 2 81/70 252.680 cents Al-Hwarizmi's lute middle finger
*: 10 7/6 266.871 cents septimal minor third
5: 2 75/64 274.582 cents classic augmented second
5: 2 32/27 294.135 cents Pythagorean minor third
5: 2 25/21 301.847 cents BP second, quasi-tempered minor
third
*: 12 6/5 315.641 cents minor third
6: 2 135/112 323.353 cents
*: 3 175/144 337.543 cents
6: 2 128/105 342.905 cents septimal neutral third
6: 2 216/175 364.412 cents
6: 4 56/45 378.602 cents
*: 12 5/4 386.314 cents major third
7: 1 63/50 400.108 cents quasi-equal major third
7: 2 80/63 413.578 cents wide major third
7: 4 32/25 427.373 cents classic diminished fourth
*: 7 9/7 435.084 cents septimal major third, BP third
*: 4 35/27 449.275 cents 9/4-tone, septimal semi-diminished
fourth
*: 4 21/16 470.781 cents narrow fourth
*: 14 4/3 498.045 cents perfect fourth
9: 2 75/56 505.757 cents
*: 4 27/20 519.551 cents acute fourth
9: 1 175/128 541.453 cents
*: 6 48/35 546.815 cents septimal semi-augmented fourth
9: 1 112/81 561.006 cents
*: 4 25/18 568.717 cents classic augmented fourth
*: 6 7/5 582.512 cents septimal or Huygens' tritone, BP
fourth
10: 4 45/32 590.224 cents diatonic tritone
10: 4 64/45 609.776 cents 2nd tritone
*: 6 10/7 617.488 cents Euler's tritone
*: 4 36/25 631.283 cents classic diminished fifth
11: 1 81/56 638.994 cents
*: 6 35/24 653.185 cents septimal semi-diminished fifth
11: 1 256/175 658.547 cents
*: 4 40/27 680.449 cents grave fifth
11: 2 112/75 694.243 cents
*: 14 3/2 701.955 cents perfect fifth
*: 4 32/21 729.219 cents wide fifth
*: 4 54/35 750.725 cents septimal semi-augmented fifth
*: 7 14/9 764.916 cents septimal minor sixth
13: 4 25/16 772.627 cents classic augmented fifth
13: 2 63/40 786.422 cents narrow minor sixth
13: 1 100/63 799.892 cents quasi-equal minor sixth
*: 12 8/5 813.686 cents minor sixth
14: 4 45/28 821.398 cents
14: 2 175/108 835.588 cents
14: 2 105/64 857.095 cents septimal neutral sixth
*: 3 288/175 862.457 cents
14: 2 224/135 876.647 cents
*: 12 5/3 884.359 cents major sixth, BP sixth
15: 2 42/25 898.153 cents quasi-tempered major sixth
15: 2 27/16 905.865 cents Pythagorean major sixth
15: 2 128/75 925.418 cents diminished seventh
*: 10 12/7 933.129 cents septimal major sixth
16: 2 140/81 947.320 cents
*: 7 7/4 968.826 cents harmonic seventh
*: 8 16/9 996.090 cents Pythagorean minor seventh
17: 3 25/14 1003.802 cents middle minor seventh
*: 8 9/5 1017.596 cents just minor seventh, BP seventh
17: 2 175/96 1039.498 cents
18: 4 64/35 1044.860 cents septimal neutral seventh
17: 1 324/175 1066.367 cents
18: 2 50/27 1066.762 cents grave major seventh
*: 6 28/15 1080.557 cents grave major seventh
18: 8 15/8 1088.269 cents classic major seventh
19: 4 40/21 1115.533 cents acute major seventh
*: 6 48/25 1129.328 cents classic diminished octave
19: 4 27/14 1137.039 cents septimal major seventh
19: 6 35/18 1151.230 cents septimal semi-diminished octave
19: 1 63/32 1172.736 cents octave - septimal comma
19: 1 448/225 1192.288 cents
Number of different intervals: 86 = 4.52632 / class

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > I think it makes more sense to see it as a detuned 11-limit interval,
> > namely 16/11. (16/11) * (385/384) = 35/24.
> >
>
> Well I don't ;)
> One of the differences would be that in actual music the 16/11 won't work
> nice at all in other chords / chord progressions.

A claim based on zero experience so far as I can see.

> Same for for instance 45/32 or 25/18, harmonic-6-limit intervals very common
> in common practice music.
> If you make it a 7/5 for instance you'd seriously mess up the music,
> wouldn't work at all.

(7/5)(225/224) = 45/32. Put both 225/224 and 385/384 together and you get 11-marvel temperament, which works just fine.

> But even a 35/24 is a "consonant" harmonic-7-limit interval (as for
> instance 1/1 * 5/4 * 7/6, or 1/1 * 7/6 * 5/4)
>

Wow I just played it.
You can just hear it.
It has a very special deep mood.

I played 1/1 7/6 35/32, 1/1 5/4 35/32, 1/1 7/6 35/32
And trilling between the 7/6 and 5/4.

I then played it with 1/1 6/5 3/2, 1/1 5/4 3/2, 1/1 6/5 3/2, but that
doesn't sound the same, in the sense that it sais something completely
different musically, not just differently tuned, they're completely
different notes.
I then played 1/1 7/6 3/2, 1/1 5/4 3/2, 1/1 6/5 3/2, but again it's
different musical meaning.
Also played 1/1 7/6 7/5, etc but not thesame musical meaning.

1/1 7/6 35/32, 1/1 5/4 35/32, 1/1 7/6 35/32 sounds arabic, and "right".

Btw Gene I hope you can see that to put 16/11 here instead of 35/32 makes no
sense.
1/1 7/6 16/11, 1/1 5/4 16/11, 1/1 7/6 16/11, neh.

Marcel

> A claim based on zero experience so far as I can see.
>

A claim based on solid logic.
But I just gave an actual example in my previous message.
I can make a zillion more.
Infact I'm writing an algorithm as we speak that does just that.

>
> > Same for for instance 45/32 or 25/18, harmonic-6-limit intervals very
> common
> > in common practice music.
> > If you make it a 7/5 for instance you'd seriously mess up the music,
> > wouldn't work at all.
>
> (7/5)(225/224) = 45/32. Put both 225/224 and 385/384 together and you get
> 11-marvel temperament, which works just fine.
>

Nooo.. you can't start talking about JI, throw up a crazy ratio like 16/11,
and then say 45/32 is thesame as 7/5 because of a TEMPERAMENT..

Marcel

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

> > One of the differences would be that in actual music the 16/11 won't work
> > nice at all in other chords / chord progressions.
> > Same for for instance 45/32 or 25/18, harmonic-6-limit intervals very
> > common in common practice music.

Strictly speaking, they don't exist at all in common practice music. While common practice encompasses the possibility that both 2 and 5 are theoretically pure, when it does the 3 is flat. In fact, the 3 is *always* flat in common practice theory save for certain possible circulating temperaments.

> It's more than just "working nice in chord progressions" etc.
> There's something fundamentally different in my theory which sees the
> harmonic intervals as THE basic building blocks of music.

Which is why your method is not a theory of common practice music, but a method in just intonation.

> So 2/1, 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, 6/5, 7/6
> As I've shown below, this logic leads to very large scales allready for
> harmonic-7-limit.

This reminds me of Hindemith's bogus proof that the only possible system is twelve notes to the octave, and the problem is the same: you've assumed the conclusion you claim to derive.

> An 11-limit interval is so much more complex than any of these intervals.
> One would get harmonic-8-limit, 9, 10 and only then harmonic-11-limit.
> We've left "music" long before this.

I could very easily use your scale construction method for composing 11-limit music, but of course it isn't the only way of proceeding and isn't the way various people, including many on this list, already have already composed 11-limit music.

> Harmonic-7-limit will give all the music imaginable allready.

Tell it to Harry Partch.

> > Harmonic-7-limit will give all the music imaginable allready.
>
> Tell it to Harry Partch.

Yes, even Harry Partch his music could function in harmonic-7-limit it seems
to me.
40 tones per octave in one tonality without modulations.
And in the remote case it doesn't, it'll surely function in
harmonic-8-limit.
Just because Partch specified ratios, doesn't mean that it's in tune in a
more objective sense that way.
Just like when a composer specifies 12tet it isn't in tune in 12tet.
And there are plenty of small stepsizes in harmonic-7 and 8-limit.

Marcel

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

> > (7/5)(225/224) = 45/32. Put both 225/224 and 385/384 together and you get
> > 11-marvel temperament, which works just fine.
> >
>
> Nooo.. you can't start talking about JI, throw up a crazy ratio like 16/11,
> and then say 45/32 is thesame as 7/5 because of a TEMPERAMENT..
>
> Marcel

Past a certain point, when you get to microtempering, in fact you can do exactly this sort of thing. Marvel does make an audible difference, but it's a small one and in many cases it would be less than the variation in tuning introduced by performance.

Consider 1-5/4-16/11. In 72 equal, the major third is three cents flat, the 16/11 1.3 cents sharp, and the 7/6 a fifth of a cent flat. The difference between this and just intonation is audible but hardly extreme.

> Wow I just played it.
> You can just hear it.
> It has a very special deep mood.
>
> I played 1/1 7/6 35/32, 1/1 5/4 35/32, 1/1 7/6 35/32
> And trilling between the 7/6 and 5/4.
>
> I then played it with 1/1 6/5 3/2, 1/1 5/4 3/2, 1/1 6/5 3/2, but that
> doesn't sound the same, in the sense that it sais something completely
> different musically, not just differently tuned, they're completely
> different notes.
> I then played 1/1 7/6 3/2, 1/1 5/4 3/2, 1/1 6/5 3/2, but again it's
> different musical meaning.
> Also played 1/1 7/6 7/5, etc but not thesame musical meaning.
>
> 1/1 7/6 35/32, 1/1 5/4 35/32, 1/1 7/6 35/32 sounds arabic, and "right".
>
> Btw Gene I hope you can see that to put 16/11 here instead of 35/32 makes
> no sense.
> 1/1 7/6 16/11, 1/1 5/4 16/11, 1/1 7/6 16/11, neh.
>

Grr I made a very stupid error here in typing.
Offcourse I ment 32/24 in all the above examples, not 35/32..
Sorry.

Marcel

> Past a certain point, when you get to microtempering, in fact you can do
> exactly this sort of thing. Marvel does make an audible difference, but it's
> a small one and in many cases it would be less than the variation in tuning
> introduced by performance.
>
> Consider 1-5/4-16/11. In 72 equal, the major third is three cents flat, the
> 16/11 1.3 cents sharp, and the 7/6 a fifth of a cent flat. The difference
> between this and just intonation is audible but hardly extreme.
>

Yes, but the musical logic one can derive from temperaments is limited.
And can't be compared to JI.
So you can't say 35/24 is an out of tune 16/11 because your temperament
likes it that way more or something like that.
That's reverse logic.

Marcel

> Grr I made a very stupid error here in typing.
> Offcourse I ment 32/24 in all the above examples, not 35/32..
> Sorry.
>
> Marcel
>

Pff it's not my day..
That should be 35/24 lol

Marcel

Marcel,
Harry Partch spent his entire not only composing music in just intonation, but also creating instruments that would play his music properly and training people to play these instruments.  Have you read his Genesis of a Music? Have you heard concerts/recordings of music played with his instruments?
I'm sorry, but I can't help repeating what I wrote to you in an earlier posting--Ben Johnston's notation system (and the Schweinitz/Sabat notation even more efficiently) allows one to employ  all the relationships you've written out as fractions, and thousands more besides.  I'll repeat, any ratio you've sent out over the last year, starting in any conceivable key, can be specified with a note name and a combination of a small number of accidentals.  If you like writing everything out as fractions, fine, but in my view, a notation system brings us a lot closer to real musical relationships. 
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sat, 4/24/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 24, 2010, 11:07 PM

> Harmonic-7-limit will give all the music imaginable allready.

Tell it to Harry Partch.
Yes, even Harry Partch his music could function in harmonic-7-limit it seems to me.
40 tones per octave in one tonality without modulations.
And in the remote case it doesn't, it'll surely function in harmonic-8-limit.

Just because Partch specified ratios, doesn't mean that it's in tune in a more objective sense that way.
Just like when a composer specifies 12tet it isn't in tune in 12tet.
And there are plenty of small stepsizes in harmonic-7 and 8-limit.

Marcel

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

> Yes, but the musical logic one can derive from temperaments is limited.

This claim is too vague to be argued one way or another.

> And can't be compared to JI.

In fact, it can be compared to JI. Marvel temperament, in terms of its structure, looks like 5-limit JI, so clearly it can be compared in that respect.

> So you can't say 35/24 is an out of tune 16/11 because your temperament
> likes it that way more or something like that.

My claim is that this is what you are probably hearing. It's not a matter of what I like, it's just that 385/384 is only 4.5 cents, whether anyone likes it or not.

Hi Franklin,

Marcel,
>
> Harry Partch spent his entire not only composing music in just intonation,
> but also creating instruments that would play his music properly and
> training people to play these instruments. Have you read his Genesis of a
> Music? Have you heard concerts/recordings of music played with his
> instruments?
>

I have not read his Genesis of a Music, but I have heard recordings of his
music played with his instruments.
I personally like little in his music though.

I'm sorry, but I can't help repeating what I wrote to you in an earlier
> posting--Ben Johnston's notation system (and the Schweinitz/Sabat notation
> even more efficiently) allows one to employ all the relationships you've
> written out as fractions, and thousands more besides. I'll repeat, any
> ratio you've sent out over the last year, starting in any conceivable key,
> can be specified with a note name and a combination of a small number of
> accidentals. If you like writing everything out as fractions, fine, but in
> my view, a notation system brings us a lot closer to real musical
> relationships.
>
> Franklin
>

How did this become a notation thing?
I personally like fractions best, I read them more fluently than notes.
But to each his own.

Though it's not about how many fractions one can specify (in which case
writing in ratios would win anyhow) but it's about the "right" fractions in
the right place :)
And this is not something that has been mastered by anybody ever in the past
in my opinion, not Partch, not Johnston, nobody.

Marcel

Marcel> "But even a 35/24 is a "consonant" harmonic-7-limit interval"
Gene>"I think it makes more sense to see it as a de-tuned 11-limit interval, namely 16/11. (16/11) * (385/384) = 35/24."

I am all for Gene's technique here. I use it very frequently myself to round anything up to about 10 cents off to x/9, x/11, or even occasionally x/13 (obviously the 385/384 margin of error fits well within that). Works incredibly well.
As a side note, in some cases, I find it amazing just how consonant 11-limit harmony can be despite the high o-tonal fractions involved...often times I find there's nothing wrong with "accepting" an "x/11" interval. It also seems one of the more periodic intervals hovering in the neighborhood of the perfect 5th...other fractions in that area include 13/9 = 1.4444, 19/13 = 1.46153......20/13 = 1.5384, 17/11 = 1.545454, and 14/9 = 1.5555. That whole area around 3/2 seems to be a very tricky one and not one you can readily make low-limit: with fractions. The closer you get to hitting 3/2 it seems, the higher the limit.

Marcel> "Well I don't ;) One of the differences would be that in actual music the 16/11 won't work nice at all in other chords / chord progressions."

Marcel, please correct me if I'm mistaking your criticism of this method...but it seems like you are very eager to push every ratio you get so they fit into incredibly low-limit chords like the 7/5 into 5:6:7. I understand such a reduction may make it seem easier to track harmonic relationships in your system as well.
But ignore "strict JI" for a sec here...have you ever actually tried to make higher limit chords such as 11:14:16 that are well spaced (IE spaced about as widely as lower limit chords)? If not, try it...I'm pretty sure you'll be amazed at just how consonant they sound, it's really not that much of a "penalty" over lower-limit intervals. Now if you go higher with IE with 13+ limit you may start to hear a bit of significant clashing (I know I do) but...don't fear the 11th limit. ;-)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>Now if you go higher with IE with 13+ limit you may start to hear a bit of significant clashing (I know I do) but...don't fear the 11th limit. ;-)

The 11 limit is the xen in xenharmonic.

Marcel>"Yes, even Harry Partch his music could function in harmonic-7-limit it seems to me."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonality_diamond#15-limit_tonality_diamond
Here's a challenge then: try fitting the ratio 20/13 in 7-limit. It's in Partch's diamond above.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel>"Yes, even Harry Partch his music could function in harmonic-7-limit it seems to me."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonality_diamond#15-limit_tonality_diamond
> Here's a challenge then: try fitting the ratio 20/13 in 7-limit. It's in Partch's diamond above.

32/21 is 105/104 flatter, and 54/35 is 351/350 sharper.

Marcel,

What do you mean by  "mastered?" Partch and Johnston each created a compositional language that allowed them to express  compelling musical ideas that have had a powerful influence on generations of musicians. If this is not a form of mastery, I don't know what is. 

You seem to have a higher level of mastery in mind, whose sole basis seems to be your private judgments.  This seems to be a sort of private language: it is not historically based, nor is it shared by others. You don't appear to have composed any music that might convince others that you have attained a level of mastery; instead, you have spent the last few months  inventing JI tunings for a short piece by Beethoven that was likely never intended to be performed in JI. This is a very nice exercise, but it is completely derivative. If you believe so strongly in your vision, why don't you compose some music that will demonstrate  how compelling and original your vision is?

I hope this all doesn't sound too negative; it's just that your judgments appear overly harsh, considering the vast amount you still need to learn in order to become a proficient composer of tonal music.  I  love the sound of the intervals of JI as much as you--they are sonically intrinsically beautiful to humans, to a large extent because of the nature of our apparatus of hearing.  But neither these intervals, nor any selection of them will  in themselves make compelling music. That is a far more difficult task.

And please bear in mind that unless your vision of a perfect music--against which all other music is to be judged as wanting--is completely dependent on synthesizers or computer-generated sounds,  your world of perfect fractions will plunge into the chaos of imperfect instruments and performers once you try to get it performed by anything other than synthesizer keyboards.  I admire Partch and Johnston tremendously because they took the risk of trying to create visceral music for imperfect instruments and performers. The challenge was that of raising performers to the level that they could achieve what barely seemed possible.

Franklin
 

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 12:22 AM

Hi Franklin,

Marcel,
Harry Partch spent his entire not only composing music in just intonation, but also creating instruments that would play his music properly and training people to play these instruments.  Have you read his Genesis of a Music? Have you heard concerts/recordings of music played with his instruments?

I have not read his Genesis of a Music, but I have heard recordings of his music played with his instruments.
I personally like little in his music though.
 

I'm sorry, but I can't help repeating what I wrote to you in an earlier posting--Ben Johnston's notation system (and the Schweinitz/Sabat notation even more efficiently) allows one to employ  all the relationships you've written out as fractions, and thousands more besides.  I'll repeat, any ratio you've sent out over the last year, starting in any conceivable key, can be specified with a note name and a combination of a small number of accidentals.  If you like writing everything out as fractions, fine, but in
my view, a notation system brings us a lot closer to real musical relationships. 
Franklin
How did this become a notation thing?
I personally like fractions best, I read them more fluently than notes.

But to each his own.

Though it's not about how many fractions one can specify (in which case writing in ratios would win anyhow) but it's about the "right" fractions in the right place :)
And this is not something that has been mastered by anybody ever in the past in my opinion, not Partch, not Johnston, nobody.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
> What do you mean by  "mastered?" Partch and Johnston each created a compositional language that allowed them to express  compelling musical ideas that have had a powerful influence on generations of musicians. If this is not a form of mastery, I don't know what is. 

Cox, you are being entirely generous, as has been most of the tuning community, as have I (for the most part). But late on a Saturday night, with just enough malbec and single malt to allow me to speak freely, I have to say the following...

I've corresponded a bit with Ben (and I bow to your deep knowledge of the man and his music), and I worked with Partch, and performed his music for many years, and continue to work on his behalf with the Harry Partch Foundation. And it really both pains me, and makes me laugh, to see Marcel both belittle their work, and trumpet his own.

Marcel, one day you better take a long, hard look in the mirror, and realize that in wide swaths of the musical territory you are completely out of your league. You haven't even READ "Genesis of a Music", and you profess to find the recordings of Partch's music beneath you (no surprise to me, knowing your conservative and retrogressive taste in music).

You are damn lucky the majority of the people on the tuning lists are amiable, gentile people, who are willing to put up with the occasional n00b and charlatan, neophyte and naif.

You are welcome to your own Private World of Musical Triumphs. But until, and unless, you come up with a body of proofs and musical works that hold up under widespread scrutiny, you are just another nerd with some ideas about numbers and pitches. I don't know where you get your bravado, and it may simply be fistfulls of Viagra, but you aren't fooling anyone. Retuning a minor Beethoven scrap, even it if *were* successful, doesn't even come within light years of what Ben Johnston and Harry Partch have done, both in terms of creating new and significant pieces of art, as well as enhancing and enriching the body of theory behind the art.

Time to re-evaluate your status, young man.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:

> And please bear in mind that unless your vision of a perfect
>music--against which all other music is to be judged as wanting--is
>completely dependent on synthesizers or computer-generated sounds,
>your world of perfect fractions will plunge into the chaos of
>imperfect instruments and performers once you try to get it performed
>by anything other than synthesizer keyboards.

A strange complement to this is that higher-limit intervals and systems
can be sweet and logical on acoustic instruments, and their sweetness
may escape notice altogether when working with synthesizers, especially
with preset and stereotypical sounds. Synthesizer presets and typical
sounds are programmed in 12-tET and 3-limit (parallel pure fifths as
timbre enhancers for example, "1 1/2" is even one of the drawbars on one
of my old analogs which is a cross between an analog organ and a
monosynth). But synths can be programmed to be tasty in
higher limits as well. A big and very simple part of programming synths
for higher limits is not applying a squealing 4-pole lowpass, rather,
letting higher partials through.

And, the plunge into choas is bound to happen when trying to make a
transliteration from synthetic to acoustic, but it won't happen if the
original conception is acoustic. Quite the opposite- an acoustic
performance in an acoustically concieved tuning scheme will bring order
and precision to something that may sound harsh and stiff on a synth.
But this is obvious. An orchestral work is inevitabley "chaos",
relatively speaking, but it is far more precise, in real ways other than
empirical measurements of cycles per second, than a piano reduction.
Providing that the piece was composed with the orchestra in the mind's
ear and not as block chords plunked out then dumped on an orchestrator
to do the best he can duct-taping up some voice leading, of course.

Now Marcel is going to say that his tunings are acoustically concieved,
but this will be a meaningless claim without an example. An example
without electronic pitch correction.

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

> > Here's a challenge then: try fitting the ratio 20/13 in 7-limit. It's in Partch's diamond above.
>
> 32/21 is 105/104 flatter, and 54/35 is 351/350 sharper.

Nor should we neglect 49/32, 640/637 flatter. That gives both the 21st and the 49th partial a shot at it.

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

> You are damn lucky the majority of the people on the tuning lists are amiable, gentile people, who are willing to put up with the occasional n00b and charlatan, neophyte and naif.

And even luckier the Jewish people are willing to cut him some slack also.

> Here's a challenge then: try fitting the ratio 20/13 in 7-limit. It's in
> Partch's diamond above.
>

54/35 750.725 cents septimal semi-augmented fifth

It's in harmonic-7-limit
Note that this interval is more used and usefull in music than an 81/64 for
instance (which is a harmonic-8-limit interval, where the syntonic comma
becomes a stepsize)

Marcel

On 25 April 2010 07:59, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> 32/21 is 105/104 flatter, and 54/35 is 351/350 sharper.
>

Hey, yes thanks! :)

Marcel

But ignore "strict JI" for a sec here...have you ever actually tried to make
> higher limit chords such as 11:14:16 that are well spaced (IE spaced about
> as widely as lower limit chords)? If not, try it...I'm pretty sure you'll
> be amazed at just how consonant they sound, it's really not that much of a
> "penalty" over lower-limit intervals.

Yes I know how the 11th harmonic sounds.
But take for instance the dominant 7th chord in music.
One would think it is 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4. And that this is the most consonant
option.
But if we investigate what things are really about in music and how music
works then we find that it is almost never 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4.
It is instead 1/1 5/4 3/2 16/9, or 1/1 5/4 3/2 9/5, or even 1/1 32/25 3/2
9/5 or 1/1 5/4 40/27 16/9.
All of these are more common in actual music, and all of these are not
consonant and need resolution, as they do in music.
(the 1/1 5/4 3/2 15/8 and 1/1 6/5 3/2 9/5 can be consonant however, without
need for resolution)

It's thesame with 11-limit intervals.
In actual music, it would be near impossible to indicate the 11th harmonic
in musical structure.
To indicate the 7th harmonic is hard enough allready it seems.

So higher harmonic are for the overtones of sounds in my opinion.
And perhaps for "effect" when playing a straight harmonic series, like 1/1
2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1, and then not in a musical sense
but as a sound "effect". you can't then start inverting /shifting /
mirroring etc such a series in a musical sense and things like that.

Marcel

On 25 April 2010 10:34, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:

> What do you mean by "mastered?" Partch and Johnston each created a
> compositional language that allowed them to express compelling musical
> ideas that have had a powerful influence on generations of musicians. If
> this is not a form of mastery, I don't know what is.
>

The mastery I mean is to know in a scientific way how music really
functions.
And this includes JI tuning which is at the basis of music.
I know this is a personal vision of mine that such a theory of music would
even be possible.

>
> You seem to have a higher level of mastery in mind, whose sole basis seems
> to be your private judgments. This seems to be a sort of private language:
> it is not historically based, nor is it shared by others. You don't appear
> to have composed any music that might convince others that you have attained
> a level of mastery; instead, you have spent the last few months inventing
> JI tunings for a short piece by Beethoven that was likely never intended to
> be performed in JI. This is a very nice exercise, but it is completely
> derivative. If you believe so strongly in your vision, why don't you compose
> some music that will demonstrate how compelling and original your vision
> is?
>

The theory I have developed is not just for the 2 Beethoven pieces I've so
far used it on.
I made it so that it should work completely consistently for all common
practice music.
I'll retune many more pieces by several composers the comming time, all in
the exact same manner according to my theory.

I'll also start composing real soon.
I hope within a half year even in harmonic-7-limit.

But I do not say that the mastery I've talked about earlyer is something
I've achieved.
I do think that the path I'm on with my theory will give me a good chance at
achieving this mastery, and I hope others too.

>
> I hope this all doesn't sound too negative; it's just that your judgments
> appear overly harsh, considering the vast amount you still need to learn in
> order to become a proficient composer of tonal music. I love the sound of
> the intervals of JI as much as you--they are sonically intrinsically
> beautiful to humans, to a large extent because of the nature of our
> apparatus of hearing. But neither these intervals, nor any selection of
> them will in themselves make compelling music. That is a far more difficult
> task.
>

No, not at all harsh to me, the things you say are very true.
But about JI, it's not just the intervals I'm working on, it's more a
musical logic that I'm working on, an alternative music theory if you wish.
Chords are not statically tuned, it depends on the harmonic root which is
indicated by the chords themselves. It matters where you're comming from and
where you're going to etc.
I do think that it is possible to create a far better harmonic theory than
the one there is present, and I think JI logic is needed for it.

>
> And please bear in mind that unless your vision of a perfect music--against
> which all other music is to be judged as wanting--is completely dependent on
> synthesizers or computer-generated sounds, your world of perfect fractions
> will plunge into the chaos of imperfect instruments and performers once you
> try to get it performed by anything other than synthesizer keyboards. I
> admire Partch and Johnston tremendously because they took the risk of trying
> to create visceral music for imperfect instruments and performers. The
> challenge was that of raising performers to the level that they could
> achieve what barely seemed possible.
>

Ah yes, but for for instance harmonic-6-limit music, offcourse it looses
some when played in 12tet, but not that great a deal, the main message comes
across largely.
I hope perfect JI will achieve a deep understanding of the workings of
music, and that this allows better music to be composed, which would when
played in 12tet still be amazing.

Marcel

> You haven't even READ "Genesis of a Music", and you profess to find the
> recordings of Partch's music beneath you

Oooh no. I have not ever said I find the recordings of Partch's music
beneath me. As I do not.
I do have respect for Partch's work.
It's just not my prefered music. I like things like Beethoven, Bach,
Purcell, Prokofiev, Faure, or Philip Glass etc.
I don't much like Stockhausen or Partch, just a personal preference in
music.

And furthermore, I don't think that simply specifying ratios means it is in
tune.
That's like me retuning a piece, getting it all wrong, but saying that since
I wrote the ratios as such, this is what I ment, so this is in tune..
Doesn't work like that. There's an objective JI "in-tune" I think, which is
very hard to describe (I'll try one day).
But anyhow, I don't think anybody has achieved the mastery of this yet.
Not me either, though I think I'm on the right path, and I do think I've
completed 2 pieces in a correct "in-tune" JI tuning.
These are the only things I'm saying and I mean no disrespect to anybody
with them, nor do I mean I'm some kind of tuning god myself.

Marcel

Dr.Cox>"This (mastery) seems to be a sort of private language: it is not historically based, nor is it shared by others. "
If I'm hearing you right, I'm trying to figure out why "historically based" must be a necessity. William Sethares work for example, in many ways, is anything but historically based. I do think it's fair to say, however, the historically basing any new tuning methods is one safe way to ensure validity, but surely not the only one.
"Shared by others" I see as the same way. I don't know the specifics, but I do know when composers like Beethoven were trying to make a living they were often fired by royalty for the dissonance of their pieces. If we went almost solely by the standard of making music as a popularity contest we would have lost a great deal of the titans of music history.
At the same time, I see how "new" things like JI and at-the-time new things like Well-tempered Clavia (sp.?) link back to more historic ones like mean-tone tunings that were considered very popular. My point is it can be both ways and either way has a right to be respected.

>" If you believe so
strongly in your vision, why don't you compose some music that will
demonstrate how compelling and original your vision is?"
I fully agree with this statement, though. New music, to me, is a huge part of proving what makes a tuning unique. Otherwise, what's so new about it (if it can't be used as something new)?

Gene (to Marcel)>"And even luckier the Jewish people are willing to cut him some slack also."

...Don't worry I've asked the good Lord to spare your first born and the Ten Plagues this time around... :-D

My point about Marcel's use of the term "mastery" is that he seems to have a private definition of this term.  Mastery of an art form, a subject, an instrument, etc., has traditional involved a historical element: awareness of previous masters and acknowledgment of the standard they set (Keats, to name but one example, was haunted by the challenge of continuing to write poetry in the wake of Shakespeare and Milton; Brahms and other Romantic composers were haunted by the standard set by Beethoven), the attainment of complete knowledge of a subject  (reading all the relevant literature, listening to all significant works, etc.), or learning the most important literature written for an instrument cold.  "Mastery" requires a wide basis of knowledge and relentless curiosity.  If one is using just intonation, for example, one cannot simply  declare that the history of the subject began the day I discovered it, because brilliant musicians have been working
away at the problems raised by just intonation for hundreds of years.
But let's say that "history is bunk," and that mastery consists of comprehensive knowledge of whatever is around at the present, say in the field of JI.  In order to attain this comprehensive knowledge, one has to listen to a great deal of music and learn how to communicate effectively with others.  At some point, someone besides yourself will come to realize the significance of what you are doing, if indeed it is significant.  And here's the crucial point: one can aspire to master of any given field, but one cannot simply declare that one has attained mastery of it. Other people will decide on this, and  the basis of this decision is whether or not one has demonstrated  mastery of the field to others.  
Franklin
Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 4:34 PM

Dr.Cox>"This (mastery) seems to be a sort of private language: it is not historically based, nor is it shared by others. "
   If I'm hearing you right, I'm trying to figure out why "historically based" must be a necessity.  William Sethares work for example, in many ways, is anything but historically based.  I do think it's fair to say, however, the historically basing any new tuning methods is one safe way to ensure validity, but surely not the only one.
    "Shared by others" I see as the same way.  I don't know the specifics, but I do know when composers like Beethoven were trying to make a living they were often fired by royalty for the dissonance of their pieces.  If we went almost solely by the standard of making music as a popularity
contest we would have lost a great deal of the titans of music history.
    At the same time, I see how "new" things like JI and at-the-time new things like Well-tempered Clavia (sp.?) link back to more historic ones like mean-tone tunings that were considered very popular.  My point is it can be both ways and either way has a right to be respected.

>" If you believe so
strongly in your vision, why don't you compose some music that will
demonstrate  how compelling and original your vision is?"
           I fully agree with this statement, though.   New music, to me, is a huge part of proving what makes a tuning unique.  Otherwise, what's so new about it (if it can't be used as something new)?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
the attainment of complete knowledge of a subject  (reading all the relevant literature, listening to all significant works, etc.), or learning the most important literature written for an instrument cold.  "Mastery" requires a wide basis of knowledge and relentless curiosity.  If one is using just intonation, for example, one cannot simply  declare that the history of the subject began the day I discovered it, because brilliant musicians have been working
> away at the problems raised by just intonation for hundreds of years.

I think you've set an impossible standard, in that there are no masters of microtonal music. You don't know all that I know, and I don't know all that you know, and we are just two people. Who has a comprehensive knowledge of Western common practice, the kind of sophisticated mathematical theory developed here in the modern microtonal community, and everything else which is plausibly relevant?

The mastery I mean is to know in a scientific way how music really functions.
And this includes JI tuning which is at the basis of music.
I know this is a personal vision of mine that such a theory of music would even be possible.

Marcel,

JI tuning is at the basis of some, but clearly not all music. I think you are confusing the beauty of equations and pure harmonic sonorities  for what makes music interesting.  Yes, pure major and minor chords are ravishingly beautiful, but a tremendous range of great music is not dependent on these pure sonorities.  The way compelling music functions--for example, Classical music, which is largely based on triads--is usually not by moving from one perfect sonority to the next, but rather by interweaving motives with chord progressions that balance movement away from and back toward a center, with all sorts of interesting voice leading (suspensions, etc.) on the way.  Then composers leave this tonal center and move to another, then in the development section explore more distant keys, and so forth.  In the best music, a powerful drama results.  The scientific understanding you are trying to develop would have to encompass all of this, and also be
able to tell us why when Boccherini follows a scheme like this, it usually comes out as less interesting and dramatic than when Mozart or Haydn does.

Your model would not work very effectively for Wagner's music, and would not apply to the music of Debussy and many later composers.  So I don't see how you can achieve your aim of showing how music "really functions," unless you limit the range of the term "music" to an absurdly small number of pieces that happen to be more or less suitable to your theory. 

In order to avoid misunderstandings, perhaps you should avoid large-scale pronouncements about the way "music really functions," and the like. Why don't you set out clearly the range and type of music you  are interested in and limit the range of your theory and your judgments to this music?

Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 2:22 PM

On 25 April 2010 10:34, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ yahoo.com> wrote:

What do you mean by  "mastered?" Partch and Johnston each created a compositional language that allowed them to express  compelling musical ideas that have had a powerful influence on generations of musicians. If this is not a form of mastery, I don't know what is. 

The mastery I mean is to know in a scientific way how music really functions.
And this includes JI tuning which is at the basis of music.
I know this is a personal vision of mine that such a theory of music would even be possible.

You seem to have a higher level of mastery in mind, whose sole basis seems to be your private judgments.  This seems to be a sort of private language: it is not historically based, nor is it shared by others. You don't appear to have composed any music that might convince others that you have attained a level of mastery; instead, you have spent the last few months  inventing JI tunings for a short piece by Beethoven that was likely never intended to be performed in JI. This is a very nice exercise, but it is completely derivative. If you believe so
strongly in your vision, why don't you compose some music that will demonstrate  how compelling and original your vision is?

The theory I have developed is not just for the 2 Beethoven pieces I've so far used it on.

I made it so that it should work completely consistently for all common practice music.
I'll retune many more pieces by several composers the comming time, all in the exact same manner according to my theory.

I'll also start composing real soon.
I hope within a half year even in harmonic-7-limit.

But I do not say that the mastery I've talked about earlyer is something I've achieved.
I do think that the path I'm on with my theory will give me a good chance at achieving this mastery, and I hope others too.

I hope this all doesn't sound too negative; it's just that your judgments appear overly harsh, considering the vast amount you still need to learn in order to become a proficient composer of tonal music.  I  love the sound of the intervals of JI as much as you--they are sonically intrinsically beautiful to humans, to a large extent because of the nature of our apparatus of hearing.  But neither these intervals, nor any selection of them will  in themselves make compelling music. That is a far more difficult task.

No, not at all harsh to me, the things you say are very true.
But about JI, it's not just the intervals I'm working on, it's more a musical logic that I'm working on, an alternative music theory if you wish.

Chords are not statically tuned, it depends on the harmonic root which is indicated by the chords themselves. It matters where you're comming from and where you're going to etc.
I do think that it is possible to create a far better harmonic theory than the one there is present, and I think JI logic is needed for it.

And please bear in mind that unless your vision of a perfect music--against which all other music is to be judged as wanting--is completely dependent on synthesizers or computer-generated sounds,  your world of perfect fractions will plunge into the chaos of imperfect
instruments and performers once you try to get it performed by anything other than synthesizer keyboards.  I admire Partch and Johnston tremendously because they took the risk of trying to create visceral music for imperfect instruments and performers. The challenge was that of raising performers to the level that they could achieve what barely seemed possible.

Ah yes, but for for instance harmonic-6-limit music, offcourse it looses some when played in 12tet, but not that great a deal, the main message comes across largely.
I hope perfect JI will achieve a deep understanding of the workings of music, and that this allows better music to be composed, which would when played in 12tet still be amazing.

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
>
> The mastery I mean is to know in a scientific way how music really functions.

Then the obvious place to start is with scientific studies of how music functions, which I've never seen you mention.

> > The mastery I mean is to know in a scientific way how music really
> functions.
>
> Then the obvious place to start is with scientific studies of how music
> functions, which I've never seen you mention.

I've been reading in this area for some time, but nothing struck me as
giving any answers.

I also somewhat trust this list, in that if something truly gave/had the
answers, it would have passed here and stuck.
Nothing did apparently.

Marcel

My  point exactly; we should therefore be cautious about claims that X or Y  (for Marcel, Partch or Johnston) hasn't "mastered" JI. Any theory that claims to "master" JI or any other shared field of microtonal music would have to take into account a tremendous range of both historical information/ literature and  current practices. Marcel is talking about some sort of scientific model, which would require a comprehensive explanation if it were to replace the current patchwork.

There's another sort of mastery, which is compositional. As I wrote earlier, "Partch and Johnston each created a compositional
language that allowed them to express compelling musical ideas that have had a powerful influence on generations of musicians. If this is not a form of mastery, I don't know what is."

This isn't the sort of higher-level "mastery" Marcel has in mind, which I think is very likely impossible to attain.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 8:15 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

the attainment of complete knowledge of a subject  (reading all the relevant literature, listening to all significant works, etc.), or learning the most important literature written for an instrument cold.  "Mastery" requires a wide basis of knowledge and relentless curiosity.  If one is using just intonation, for example, one cannot simply  declare that the history of the subject began the day I discovered it, because brilliant musicians have been working

> away at the problems raised by just intonation for hundreds of years.

I think you've set an impossible standard, in that there are no masters of microtonal music. You don't know all that I know, and I don't know all that you know, and we are just two people. Who has a comprehensive knowledge of Western common practice, the kind of sophisticated mathematical theory developed here in the modern microtonal community, and everything else which is plausibly relevant?

Doesn't the Sagittal notation sysbem deserve a mention? Over 5 years in the making, it was designed to be simpler (when simplicity will suffice), more logical (symbols have the same harmonic meanings, independent of the tuning or temperament), more powerful (is able to notate tunings with thousands of tones/octave, if required), and more versatile (will notate virtually any tuning or temperament) than any other microtonal notation.

/tuning/topicId_87195.html#87195

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Marcel,
> Harry Partch spent his entire not only composing music in just intonation, but also creating instruments that would play his music properly and training people to play these instruments.  Have you read his Genesis of a Music? Have you heard concerts/recordings of music played with his instruments?
> I'm sorry, but I can't help repeating what I wrote to you in an earlier posting--Ben Johnston's notation system (and the Schweinitz/Sabat notation even more efficiently) allows one to employ  all the relationships you've written out as fractions, and thousands more besides.  I'll repeat, any ratio you've sent out over the last year, starting in any conceivable key, can be specified with a note name and a combination of a small number of accidentals.  If you like writing everything out as fractions, fine, but in my view, a notation system brings us a lot closer to real musical relationships. 
> Franklin
>
> Dr. Franklin Cox
>
> 1107 Xenia Ave.
>
> Yellow Springs, OH 45387
>
> (937) 767-1165
>
> franklincox@...
>
> --- On Sat, 4/24/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 24, 2010, 11:07 PM
>
>
> > Harmonic-7-limit will give all the music imaginable allready.
>
> Tell it to Harry Partch.
> Yes, even Harry Partch his music could function in harmonic-7-limit it seems to me.
> 40 tones per octave in one tonality without modulations.
> And in the remote case it doesn't, it'll surely function in harmonic-8-limit.
>
> Just because Partch specified ratios, doesn't mean that it's in tune in a more objective sense that way.
> Just like when a composer specifies 12tet it isn't in tune in 12tet.
> And there are plenty of small stepsizes in harmonic-7 and 8-limit.
>
> Marcel
>

Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before. 
I developed an ad-hoc notation for 72-ET about 20 years ago, based on the  quarter-tone symbols most widely-used in contemporary music (backwards flat for 1/4 flat, single cross-stroke for quarter sharp, etc.); I then attached crooks upward and downward from the standard symbols to represent 1/12th tone alterations.  I found this system efficient to use, because  excepting the crook,  it used well-known symbols.  
For JI, I have to admit I've never felt completely comfortable with Johnston's notation, although I've recorded two of his pieces now.  I find that his starting decision of using the same type of symbols for both Pythagorean and 5-limit intervals (i.e., a syntonic C major scale is notated C D E F G A B, even though the E, A, and B are 5/4-derived intervals, the rest 3/2-derived) led to a crazy-quilt of plusses and minuses that are hard to figure out even for devoted students of his music.  (I've found numerous mistakes in Ben's manuscripts, usually where he's forgotten to add or subtract a "+" or "-".)  I'm writing a piece now using the Sabat/Schweinitz notation, which visually distinguishes the 5/4-derived and 3/2-derived intervals (the syntonic scale being C D E-arrow down F G A-arrow down B-arrow down C). I have no trouble keeping track of where I am using this notation.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:

From: gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 8:37 PM

Doesn't the Sagittal notation sysbem deserve a mention? Over 5 years in the making, it was designed to be simpler (when simplicity will suffice), more logical (symbols have the same harmonic meanings, independent of the tuning or temperament) , more powerful (is able to notate tunings with thousands of tones/octave, if required), and more versatile (will notate virtually any tuning or temperament) than any other microtonal notation.

http://launch. groups.yahoo. com/group/ tuning/message/ 87195

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

>

> Marcel,

> Harry Partch spent his entire not only composing music in just intonation, but also creating instruments that would play his music properly and training people to play these instruments.  Have you read his Genesis of a Music? Have you heard concerts/recordings of music played with his instruments?

> I'm sorry, but I can't help repeating what I wrote to you in an earlier posting--Ben Johnston's notation system (and the Schweinitz/Sabat notation even more efficiently) allows one to employ  all the relationships you've written out as fractions, and thousands more besides.  I'll repeat, any ratio you've sent out over the last year, starting in any conceivable key, can be specified with a note name and a combination of a small number of accidentals.  If you like writing everything out as fractions, fine, but in my view, a notation system brings us a lot closer to real musical relationships. 

> Franklin

>

> Dr. Franklin Cox

>

> 1107 Xenia Ave.

>

> Yellow Springs, OH 45387

>

> (937) 767-1165

>

> franklincox@ ...

>

> --- On Sat, 4/24/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@. ..> wrote:

>

> From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@. ..>

> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel

> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com

> Date: Saturday, April 24, 2010, 11:07 PM

>

>

> > Harmonic-7-limit will give all the music imaginable allready.

>

> Tell it to Harry Partch.

> Yes, even Harry Partch his music could function in harmonic-7-limit it seems to me.

> 40 tones per octave in one tonality without modulations.

> And in the remote case it doesn't, it'll surely function in harmonic-8-limit.

>

> Just because Partch specified ratios, doesn't mean that it's in tune in a more objective sense that way.

> Just like when a composer specifies 12tet it isn't in tune in 12tet.

> And there are plenty of small stepsizes in harmonic-7 and 8-limit.

>

> Marcel

>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before.

Here are some of the things which have been proposed:

http://groups.google.com/group/microtools/web/types-of-notation?version=48

Thank you!

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 9:26 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

>

> Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before.

Here are some of the things which have been proposed:

http://groups. google.com/ group/microtools /web/types- of-notation? version=48

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before. 
> I developed an ad-hoc notation for 72-ET about 20 years ago, based on the  quarter-tone symbols most widely-used in contemporary music (backwards flat for 1/4 flat, single cross-stroke for quarter sharp, etc.); I then attached crooks upward and downward from the standard symbols to represent 1/12th tone alterations.  I found this system efficient to use, because  excepting the crook,  it used well-known symbols.  
> For JI, I have to admit I've never felt completely comfortable with Johnston's notation, although I've recorded two of his pieces now.  I find that his starting decision of using the same type of symbols for both Pythagorean and 5-limit intervals (i.e., a syntonic C major scale is notated C D E F G A B, even though the E, A, and B are 5/4-derived intervals, the rest 3/2-derived) led to a crazy-quilt of plusses and minuses that are hard to figure out even for devoted students of his music.  (I've found numerous mistakes in Ben's manuscripts, usually where he's forgotten to add or subtract a "+" or "-".)

Yes, and it gets even more confusing when you move up the 7 limit.

>  I'm writing a piece now using the Sabat/Schweinitz notation, which visually distinguishes the 5/4-derived and 3/2-derived intervals (the syntonic scale being C D E-arrow down F G A-arrow down B-arrow down C). I have no trouble keeping track of where I am using this notation.

Another problem Dave Keenan & I found with the Johnston notation involves the stacking of symbol-modifiers for ratios with complex combinations of prime factors, so you may be left in the dark regarding the resulting amount of alteration to the nominal notes. It doesn't appear that the Schweinitz/Sabat notation does much to address this problem.

With Sagittal, any ratio can be notated using only one new symbol (or, in the mixed-symbol version of Sagittal, one single-shaft Sagittal symbol in combination with a conventional sharp or flat symbol), so one can easily perceive the amount of alteration.

--George

>"Mastery of an art form, a subject, an instrument, etc., has traditional involved a historical element:"
Mastery of an art form meaning, of an existing art form. I agree that you must know history to master something in existence IE to master common-theory music you must learn common-theory history.
However, I still don't see how this applies to non-common-theory music...or to music as a whole unless you assume all music must be common theory. Easy example, the same rules that apply for even 7-tone scales in 12TET aren't going to be the same as those that apply for a scale like C D D# F# G where G is the period instead of the next C and the first, third, and fifth would mean something completely different.

>"But let's say that "history is bunk," and that mastery consists of
comprehensive knowledge of whatever is around at the present, say in
the field of JI. In order to attain this comprehensive knowledge, one
has to listen to a great deal of music and learn how to communicate
effectively with others."
I'm mixed about this. I would view what someone hears when doing so as a symptom. This appears to work in the same way you need sensation (input through the 5 senses) to gain knowledge where the senses let you see the symptom, but it's largely up to you to determine the cause and if you do/don't agree with it
So what people interpret as the "cause" may vary. One person may say "this works because of the consonance achieved", another may say "this works because of the type of instruments used", and yet another may even say "a lot of this does not work...let me try to do something completely different".
Correct me if/where you think I'm wrong, but Beethoven seemed to, in many ways, rebel against history: defying the rules of things like limits on the size of chords or levels of dissonance that were considered standard. At least from what I know in many ways he became famous much because he was not a master of the current art at his time, rather, he changed the art. That's not to say the current art was bad or rendered void, but that his art was both different and able to catch on among many people eventually. It became...an acceptable alternative.

>"At some point, someone besides yourself will come to realize the
significance of what you are doing, if indeed it is significant."
Right, but this can often take an incredibly long-time. For Beethoven, far as I know, by the time people really caught on he was dead. If Beethoven was convinced he either had to gain recognition quickly or accept what he was working on as invalid, he may very well have given up.

Sure, if someone approves of your work quickly there's probably a better chance it is right on the average and you could even justifiably say "if no one or very few approve on average, you are most likely wrong"...but that by no means says one has to always go with the other. To me at least, much of the micro-tonal movement is based on a certain stubborn-ess of "most people think we're wrong, but we're pretty sure we have a good point so we keep going anyhow"...especially those micro-tonal tunings not related to the early world tunings that came long before 12TET (IE ones that were never widely accepted in any form in history) such as Sethares' use of 10TET.

Dr.Cox>"Your model would not work very effectively for Wagner's music, and
would not apply to the music of Debussy and many later composers. So I
don't see how you can achieve your aim of showing how music "really
functions," unless you limit the range of the term "music" to an
absurdly small number of pieces that happen to be more or less suitable
to your theory. "
I completely agree on this. "Even" in the "simplified" world of common theory music, if you are making a scale that works better at one kind of music, chances are it will work worse at another type of music. In micro-tonal music, this gets even more varied as you get both variable tunings and variable theories being combined in different ways, thus yield more different ways to "trade" what the strengths and weaknesses of the music are. Music of all forms seems to be a game of balance...for everything you gain you lose something elsewhere...and sure you can maximize what you gain and minimize what you lose so far as making tuning systems that accommodate to certain styles...but you can only go so far: music is far too abstract an art to be singled down to one common theory, even if it is brilliant. If you want an example of a brilliant theory people have tried to single all music down to (but has had the adverse effect of limiting musical diversity
and not accommodating as well to certain styles as other tunings) here's an easy one: 7-tone diatonic scales under 12TET.

Both the Johnston and the Schweinitz-Sabat notations are absolutely clear regarding the amount a note is "altered" (i.e., from 12 edo), but the Schweinitz-Sabat notation is much easier for me to process (those who have been working with Ben's notation for ages swear by it). I had to make up an Excel sheet with all the cents and pitch-bend alterations from 12 edo for any reasonably conceivable note in the Johnston system.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:

From: gdsecor <gdsecor@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 10:15 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

>

> Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before. 

> I developed an ad-hoc notation for 72-ET about 20 years ago, based on the  quarter-tone symbols most widely-used in contemporary music (backwards flat for 1/4 flat, single cross-stroke for quarter sharp, etc.); I then attached crooks upward and downward from the standard symbols to represent 1/12th tone alterations.  I found this system efficient to use, because  excepting the crook,  it used well-known symbols.  

> For JI, I have to admit I've never felt completely comfortable with Johnston's notation, although I've recorded two of his pieces now.  I find that his starting decision of using the same type of symbols for both Pythagorean and 5-limit intervals (i.e., a syntonic C major scale is notated C D E F G A B, even though the E, A, and B are 5/4-derived intervals, the rest 3/2-derived) led to a crazy-quilt of plusses and minuses that are hard to figure out even for devoted students of his music.  (I've found numerous mistakes in Ben's manuscripts, usually where he's forgotten to add or subtract a "+" or "-".)

Yes, and it gets even more confusing when you move up the 7 limit.

>  I'm writing a piece now using the Sabat/Schweinitz notation, which visually distinguishes the 5/4-derived and 3/2-derived intervals (the syntonic scale being C D E-arrow down F G A-arrow down B-arrow down C). I have no trouble keeping track of where I am using this notation.

Another problem Dave Keenan & I found with the Johnston notation involves the stacking of symbol-modifiers for ratios with complex combinations of prime factors, so you may be left in the dark regarding the resulting amount of alteration to the nominal notes. It doesn't appear that the Schweinitz/Sabat notation does much to address this problem.

With Sagittal, any ratio can be notated using only one new symbol (or, in the mixed-symbol version of Sagittal, one single-shaft Sagittal symbol in combination with a conventional sharp or flat symbol), so one can easily perceive the amount of alteration.

--George

> Your model would not work very effectively for Wagner's music, and would
> not apply to the music of Debussy and many later composers. So I don't see
> how you can achieve your aim of showing how music "really functions," unless
> you limit the range of the term "music" to an absurdly small number of
> pieces that happen to be more or less suitable to your theory.

Ah I missed apparently missed this sentence before, untill Michael quoted
it.
I disagree, I think my model will work perfectly for Wagner and Debussy.

It's one of the main point of my system.
It'll work for all music, once one can anlyse this music (and the theory
itself does this analysis).
Previously "classic just intonation" would "work" only on an absurdly small
number of pieces that just happen to have no "comma problem" etc.
My theory will work for all music.
Even atonal music and arabic music (though I can't yet do this myself, it is
in no way a limitation of my theory)

Marcel

Your theory, by definition, will not work for music that uses 7-prime-limit
intervals or above.

-Mike

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> Your model would not work very effectively for Wagner's music, and would
>> not apply to the music of Debussy and many later composers. So I don't see
>> how you can achieve your aim of showing how music "really functions," unless
>> you limit the range of the term "music" to an absurdly small number of
>> pieces that happen to be more or less suitable to your theory.
>
>
> Ah I missed apparently missed this sentence before, untill Michael quoted
> it.
> I disagree, I think my model will work perfectly for Wagner and Debussy.
>
> It's one of the main point of my system.
> It'll work for all music, once one can anlyse this music (and the theory
> itself does this analysis).
> Previously "classic just intonation" would "work" only on an absurdly small
> number of pieces that just happen to have no "comma problem" etc.
> My theory will work for all music.
> Even atonal music and arabic music (though I can't yet do this myself, it
> is in no way a limitation of my theory)
>
> Marcel
>
>

Ok Marcel,

A serious question.

My impression is that your JI system (better word than theory imho)
works on the basis of tonality. So I am very curious what happens when
tonality is blurred or mostly absent - or if functional harmony is
absent.

Can you describe a little how it works?  Actually I'd be happy if
you'd retune a short piece of mine just ot hear the difference.

And are you planing on sell this or explaining this system in the future?

>
> Ah I missed apparently missed this sentence before, untill Michael quoted it.
> I disagree, I think my model will work perfectly for Wagner and Debussy.
>
> It's one of the main point of my system.
> It'll work for all music, once one can anlyse this music (and the theory itself does this analysis).

> Your theory, by definition, will not work for music that uses 7-prime-limit
> intervals or above.
>
> -Mike
>

Huh???
Where did you get that idea?
Please look at and listen to my tuning of the second Drei Equale.
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No2_%28Tonal-JI_20-04-2010%29.mp3
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No2_%28Tonal-JI_20-04-2010%29.png

It has a 7-limit interval at chord #52 (a 21/10 from the harmonic root).

And I've worked out harmonic-7-limit harmonic model, and tonality models
some time ago allready.
I've even defined the 6 "base modes" of 7-limit allready (vs the 2 base
modes major and minor of harmonic-6-limit) though I can't say for sure yet
if this is correct, I'm also working on alternative logic behind the
permutations.
I'm bussy writing algorithms for 7-limit music, etc etc.
Just because I'm saying that common practice music is basically
harmonic-6-limit and 7-limit intervals are rare in it and not how this music
really functions, doesn't mean my theory doesn't work for 7-limit.

Marcel

Then it won't work for 11-limit music.

Also, is 4:5:6:7 a "legal" chord in your system?

-Mike

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> Your theory, by definition, will not work for music that uses 7-prime-limit
>> intervals or above.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>
> Huh???
> Where did you get that idea?
> Please look at and listen to my tuning of the second Drei Equale.
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No2_%28Tonal-JI_20-04-2010%29.mp3
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No2_%28Tonal-JI_20-04-2010%29.png
>
> It has a 7-limit interval at chord #52 (a 21/10 from the harmonic root).
>
> And I've worked out harmonic-7-limit harmonic model, and tonality models
> some time ago allready.
> I've even defined the 6 "base modes" of 7-limit allready (vs the 2 base
> modes major and minor of harmonic-6-limit) though I can't say for sure yet
> if this is correct, I'm also working on alternative logic behind the
> permutations.
> I'm bussy writing algorithms for 7-limit music, etc etc.
> Just because I'm saying that common practice music is basically
> harmonic-6-limit and 7-limit intervals are rare in it and not how this music
> really functions, doesn't mean my theory doesn't work for 7-limit.
>
> Marcel
>
>

Hi Chris,

Ok Marcel,
>
> A serious question.
>
> My impression is that your JI system (better word than theory imho)
> works on the basis of tonality. So I am very curious what happens when
> tonality is blurred or mostly absent - or if functional harmony is
> absent.
>

Well, actually tonality isn't the most important thing in it.
The permutations themselves are, and the "root of harmonies" and the
"harmonic model" (sort of potential notes that can be played from a single
"root")
One can easily make music that has no clear tonality, yet is still very
consonant music and sounds normal.
For instance the choir mp3 at the bottom of my page (older permutation
theory) doesn't establish a clear tonality at all (perhaps at times a little
bit by accident)
One could also make atonal music in the normal sense quite easily in my
theory.

>
> Can you describe a little how it works? Actually I'd be happy if
> you'd retune a short piece of mine just ot hear the difference.
>
Sure, please send it to my email.

>
> And are you planing on sell this or explaining this system in the future?
>
I've tried explaining it allready on this list, but I have yet to type it
out on my webpage.
I keep postponing writing it on my website, perhaps because I want to
explain it well on my website and this will be a lot of work.
Perhaps I should put up a not so well short explenation soon so atleast
something is up there.
I don't plan on making money selling my theory :)
Infact I hope that more people will get involved in exploring and developing
further my theory.
I've given it a non personal name (first it was develde-ji lol), now it's
called tonal-ji.
Perhaps I should've called it permutation-ji, ah well.
I do plan on eventually maybe making money with composing and perhaps
selling algorithms for music software.

Marcel

> Then it won't work for 11-limit music.
>
> Also, is 4:5:6:7 a "legal" chord in your system?
>
> -Mike
>
My theory will "work" for 11-limit intervals.
It's just that there's no need for them, 11-limit is crazy in my theory.
So perhaps in that sense, yes my theory won't tune any "music" to an
11-limit interval. (and neither should you ;) haha)

Yes 4:5:6:7 can be perfectly "legal" in my system.
However, in common practice music this chord won't appear very often.
Chords like 1/1 5/4 3/2 16/9, 1/1 5/4 3/2 9/5, 1/1 32/25 3/2 9/5, 1/1 3/2
40/27 16/9 do however.

Marcel

On 26 April 2010 01:41, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> 1/1 3/2 40/27 16/9

That should be 1/1 5/4 40/27 16/9 offcourse.
Better seen as 9/5 9/4 8/3 16/5

Marcel

 >>   Mastery of an art form meaning, of an existing art form.  I agree that you must know history to master something in existence IE to master common-theory music you must learn common-theory history.
   However, I still don't see how this applies to non-common-theory music...or to music as a whole unless you assume all music must be common theory.  Easy example, the same rules that apply for even 7-tone scales in 12TET aren't going to be the same as those that apply for a scale like C D D# F# G where G is the period instead of the next C and the first, third, and fifth would mean something completely different.--If you look at my last few posts carefully, you will see that I am talking about here is what "mastery" has traditionally meant.  Separately, I discuss what compositional mastery might mean, which is what your second paragraph touches on.   You appear to believe that I was claiming that one can't achieve compositional mastery with new scales, but that is not the case.  That is precisely what Partch and Johnston achieved.
One of the things I'm talking about is using words in a clear manner. "Mastery" doesn't mean "neat," "unusual," "cool," "original," etc. Traditionally, it means you have mastered your field.  And it's very rare that an entire field of knowledge comes into existence at the moment you took interest in it.  Even Partch didn't invent something wholly new; his Genesis of a Music is discusses historical tuning systems at length.  No matter how strong-minded he was, Partch also had a tremendous curiosity and a desire to learn.
I was also speaking primarily about JI, which does have a centuries-long history, not about newly-invented scales. Some basic musical issues will still have to be faced, though, no matter what scales one is using.   
I believe you meant to write "common-practice theory."
You spoke of "existing art form" as though in the past tense--but that's what music is now. It has a long and robust history, which is precisely why people place such a high value on it.     It certainly seems to me that any field that has no historical continuity will have no lasting value; obviously, when one turns 40, the next group of 20-somethings will declare a new art form, invalidating everything that preceded them.  With this sort of attitude, why should anyone outside of this group really care about it?
What you wrote about Beethoven is incorrect.  Beethoven studied the music of Mozart thoroughly and studied with Haydn and Albrechtsburger as well. He was still taking lessons in composing in Italian from Salieri after he had started to become famous throughout Europe.  There has rarely been a composer with such a burning desire to thoroughly master his or her art.  In the 18-teens he was one of the most respected composers in Europe, but spent years studying early music (i.e., Bach, Handel, and even Palestrina) in order to write the Missa Solemnis. He was innovative, but his innovations were grounded in a thorough understanding of and respect for the art form he had inherited.
Beethoven's music was controversial, but he actually had a successful career, considering that his main works were not designed to be "audience-friendly" (his "Wellington's Victory" symphony was designed to succeed, and indeed it became his most popular work in his lifetime).  A good deal of this is because he had a few progressively-minded supporters among the nobility, the most important of these being the brother of the Austrian emperor.  But people were fairly open-minded at that time as well. Beethoven was also somewhat lucky in that he came to Vienna just after Mozart had died and at the tail-end of Haydn's career; if Mozart had lived another 20 years, it's unlikely that Beethoven would have gotten the support that he needed to continue composing after he went deaf.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 10:45 PM

>"Mastery of an art form, a subject, an instrument, etc., has traditional involved a historical element:"
    Mastery of an art form meaning, of an existing art form.  I agree that you must know history to master something in existence IE to master common-theory music you must learn common-theory history.
   However, I still don't see how this applies to non-common-theory music...or to music as a whole unless you assume all music must be common theory.  Easy example, the same rules that apply for even 7-tone scales in 12TET aren't going to be the same as those that apply for a scale like C D D# F# G where G is the period instead of the next C and the first, third, and fifth would mean something completely different.

>"But let's say that
"history is bunk," and that mastery consists of
comprehensive knowledge of whatever is around at the present, say in
the field of JI.  In order to attain this comprehensive knowledge, one
has to listen to a great deal of music and learn how to communicate
effectively with others."
   I'm mixed about this.  I would view what someone hears when doing so as a symptom.  This appears to work in the same way you need sensation (input through the 5 senses) to gain knowledge where the senses let you see the symptom, but it's largely up to you to determine the cause and if you do/don't agree with it
    So what people interpret as the "cause" may vary.  One person may say "this works because of the consonance achieved", another may say "this works because of the type of instruments used", and yet another may even say "a lot of this does not work...let me try to do something completely different".
   Correct me if/where you think I'm wrong, but Beethoven seemed to, in many ways, rebel against history: defying the rules of things like limits on the size of chords or levels of dissonance that were considered standard.  At least from what I know in many
ways he became famous much because he was not a master of the current art at his time, rather, he changed the art.   That's not to say the current art was bad or rendered void, but that his art was both different and able to catch on among many people eventually.  It became...an acceptable alternative.

>"At some point, someone besides yourself will come to realize the
significance of what you are doing, if indeed it is significant. "
    Right, but this can often take an incredibly long-time.  For Beethoven, far as I know, by the time people really caught on he was dead.  If Beethoven was convinced he either had to gain recognition quickly or accept what he was working on as invalid, he may very well have given up.

  Sure, if someone approves of your work quickly there's probably a better chance it is right on the average and you could even justifiably say "if no one or very few approve on average, you are most likely wrong"...but that by no means says one has to always go with the other.  To me at least, much of the micro-tonal movement is based on a certain stubborn-ess of "most people think we're wrong, but we're pretty sure we have a good point so we keep going anyhow"...especiall y those micro-tonal tunings not related to the early world tunings that came long before
12TET (IE ones that were never widely accepted in any form in history) such as Sethares' use of 10TET.

Well, at least we've found some common ground.
Your last sentence, however, I would reverse: a 7-tone diatonic system expanded to 12 tones and limited to those 12 tones.  That's precisely what happened at the turn into the 20th century.  I love, honor, and respect Schönberg as a composer and theorist, but I have felt for decades that the wonderful opportunity was missed when the limit to the tonal system was closed at 12.  Of course, at that time the discipline of  musicology was just getting off the ground, and even music historians didn't understand that there were more than 12 tones in Renaissance/early Baroque tuning systems, and that there were plenty of organs and harpsichords built with split keys (C#/Db, etc.).  
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Sun, 4/25/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 10:54 PM

Dr.Cox>"Your model would not work very effectively for Wagner's music, and
would not apply to the music of Debussy and many later composers.  So I
don't see how you can achieve your aim of showing how music "really
functions," unless you limit the range of the term "music" to an
absurdly small number of pieces that happen to be more or less suitable
to your theory. "
   I completely agree on this.  "Even" in the "simplified" world of common theory music, if you are making a scale that works better at one kind of music, chances are it will work worse at another type of music.  In micro-tonal music, this gets even more varied as you get both variable tunings and variable theories being combined in different ways, thus yield more different ways to "trade" what the strengths and weaknesses of the music are.  Music of all forms seems to be a game of balance...for everything you gain you lose something elsewhere... and sure you can maximize what you gain and minimize what you lose so far as making tuning systems that accommodate to certain styles...but you can only go so far: music is far too abstract an art to be singled down to one common theory, even if it is brilliant.  If you want an example of a brilliant theory people have tried to single all music down to (but has
had the adverse effect of limiting musical diversity and not accommodating as well to certain styles as other tunings) here's an easy one: 7-tone diatonic scales under 12TET.

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

> Correct me if/where you think I'm wrong, but Beethoven seemed to, in many ways, rebel against history: defying the rules of things like limits on the size of chords or levels of dissonance that were considered standard. At least from what I know in many ways he became famous much because he was not a master of the current art at his time, rather, he changed the art.

Beethoven studied and composed for many years, including study under the greatest living composer, until he felt he was ready to publish his Opus One. He became famous because he was so damned good, a fact recognized by more or less everyone during his lifetime, even when they objected to this or that aspect of his work.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Then it won't work for 11-limit music.
>
> Also, is 4:5:6:7 a "legal" chord in your system?

I don't think 1-5/4-5^(1/4) or 1-2^(1/3)-2^(7/12) are legal chords, which I think puts the kibosh on the notion this has anything much to do with common practice music.

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

> I've given it a non personal name (first it was develde-ji lol), now it's
> called tonal-ji.

I strongly suggest you NOT call it tonal ji, which already has a meaning at least to me. It says a ji piece or system which involves the establishment of a tonal center.

> I strongly suggest you NOT call it tonal ji, which already has a meaning at
> least to me. It says a ji piece or system which involves the establishment
> of a tonal center.
>

Well, it does do that, establish a tonal center. And this does have a role
in my theory.
For instance the Beethoven pieces, one can hold a D 1/1 throughout the
piece, and all notes and chords of will harmonize according to the harmonic
model with this D.
Just because the theory can also make or retune music that doesn't have a
clear tonal center (modulates randomly), doesn't mean that one couldn't see
tonal centers in it, it's just that they're not clear in such particular
cases (but most music is tonal anyhow).
And what else to call it?
Permutation-JI? Harmonic-JI?
Permutation-JI I don't know, doesn't sound as nice as Tonal-JI, but perhaps
it would be a better name (though it doesn't cover the tonality part)
Harmonic-JI I like, but I'm sure it has been used before.

Marcel

> And what else to call it?
> Permutation-JI? Harmonic-JI?
> Permutation-JI I don't know, doesn't sound as nice as Tonal-JI, but perhaps
> it would be a better name (though it doesn't cover the tonality part)
> Harmonic-JI I like, but I'm sure it has been used before.
>
> Marcel
>

Well actually, I'm open to name changes.
If anybody has a suggestion, throw it up.
As I do think this theory is here to stay, so the name will come around a
lot.

Marcel

I think at this point, this is basically an exercise in futility, but I'll
try one more time:

You have come up with a system for writing music.

What you have not done is explain WHY your system is "all-encompassing," or
why it is the "only" method possible for writing tonal music.

"Because I think everything else sounds bad" is not a valid answer, as you
are just one person, and the rest of us like 11-limit JI just fine.

-Mike

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> I strongly suggest you NOT call it tonal ji, which already has a meaning at
>> least to me. It says a ji piece or system which involves the establishment
>> of a tonal center.
>>
>
> Well, it does do that, establish a tonal center. And this does have a role
> in my theory.
> For instance the Beethoven pieces, one can hold a D 1/1 throughout the
> piece, and all notes and chords of will harmonize according to the harmonic
> model with this D.
> Just because the theory can also make or retune music that doesn't have a
> clear tonal center (modulates randomly), doesn't mean that one couldn't see
> tonal centers in it, it's just that they're not clear in such particular
> cases (but most music is tonal anyhow).
> And what else to call it?
> Permutation-JI? Harmonic-JI?
> Permutation-JI I don't know, doesn't sound as nice as Tonal-JI, but perhaps
> it would be a better name (though it doesn't cover the tonality part)
> Harmonic-JI I like, but I'm sure it has been used before.
>
> Marcel
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I think at this point, this is basically an exercise in futility, but I'll
> try one more time:
>
> You have come up with a system for writing music.

So far what we've seen is a system for creating JI scales.

Marcel,

If your system works with non-functional, atonal and weakly tonal music then
tonal JI might be misleading and people could think it was good only for old
common practice music.

I'd suggest rationalization JI system on the basis that you seem to be
rationalizing the JI ratios to use based on some system that I don't
understand yet.

Chris

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> And what else to call it?
>> Permutation-JI? Harmonic-JI?
>> Permutation-JI I don't know, doesn't sound as nice as Tonal-JI, but
>> perhaps it would be a better name (though it doesn't cover the tonality
>> part)
>> Harmonic-JI I like, but I'm sure it has been used before.
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>
> Well actually, I'm open to name changes.
> If anybody has a suggestion, throw it up.
> As I do think this theory is here to stay, so the name will come around a
> lot.
>
> Marcel
>
>

>
> You have come up with a system for writing music.
>

It is.
And I'm working out the details for this now.
And not only that, I'll write algorithms that'll compose music randomly.
There's been a tiny small taster with my previous algorithm several months
ago, my new algorithms will be great :)

> What you have not done is explain WHY your system is "all-encompassing," or
> why it is the "only" method possible for writing tonal music.
>

I have done so in several ways.
But this is also something still in the works, I hope to be able to give a
somewhat clear logic as to why it is so.

As for 11-limit, I know of no music that can be said to be it's proof of
requirement in actual music.
As I'm sure all 11-limit intervals used in music so far, would make more
sense and sound better (and be actually in tune) when tuned to a lower limit
interval.

Marcel

> So far what we've seen is a system for creating JI scales.
>

Ah I think I've shown more allready.
Please see the transcriptions of the Beethoven pieces where I indicate
harmonic roots (or actually the last instance of where the root change could
occur, they are more likely to occur earlyer but there's potential for both
untill the points I indicated).
To analyse music in JI this way is in some ways close to creating it.
But anyhow I know much more allready, give me a few weeks and my new
algorithm will be ready that produces perfect music (which is very much
common practice classical like).
Including inversions / use of octave equivalence, voice leading, more
functional harmony etc etc. All comming from a few very simple rules.

Btw, I've just finished writing the basic permutations of harmonic-6-limit
and harmonic-7-limit in code (will be part of the basis of my algorithms).
This is offcourse not music yet, far far from it, but perhaps some will find
it interesting.

This one does all permutations of harmonic-6-limit:
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/6-limit-permutationsrev-scala.mid
Again, not at all music, it doesn't use any dissonant notes in the harmonic
model, it doesn't use octave inversion, it just steps through all the
permutations in some stupid unmusical way and doesn't show all the colours
even stepping from permutation to permutation in a single root can give (I'd
have to play it 120 times longer to show all steps), it doesn't change
harmonic root, etc etc etc.
So pleaaase don't think this is what my theory sounds like as it does not.
I'll show what my theory sounds like soon, this is just some basic work to
get there.

And here thesame in harmonic-7-limit. Only this time I excluded the octave
from permutations or it would become 6 times longer.
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/7-limit-permutationsrev-scala.mid
Again, this is not music, and this is not how harmonic7-limit sounds and
harmonic 7-limit is not limited to such nonsense played.
But these are the "consonant" permutations in harmonic-7-limit. To just step
like this through all the base permutation works even less than with
harmonic6-limit though. And all the restrictions I mentioned for
harmonic6-limit apply here too, and then some.

Marcel

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

> As I'm sure all 11-limit intervals used in music so far, would make more
> sense and sound better (and be actually in tune) when tuned to a lower limit
> interval.

And 7-limit music could be retuned to the 5-limit, and that could in turn be retuned to the three limit. If we did that, we would not only make Pythagoras happy, we would automatically have a way of representing the notes in standard musical notation, involving the seven nominals from A to F in various octaves, plus sharps and flats. A whole lotta sharps and flats. Why wouldn't that sound even better and be even more in tune?

And 7-limit music could be retuned to the 5-limit, and that could in turn be
> retuned to the three limit. If we did that, we would not only make
> Pythagoras happy, we would automatically have a way of representing the
> notes in standard musical notation, involving the seven nominals from A to F
> in various octaves, plus sharps and flats. A whole lotta sharps and flats.
> Why wouldn't that sound even better and be even more in tune?
>

No I don't see it that way.
True 7-limit music, take for instance some arabic music, can't be retuned to
5-limit and still mean the same thing musically.

It's just that, you know harmonic-7-limit will allready give 20 notes per
octave from the harmonic root (40 notes in 1 tonality, infinte notes with
modulations)
Each of these 20 notes can be played with any (or even all) of the other 20
notes per octave.
That's a lot of notes, and there's some rules I think that are a bit similar
as simple comes first.
And just in the remote case that some music actually manages to indicate
something even more complex than harmonic7-limit you get harmonic-8-limit.
The number of notes per octave in that is just tooo much allready. And we're
still a long way away from 11-limit.
It's just that the way music makes sense to me now, 11-limit makes very
little musical sense (infact just about none).
My system doesn't say anything is illegal, not even a 37-limit or something
crazy like that.
But it does say all that makes musical sense that comes first. And when I
look at all that can be done with what comes first, I just really don't ever
see any need for an 11-limit interval in any music ever.

Marcel

HI Marcel,

Re: retuning a piece of mine.

I decided not to email (I think that is what you wanted) but the put this
short piece up for the world along with midi file and score.

You can find the midi file, scores, two rendered versions using kontakt 4
instruments here:

http://micro.soonlabel.com/marcel/hammer-of-god/

Anyone is welcome to listen. If you want to retune it please let me hear
what you come up with.

This piece was written in the early 80's and uses quartel / quintal /
tridadic harmony and is fairly (but not excessively) chromatic. It is also
really short at less than a minute.

It is tonal but not using traditional functional harmony. Though I haven't
analyzed this so I could be wrong n that aspect.

the title has personal meaning and probably will not make sense to others.

Chris

Hi Chris,

HI Marcel,
>
> Re: retuning a piece of mine.
>
> I decided not to email (I think that is what you wanted) but the put this
> short piece up for the world along with midi file and score.
>
> You can find the midi file, scores, two rendered versions using kontakt 4
> instruments here:
>
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/marcel/hammer-of-god/
>
> Anyone is welcome to listen. If you want to retune it please let me hear
> what you come up with.
>
> This piece was written in the early 80's and uses quartel / quintal /
> tridadic harmony and is fairly (but not excessively) chromatic. It is also
> really short at less than a minute.
>
> It is tonal but not using traditional functional harmony. Though I haven't
> analyzed this so I could be wrong n that aspect.
>
> the title has personal meaning and probably will not make sense to others.
>
> Chris
>

Thanks!
And I like it! :)

I'll try retuning the first brass chords soon.
I'm not sure if I can make enough sense to the other part anytime fast to
tune it with enough sense, I may do the rest at a later point.

Marcel

>> What you have not done is explain WHY your system is "all-encompassing," or why it is the "only" method possible for writing tonal music.
>
> I have done so in several ways.
> But this is also something still in the works, I hope to be able to give a somewhat clear logic as to why it is so.

You have not. What you have done is given an explanation of how your
system works and how it's constructed (by the intervals of a single
harmonic series so that the outer dyad is always constant.

You have not explained WHY this is a suitable foundation for all of
music, or why other intervals outside of this set no longer count as
being in the original "key." When pressed on this issue, the response
is usually something like "well I've compared other systems before and
mine sounds better, and it has some kind of mathematical logic behind
it, so I'm going with that."

> And when I look at all that can be done with what comes first, I just really don't ever see any need for an 11-limit interval in any music ever.

This is, of course, your own mental limitation, and a limitation of
your system, and not a limitation of "music" in general.

-Mike

> Marcel
>

ok, Sure, take your time.

It will be exciting to hear it with purer harmonies!

Chris

On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>
> HI Marcel,
>>
>> Re: retuning a piece of mine.
>>
>> I decided not to email (I think that is what you wanted) but the put this
>> short piece up for the world along with midi file and score.
>>
>> You can find the midi file, scores, two rendered versions using kontakt 4
>> instruments here:
>>
>>
>> http://micro.soonlabel.com/marcel/hammer-of-god/
>>
>> Anyone is welcome to listen. If you want to retune it please let me hear
>> what you come up with.
>>
>> This piece was written in the early 80's and uses quartel / quintal /
>> tridadic harmony and is fairly (but not excessively) chromatic. It is also
>> really short at less than a minute.
>>
>> It is tonal but not using traditional functional harmony. Though I haven't
>> analyzed this so I could be wrong n that aspect.
>>
>> the title has personal meaning and probably will not make sense to others.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Thanks!
> And I like it! :)
>
> I'll try retuning the first brass chords soon.
> I'm not sure if I can make enough sense to the other part anytime fast to
> tune it with enough sense, I may do the rest at a later point.
>
> Marcel
>
>

On 26 Apr 2010, at 9:55 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
> For instance the Beethoven pieces, one can hold a D 1/1 throughout > the piece, and all notes and chords of will harmonize according to > the harmonic model with this D.

So finally after so long time you must agree with me that the main tonal center of this piece is Dmi? Plus some tonal jumps and modulations.

> Just because the theory can also make or retune music that doesn't > have a clear tonal center (modulates randomly),

Composers rarely modulate randomly, usually they do quite intentional modulations. Therefore it's called composition, not improvisation.

Daniel Forro

> You have not. What you have done is given an explanation of how your
> system works and how it's constructed (by the intervals of a single
> harmonic series so that the outer dyad is always constant.
>

Well, I have given deeper explenations than only explaining how my system
works. I've given several reasons and way of thinking that led me to this
system.
Furthermore more system is if anything more of a system of ordening all the
possiblities in music from simple to more complex in several ways.
The pure permutations of harmonic6-limit I posted before is a bad bad
example of my system as I said when posting it allready.
Infact, its nothing more than permutations of the harmonic series till the
6th harmonic, however it skips all the silmplicity of the previous harmonic,
2, 3, 4 and 5.
I'm writing as we speak to implement this simplicity, as this is
fundamentally important, and the output will be very very different allready
and very musical allready with this simple (but not so simple to
implement/write) little change.
The outer dyad will then offcourse no be constant anymore (a very very
annoying thing in the midis I posted, as are many other things)

>
> You have not explained WHY this is a suitable foundation for all of
> music, or why other intervals outside of this set no longer count as
> being in the original "key."
>

You're talking about my tonality set I hope, not my harmonic model or direct
permutations of the harmonic series.
If so, then I HAVE explained this.
But I'll explain it again.
You have the harmonic model, based on permutations of the harmonic series.
6-limit (including all lower limits) will give 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)
All tones in this harmonic model have as their root (1/1 point) 1/1. And the
permutations show that they really come from 1/1.
Now my defenition of tonality is that one could play a continues drone
(including upper harmonics as sounds have), and that everything played in
this tonality must harmonize with this drone.
And harmony we understand according to the harmonic model.
So we simply take the harmonic model, 6-limit in this case, and see where
the 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 drone will harmonize.
We then see that we can place the 1/1 root of the harmonic model at 1/1, and
at 5/4, and at 4/3, and at 3/2, and at 5/3, and that everything played in
those harmonic model roots will harmonize with the 1/1 drone.
1/1> 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
5/4> 1/1 25/24 9/8 75/64 5/4 45/32 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
4/3> 1/1 16/15 10/9 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 16/9 2/1
3/2> 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 27/20 45/32 3/2 27/16 9/5 15/8 2/1
5/3> 1/1 25/24 10/9 5/4 4/3 25/18 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1

See, all the above scales have 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1.
They are all simple transpositions of the harmonic model.

So we get the following tonality scale for a 1/1 drone in 6-limit:
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

I have explained this before.

Marcel

On 26 Apr 2010, at 8:38 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
> I do plan on eventually maybe making money with composing and > perhaps selling algorithms for music software.
>
> Marcel

Forget about making money from composing, if your brother isn't film director in Holywood accepting every note you will play randomly or compute with your algorithms...

Even very skilled multistyle composers can't make money from composing only, unless they haven't sponsors, good luck, grant support from the state or some institution, good personal contacts and lot of good luck.

But who knows, now even amateurs and people without any music education can make money in pop before they go in oblivion.

Daniel Forro

On 26 Apr 2010, at 10:20 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
> You have come up with a system for writing music.
>
> It is.
> And I'm working out the details for this now.
> And not only that, I'll write algorithms that'll compose music > randomly.
> There's been a tiny small taster with my previous algorithm several > months ago, my new algorithms will be great :)

But music is not random despite the fact in some parts of some contemporary works it's possible to use random approach. If you think you can get any good result from random algorithms only you are totally on the wrong way.

Daniel Forro

Hi Daniel,

> For instance the Beethoven pieces, one can hold a D 1/1 throughout
> > the piece, and all notes and chords of will harmonize according to
> > the harmonic model with this D.
>
> So finally after so long time you must agree with me that the main
> tonal center of this piece is Dmi? Plus some tonal jumps and
> modulations.

Hehe.. yeah you got me ;)

Well, actually, I think the entire piece is in D, without modulations.

Just not in Dmi.
I will write something very interesting about major and minor soon, with
auto-composed music to back it up.
But in any case, I think the restriction major / minor does not apply to the
Drei Equale no1, it is past such logic which is the logic of simpler music I
think.
The entire piece will harmonize with D.

Previously I wasn't good enough yet, and thought automatically that the
chords 8 to 15 (I've numbered the chords in my transcription) would have to
go high and be consonant major chords, in which case the chord on 10 would
have to form an 81/80 with the original D, in which case I thought it
couldn't be in D. Ah but I was wrong yes.
Here the transcription with chord numbers:
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI_15-04-2010%29.png

>
>
> > Just because the theory can also make or retune music that doesn't
> > have a clear tonal center (modulates randomly),
>
> Composers rarely modulate randomly, usually they do quite intentional
> modulations. Therefore it's called composition, not improvisation.
>

Yes yes agreed.
I was just saying that something doesn't have to be tonal in the classic
sense to make sense in my theory.
But to compose tonal music sure makes more sense.
Infact I personally think one doesn't have to modulate at all as all colors
are available in one tonality with some clever movement.

Marcel

Now my defenition of tonality is that one could play a continues drone (including upper harmonics as sounds have), and that everything played in this tonality must harmonize with this drone.
And harmony we understand according to the harmonic model.

Marcel,
What you are describing is not tonality. It is drone-based music.  Common-practice tonality (such as the Beethoven piece you have been working one) is not a drone-based system.  Occasionally pedal tones appear in common-practice music, but this is not by any means the norm.  You can have the opening theme of a sonata form in a certain key without any requirement that all chord harmonize perfectly with the tonic tone.  In fact, some chords, such as the Dominant chord, are dissonant to the tonic.  One can even briefly modulate into another key and return to the tonic.  In Beethoven's op. 101 sonata, first movement, he never cadences on the tonic chord until near the end of the piece, but the opening theme is nevertheless in the tonic key--even though the tonic chord barely appears in the opening theme.
You really need to go to school, take a couple years of theory, and learn a great deal more about the tonal system.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 4/26/10, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 2:36 AM

You have not. What you have done is given an explanation of how your

system works and how it's constructed (by the intervals of a single

harmonic series so that the outer dyad is always constant.

Well, I have given deeper explenations than only explaining how my system works. I've given several reasons and way of thinking that led me to this system.

Furthermore more system is if anything more of a system of ordening all the possiblities in music from simple to more complex in several ways.
The pure permutations of harmonic6-limit I posted before is a bad bad example of my system as I said when posting it allready.

Infact, its nothing more than permutations of the harmonic series till the 6th harmonic, however it skips all the silmplicity of the previous harmonic, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
I'm writing as we speak to implement this simplicity, as this is fundamentally important, and the output will be very very different allready and very musical allready with this simple (but not so simple to implement/write) little change.

The outer dyad will then offcourse no be constant anymore (a very very annoying thing in the midis I posted, as are many other things)
 

You have not explained WHY this is a suitable foundation for all of

music, or why other intervals outside of this set no longer count as

being in the original "key."
You're talking about my tonality set I hope, not my harmonic model or direct permutations of the harmonic series.
If so, then I HAVE explained this.

But I'll explain it again.
You have the harmonic model, based on permutations of the harmonic series.
6-limit (including all lower limits) will give 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)

All tones in this harmonic model have as their root (1/1 point) 1/1. And the permutations show that they really come from 1/1.
Now my defenition of tonality is that one could play a continues drone (including upper harmonics as sounds have), and that everything played in this tonality must harmonize with this drone.

And harmony we understand according to the harmonic model.
So we simply take the harmonic model, 6-limit in this case, and see where the 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 drone will harmonize.
We then see that we can place the 1/1 root of the harmonic model at 1/1, and at 5/4, and at 4/3, and at 3/2, and at 5/3, and that everything played in those harmonic model roots will harmonize with the 1/1 drone.

1/1>  1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
5/4>  1/1 25/24 9/8 75/64 5/4 45/32 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
4/3>  1/1 16/15 10/9 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 16/9 2/1
3/2>  1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 27/20 45/32 3/2 27/16 9/5 15/8 2/1

5/3>  1/1 25/24 10/9 5/4 4/3 25/18 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1

See, all the above scales have 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1.
They are all simple transpositions of the harmonic model.

So we get the following tonality scale for a 1/1 drone in 6-limit:

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

I have explained this before.

Marcel

>> You have not. What you have done is given an explanation of how your
>> system works and how it's constructed (by the intervals of a single
>> harmonic series so that the outer dyad is always constant.
>
> Well, I have given deeper explenations than only explaining how my system works. I've given several reasons and way of thinking that led me to this system.
> Furthermore more system is if anything more of a system of ordening all the possiblities in music from simple to more complex in several ways.
> The pure permutations of harmonic6-limit I posted before is a bad bad example of my system as I said when posting it allready.
> Infact, its nothing more than permutations of the harmonic series till the 6th harmonic, however it skips all the silmplicity of the previous harmonic, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
> I'm writing as we speak to implement this simplicity, as this is fundamentally important, and the output will be very very different allready and very musical allready with this simple (but not so simple to implement/write) little change.
> The outer dyad will then offcourse no be constant anymore (a very very annoying thing in the midis I posted, as are many other things)

This appears to be a mathematical operation that you have made up. My
question is, why is it important?

> You're talking about my tonality set I hope, not my harmonic model or direct permutations of the harmonic series.

I'm talking about, in fact, all of the above. Why is the concept of
permuting the harmonic series relevant musically? It seems to be an
arbitrary mathematical operation and I don't get why it matters.

> If so, then I HAVE explained this.
> But I'll explain it again.
> You have the harmonic model, based on permutations of the harmonic series.
> 6-limit (including all lower limits) will give 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)
> All tones in this harmonic model have as their root (1/1 point) 1/1. And the permutations show that they really come from 1/1.
> Now my defenition of tonality is that one could play a continues drone (including upper harmonics as sounds have), and that everything played in this tonality must harmonize with this drone.

1) Define "harmonize." So far the definition of that word seems to be
"sounds good to me," and your opinion of what intervals sound "good"
vs "bad" changes with every message you post here.
2) When you say "the permutations show that they really come from
1/1," you're saying that YOU have derived those intervals by applying
an arbitrary mathematical operation to 1/1. They do not "inherently"
come from 1/1, YOU derived them from 1/1.

I could come up with a few mathematical operations of my own and say
the resulting tones "come" from 1/1 and all other tones are
irrelevant. But the question is, why would I be right?

> And harmony we understand according to the harmonic model.
> So we simply take the harmonic model, 6-limit in this case, and see where the 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 drone will harmonize.
> We then see that we can place the 1/1 root of the harmonic model at 1/1, and at 5/4, and at 4/3, and at 3/2, and at 5/3, and that everything played in those harmonic model roots will harmonize with the 1/1 drone.

> 1/1>  1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
> 5/4>  1/1 25/24 9/8 75/64 5/4 45/32 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
> 4/3>  1/1 16/15 10/9 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 16/9 2/1
> 3/2>  1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 27/20 45/32 3/2 27/16 9/5 15/8 2/1
> 5/3>  1/1 25/24 10/9 5/4 4/3 25/18 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1

I don't understand here, why is 25/24 appearing under 5/4?

> See, all the above scales have 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1.
> They are all simple transpositions of the harmonic model.

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

> Well, actually tonality isn't the most important thing in it.

You speak of your "system" as if it actually exists. But so
far you've been unable to post a clear exposition, let alone
any testable predictions, or even consistent predictions.

-Carl

> But music is not random despite the fact in some parts of some
> contemporary works it's possible to use random approach. If you think
> you can get any good result from random algorithms only you are
> totally on the wrong way.
>

No I know.
And I don't think my algorithms will produce "normal" music anytime soon.
I don't think I'll start programming rhythm into it anytime soon.

But I think you'll be very very surprised what my next algorhithm will
output :)
It will sound like really good music allready, although monotone in rhythm
and random in movement (but in a totally acceptable pleasant way, much like
some early music)
It will have good base movement, voice leading, etc.

And I can then take the algorithm output, cut and paste how I like (keeping
musical logic in mind, which I understand then as it's my own algorithm),
and then elaborate on it by hand etc.
I think it'll allow me to make much interesting music very fast.
And meanwhile keep experimenting to make more complex music, eventually
polyphonic 7-limit music.

Marcel

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

> Please see the transcriptions of the Beethoven pieces where I indicate
> harmonic roots (or actually the last instance of where the root change could
> occur, they are more likely to occur earlyer but there's potential for both
> untill the points I indicated).

And what does it do that Jean-Philippe Rameau hasn't already done with his theory of the fundamental bass? I don't see a theory, because I haven't seen any specifically formulated theoretical principles, something which Rameau did, much less any evidence the principles so formulated have any real validity, which has always been a problem for this type of analysis.

> To analyse music in JI this way is in some ways close to creating it.

You can't really correctly analyze common practice music as JI, because it isn't JI. "Creating it" is more correct, but that isn't analysis.

> But anyhow I know much more allready, give me a few weeks and my new
> algorithm will be ready that produces perfect music (which is very much
> common practice classical like).

This would be very interesting, but I'll believe it only if you can actually do it, and give the algorithm.

> Btw, I've just finished writing the basic permutations of harmonic-6-limit
> and harmonic-7-limit in code (will be part of the basis of my algorithms).

Good. What sort of code?

Hi Franklin,

Marcel,
>
> What you are describing is not tonality. It is drone-based music.
> Common-practice tonality (such as the Beethoven piece you have been working
> one) is not a drone-based system. Occasionally pedal tones appear in
> common-practice music, but this is not by any means the norm. You can have
> the opening theme of a sonata form in a certain key without any requirement
> that all chord harmonize perfectly with the tonic tone. In fact, some
> chords, such as the Dominant chord, are dissonant to the tonic. One can
> even briefly modulate into another key and return to the tonic. In
> Beethoven's op. 101 sonata, first movement, he never cadences on the tonic
> chord until near the end of the piece, but the opening theme is nevertheless
> in the tonic key--even though the tonic chord barely appears in the opening
> theme.
>

Yes, you're right.
It is my personal defenition of tonality.
But I personally "hear" chords in a tonal piece as having a color relevant
to the tonic.
I find it personally the most beautifull way to hear music, and it makes
sense to me in this way.
This is probably the part I can worst explain.
But I feel my defenition of tonality has a deeper connection to music.
The tonic drone thing still works wonderfully well in actual common practice
music though.

>
> You really need to go to school, take a couple years of theory, and learn a
> great deal more about the tonal system.
>

Well I want to do things my own way.
But I am secretly learning normal music theory at home now too ;)
Though I spend too much time on my own theory, so it's going a bit slow.

Marcel

You speak of your "system" as if it actually exists. But so
> far you've been unable to post a clear exposition, let alone
> any testable predictions, or even consistent predictions.
>

I think a good exposition of my theory is the retuning of common practice
music.
I've only done 2 short pieces so far but many more will follow, and my
theory will work in a consistent way for them.
The other exposition will be my new algorithm.
My algorithm will also output things that could be seen as similar to
predictions.

Marcel

>"You
appear to believe that I was claiming that one can't achieve
compositional mastery with new scales, but that is not the case. That
is precisely what Partch and Johnston achieved."
Actually, I agree one can achieve compositional mastery with new scales. To restate
A) To master "common music theory", I agree one must study common theory
B) To master the creation of ones own music theory, one must define several concepts that solidify the theory as being based on more than a series of unproved assumptions. Just as I recall your said with calling what Marcel's trying for as "a different level of mastery". One example of part of this would be Sethares' look at the "circle of thirds" in 10TET on http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/mp3s/circleofthirds.html.
C) To master a new scale (IE one created with B)...one must take into account virtually all compositional flexibilities that can be achieved with A. I admittedly don't know much about Johnston, but the way Partch handled and categorized chords plus their dissonance levels using o-tonal and u-tonal relationships in his tonality diamonds and then used them to compose seems to bridge the gap between B) and C).
But (my point is) even then one is not "mastering something that's been established" IE through history...but rather establishing in via B) and then mastering its use via C).

>""Mastery" doesn't mean "neat," "unusual," "cool, " "original," etc."
I understand that. My own wording on this would be "you know how to handle a vast majority of what has been done and can be done with a given theory or art". So, if I have it right, to master a new art, you first have to establish the new art and its scope before you cover that scope. So while I'd say a theory has to be "original" to be considered new, but simply by virtue of being new something can't automatically be considered "established".

>"Even Partch didn't invent something wholly new; his Genesis of a Music is discusses historical tuning systems at length."
Agreed. Though I don't consider Partch's work that deviant...at least from what I've read is seems just a way to summarize why classical intervals and chords work the way they do and then expand it to cover other interval types.
----------------
Come to think of it, "even" Sethares' work was based somewhat on history IE Plomp and Llevelt's dissonance formulas...only he used them in a drastically different way. But at the same time, I'd argue just because Isaac Newton uses algebra in calculus doesn't mean calculus is "just an extension of algebra"...I'd give him credit for essentially creating a new type of math.

>"I
was also speaking primarily about JI, which does have a centuries-long
history, not about newly-invented scales. Some basic musical issues
will still have to be faced, though, no matter what scales one is
using. "
That's the funny thing about JI. On one hand, it does cover a century-long history, primarily (at least from what I've learned so far) because it can be used to explain why even things like Pythagorean were designed the way they were.
On the other hand, I see huge potential in covering the uses of JI that aren't covered (or at least not covered much) in past theories to the best of my knowledge, such as the combination/"balancing between" of Sethares' critical band dissonance theory with Elrich's theory of harmonic entropy. Do you think it would be fair to say that "balancing" an area that has not been "established" much yet?

>"I believe you meant to write "common-practice theory."
You're right...that I did. I will write that instead of "theory of common practice" or any other permutation of that in the future.

>"You spoke of "existing art form" as though in the past tense--but that's what music is now."
Well...at least what "established" music is now to a huge majority of those. I don't see why anything loaded with scientific evidence that goes beyond common practice can't be considered a new art form. I'd actually credit what Sethares does using spectral alignment to enable tons of non-"common practice theory" intervals to be a new, and not existing, art form.

And same goes with the side of Partch's research that did not involve either "common practice theory" intervals or emulation of them...they seem to lie as a key to another musical world to be unlocked fully by future generations; perhaps to be encompassed into a new alternative to common theory in the same way Calculus was used to unlock the key to things such as mp3 compression (again I'd lean toward mp3 compression not simply being an "extension of Calculus"...but a new art form). Sure we on the list have virtually all heard of Partch, but I wonder how many people who graduate from music school have actually composed using his scale system?

>" It
certainly seems to me that any field that has no historical continuity
will have no lasting value; obviously, when one turns 40, the next
group of 20-somethings will declare a new art form, invalidating
everything that preceded them. With this sort of attitude, why should
anyone outside of this group really care about it?"
Well I don't view it as over-writing...I view it as giving new alternatives. Say someone came up with a new way of designing scales not based, say, on mean-tone of JI. If you re-tuned older music to that system, it's almost guaranteed you'd lose some of the original artist's intention, no matter how "flexible" or "good" the system is.
To me, music is not at all like the field of, say, computer processors where the new version is virtually always better than the old for all uses...for that reason of preserving artistic intention. My opinion is songs written in mean-tone will always sound most genuine in mean-tone...no matter what variations on, say, JI come about.
Even now, many people often opt for older music and music theories...that's the wonderful thing about music that the subjective aspect makes it so there's little danger of everyone "having" to agree on a single definition or theory of "better"
. If music were almost completely objective, like many sciences turn out to be, there would likely be only a few ways to get "better"...but music is too subjective IMVHO to ever fall completely into that sort of single path or single theories out simply because of age.

>"In
the 18-teens he was one of the most respected composers in Europe, but
spent years studying early music (i.e., Bach, Handel, and even
Palestrina) in order to write the Missa Solemnis. He was innovative,
but his innovations were grounded in a thorough understanding of and
respect for the art form he had inherited."
Convinced...you're right on that one. I'm trying to remember...I had read somewhere that one of the major classical musicians (maybe it was Bach) was constantly losing jobs in Royal orchestras due to his affinity for a demonic lack of consonance in his work. Can you recall any such musician?

>"Beethoven's
music was controversial, but he actually had a successful career,
considering that his main works were not designed to be
"audience-friendly" (his "Wellington' s Victory" symphony was designed
to succeed, and indeed it became his most popular work in his lifetime)."
Hmm...then maybe Beethoven was that "heretic" musician after all? Bizarre (and quite interesting)...I'm going to have to see if I can find a copy of "Wellington' s Victory" to compare to his other work.

,_._,___

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@> wrote:
> >
> > The mastery I mean is to know in a scientific way how music
> > really functions.
>
> Then the obvious place to start is with scientific studies of
> how music functions, which I've never seen you mention.

You (Gene) can certainly be forgiven for thinking Franklin wrote
that, since it wasn't quoted, but in fact it was due to Marcel.

Folks: this list hasn't been particularly legible since yahoo
hooked it up to the web over a decade ago. But in the last few
weeks we've hit a new low. Quote what you're replying to with
angle brackets and carriage returns, or format=flowed. And
don't post from a smartphone -- are you really posting something
so important it can't wait until you're in front of a real
keyboard? I know gmail (for example) bottomquotes entire
threads, but take 2 seconds to select the text below your sig
and hit "del". The 1200 people who may read your post later
that day will thank you (and anyone from the future foolish
enough to attempt to revive the dead art of microtonal music).

-Carl

> Yes, you're right.
> It is my personal defenition of tonality.
> But I personally "hear" chords in a tonal piece as having a color relevant to the tonic.
> I find it personally the most beautifull way to hear music, and it makes sense to me in this way.
> This is probably the part I can worst explain.
> But I feel my defenition of tonality has a deeper connection to music.
> The tonic drone thing still works wonderfully well in actual common practice music though.

1) Why are you using the word "tonality" then?
2) Why are you presuming that this would apply to common practice
music at all, being as they use the word "tonality" to mean something
completely different?
3) As I have said from the getgo - you have come up with a methodology
for writing pieces of music in just intonation which suit your mood
and tastes. Furthermore, you have seen that other people have tastes
which conflict with your own. This being said, I don't see any reason
to presume that your method is "the only right one" or even
encompasses a semi-significant fraction of "all possible music." It's
just a neat little algorithm that can write some cool stuff.

-Mike

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

> I also somewhat trust this list, in that if something truly
> gave/had the answers, it would have passed here and stuck.

Nah, the answer isn't acceptable to you. Gene just said it
for the two-dozenth time: the common-practice music you want
to understand is based on temperament, not "just intonation".

> Nothing did apparently.

Apparently.

-Carl

Hi Mike,

This appears to be a mathematical operation that you have made up. My
> question is, why is it important?
>
>
> > You're talking about my tonality set I hope, not my harmonic model or
> direct permutations of the harmonic series.
>
> I'm talking about, in fact, all of the above. Why is the concept of
> permuting the harmonic series relevant musically? It seems to be an
> arbitrary mathematical operation and I don't get why it matters.
>

Well, I'll admit. A lot of my theory and thinking is based on "belief"
assumptions.
First of all, I belief music is JI.
That tones have a rational vibration ratio between them.
I do not belief so completely blind.
The way I did it is I started with the assumption that music is JI, and then
tried to disprove this.
I found I couldn't.
Even the seemingly impossible chord progressions have JI solutions (although
dissonant) in them that I still prefer above a tempered version of such a
progression.
So I come to the semi-belief that music is JI.
It mainly makes sense to me in the bigger picture.

I started out wishing to see all the posiblities JI gives, which is
offcourse infinite.
And then searching for a logical way to categorize these possiblities from
simple to more complex.
I then took the first assumption, that the harmonic series is perfect, and
goes from simple to more complex the higher up the harmonics you go.
But I had allready learned from studying actual musical chord progressions
that high harmonics don't go nice when holding such a note and changing the
chord.
I looked at the harmonic series and looked at the intervals that make up the
harmonic series.
2/1, then 3/2, then 4/3, then 5/4, then 6/5.
I played with these intervals, adding a lot of 3/2 on top of eachother
sounds nice.
Adding 5/4 on top of eachother doesn't sound nice.
Somewhere among many silly ideas I got the idea of keeping the exact
intervals of the harmonic series, not duplicating them, but only changing
their order.
So for instance 1/1 * 3/2 * 2/1 * 5/4 * 4/3, instead of 1/1 * 2/1 * 3/2 *
4/3 * 5/4
I really liked this as it allows me to categorize (limit) the result in
several ways.
It made sense to me as in musical chord progressions one first forms for
instance a 4/3 with a note, then hold that note and another note then forms
5/4 with it, and then 3/2, etc etc.
I see this as a basis of how music works, something very similar to
permutating.
I then started playing with these permutations, in clumsy ways.
I found a way to make a 12tone scale with them, got all excited, posted it
here a year ago or so, then got on to other things but it stuck.
And I found more and more logic in it.

Pff this is turning into a long story.
I've develop trust in it after a long time of experimentation, trying to
prove it wrong, trying other things, finding logic in it etc.

Somewhere along the line I've found logic in seeing things as connections of
intervals, and as combinations of connections of intervals comming from a
single point. (1/1)
Somewhere I've found logic in this way of doing things and it works with
actual music.
I realise now that I find it hard to write down this logic in a few easy
sentences.
But a lot of this logic is somewhat mathematical.
For instance the I vi ii V I chord progression has only so many
possiblities.
My way of seeing it makes a lot of sense I think.

> If so, then I HAVE explained this.
> > But I'll explain it again.
> > You have the harmonic model, based on permutations of the harmonic
> series.
> > 6-limit (including all lower limits) will give 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)
> > All tones in this harmonic model have as their root (1/1 point) 1/1. And
> the permutations show that they really come from 1/1.
> > Now my defenition of tonality is that one could play a continues drone
> (including upper harmonics as sounds have), and that everything played in
> this tonality must harmonize with this drone.
>
> 1) Define "harmonize." So far the definition of that word seems to be
> "sounds good to me," and your opinion of what intervals sound "good"
> vs "bad" changes with every message you post here.
>

Well I can't really in an objective sense, not yet.
But in my system it means beeing in a harmonic model.
An harmonic model is a combination of all permutations (of a certain limit)
comming from a single 1/1 root, combined.
The permutations are "consonant", the intervals formed in a combination of
tones comming from different permutations are "dissonant".

> 2) When you say "the permutations show that they really come from
> 1/1," you're saying that YOU have derived those intervals by applying
> an arbitrary mathematical operation to 1/1. They do not "inherently"
> come from 1/1, YOU derived them from 1/1.
>

Yes, I did.
Though in a beautifull way I think :)

>
> I could come up with a few mathematical operations of my own and say
> the resulting tones "come" from 1/1 and all other tones are
> irrelevant. But the question is, why would I be right?
>

True,
I think the ultimate judge is if it works, and this includes if it sounds
right.

> And harmony we understand according to the harmonic model.
> > So we simply take the harmonic model, 6-limit in this case, and see where
> the 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 drone will harmonize.
> > We then see that we can place the 1/1 root of the harmonic model at 1/1,
> and at 5/4, and at 4/3, and at 3/2, and at 5/3, and that everything played
> in those harmonic model roots will harmonize with the 1/1 drone.
>
> > 1/1> 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
> > 5/4> 1/1 25/24 9/8 75/64 5/4 45/32 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
> > 4/3> 1/1 16/15 10/9 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 16/9 2/1
> > 3/2> 1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 27/20 45/32 3/2 27/16 9/5 15/8 2/1
> > 5/3> 1/1 25/24 10/9 5/4 4/3 25/18 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1
>
> I don't understand here, why is 25/24 appearing under 5/4?
>

The 25/24 is appearing under 5/4 in the harmonic model root of 5/4 and 5/3.
1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 * 5/4 =
1/1 25/24 9/8 75/64 5/4 45/32 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1

1/1 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 * 5/3 =
1/1 25/24 10/9 5/4 4/3 25/18 3/2 25/16 5/3 15/8 2/1

So when the harmonic root is 5/4, then the 25/24 in the tonality scale is
the 5/3 from 1/1 (hr 5/4).
And when the harmonic root is 5/3 then the 25/24 in the tonality scale is
the 5/4 from 1/1 (hr 5/3)

All in all after this time I've spent with my theory it makes a lot of sense
musically.
Even though I find it's not easy to explain this here in a few sentences
without asking you to go along with some assumptions and beliefs.
And after this time, the way different parts in the theory come together,
it's the most beautifull thing I've seen, it's like magic.
And it's also that it just works to see things this way. It makes me see
things in music that I would have never come up with myself.
Like the tuning of the Beethoven pieces. No waaay I could have done that by
trial and error or something like that.
Yet it sounds very beautifull and consistent.

Marcel

MikeB>"What you have not done is explain WHY your system is
"all-encompassing," or why it is the "only" method possible for writing
tonal music."
This statement all too frequently pops up. Someone believes they have invented an "all-encompassing" or "perfect" music system. Yet, doing so is impossible. Here are just a few reasons why (and feel free to add your own :-) ):

1) "Even" if there were a perfect music system, it could not summarize all of the "imperfections" that historic artists put into original versions of their music. If/when Bach wrote a piece in mean-tone, there's an overwhelming chance some of the "impurities" in mean-tone are actually part of the value of his artistic integrity and intention within that piece.
2) For "consonance/concordance" purists...maximizing the purity of certain intervals means sacrificing the purity of others. So when you consider someone may want an interval that's impure in your system to be pure, your system becomes imperfect.
3) As long as someone desires to play an interval that is not in your system, your system is imperfect. And if you make a system that includes all possible intervals starting from all possible roots (pretty crazy system)...the complexity would almost certainly make it imperfect.
4) If your system can not achieve the same perfect consonance regardless of a constant timbre, it is imperfect. You'll realize achieving the highest possible consonance regardless of timbre is mathematically impossible if you've looked at any of Sethares' work.
5) If your system can not emulate all historical systems, your system is imperfect
6) If your system by odd miracle of impossibility does have all perfect intervals of all types...it becomes imperfect at playing dissonant versions of those intervals. ;-) Yes, I realize a huge part of composition is contrasting intentional dissonance, and that's not even including music where dissonance is the "sole" goal.
...................

I am not saying those of you who have called your systems "perfect" in the past should give up by any means...I just wish the false advertising would stop. IMVHO we should all stop throwing around the word "perfect" and instead
A) Say "this scale system is designed to be excellent for X things" and be very specific what our respective scale systems excel at. For example: my scale system excels at tall chords and maximizing the consonance of narrow intervals like 12/11 in place of typical less-consonant narrow intervals such as 15/14.
B) Give the other side of the story...say what our systems are bad at or have to compromise. Easy example, my scale system compromises perfect 5ths, even going up to x/13 fractions for some "5ths".

Now your turn... :-)

On 26 April 2010 05:22, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Nah, the answer isn't acceptable to you. Gene just said it
> for the two-dozenth time: the common-practice music you want
> to understand is based on temperament, not "just intonation".
>

Well and I've said many times on this list allready that I don't agree with
this.
Music makes sense as rational intervals, not as tempered ones.
A 1/1 5/4 3/2 tonic chord should be tuned as such, and not tempered.
And I've started showing that it indeed doesn't HAVE to be tempered.
Infact I've challenged any temperament to take on my retuning of the
Beethoven piece.
I think my tuning of Beethoven will win, and this should give a strong
signal that JI is the way music works.

Marcel

Well, it's not very clear to me in instances where you have symbol elements altering in opposite directions. Let me illustrate this with an example. Taking C as 1/1, how would you notate 56/55? Is the size (and direction) of the alteration easily perceived when you look at the combination of symbol-elements required by the notation?

In Sagittal, this is notated as C.(| -- not one of the simplest symbols, but relatively uncomplicated as Sagittals go.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Both the Johnston and the Schweinitz-Sabat notations are absolutely clear regarding the amount a note is "altered" (i.e., from 12 edo), but the Schweinitz-Sabat notation is much easier for me to process (those who have been working with Ben's notation for ages swear by it). I had to make up an Excel sheet with all the cents and pitch-bend alterations from 12 edo for any reasonably conceivable note in the Johnston system.
>
>
> Dr. Franklin Cox
>
> 1107 Xenia Ave.
>
> Yellow Springs, OH 45387
>
> (937) 767-1165
>
> franklincox@...
>
> --- On Sun, 4/25/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> From: gdsecor <gdsecor@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 10:15 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before. 
>
> > I developed an ad-hoc notation for 72-ET about 20 years ago, based on the  quarter-tone symbols most widely-used in contemporary music (backwards flat for 1/4 flat, single cross-stroke for quarter sharp, etc.); I then attached crooks upward and downward from the standard symbols to represent 1/12th tone alterations.  I found this system efficient to use, because  excepting the crook,  it used well-known symbols.  
>
> > For JI, I have to admit I've never felt completely comfortable with Johnston's notation, although I've recorded two of his pieces now.  I find that his starting decision of using the same type of symbols for both Pythagorean and 5-limit intervals (i.e., a syntonic C major scale is notated C D E F G A B, even though the E, A, and B are 5/4-derived intervals, the rest 3/2-derived) led to a crazy-quilt of plusses and minuses that are hard to figure out even for devoted students of his music.  (I've found numerous mistakes in Ben's manuscripts, usually where he's forgotten to add or subtract a "+" or "-".)
>
>
>
> Yes, and it gets even more confusing when you move up the 7 limit.
>
>
>
> >  I'm writing a piece now using the Sabat/Schweinitz notation, which visually distinguishes the 5/4-derived and 3/2-derived intervals (the syntonic scale being C D E-arrow down F G A-arrow down B-arrow down C). I have no trouble keeping track of where I am using this notation.
>
>
>
> Another problem Dave Keenan & I found with the Johnston notation involves the stacking of symbol-modifiers for ratios with complex combinations of prime factors, so you may be left in the dark regarding the resulting amount of alteration to the nominal notes. It doesn't appear that the Schweinitz/Sabat notation does much to address this problem.
>
>
>
> With Sagittal, any ratio can be notated using only one new symbol (or, in the mixed-symbol version of Sagittal, one single-shaft Sagittal symbol in combination with a conventional sharp or flat symbol), so one can easily perceive the amount of alteration.
>
>
>
> --George
>

On 26 April 2010 05:22, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> 1) Why are you using the word "tonality" then?
>

Because I do think they're very closely related.
And I do think that my tonality model describes something real in music,
something we unconsciously use in listening to music, that is also aproached
with the normal meaning of tonality.

> 3) As I have said from the getgo - you have come up with a methodology
> for writing pieces of music in just intonation which suit your mood
> and tastes. Furthermore, you have seen that other people have tastes
> which conflict with your own. This being said, I don't see any reason
> to presume that your method is "the only right one" or even
> encompasses a semi-significant fraction of "all possible music." It's
> just a neat little algorithm that can write some cool stuff.
>

Well, my system does encompass all possible music.
That's a thing that's certain.
It's the the ordening / cataloging from simple to more complex where you can
argue you don't agree.
My system doesn't say anything is impossible.

Marcel

Gene>"And 7-limit music could be retuned to the 5-limit, and that could in turn be retuned to the three limit."

One bizarre mental note. I've always considered odd-limit to be just about the closest thing to a gold-standard so far as chords go ever since Carl gave me his "you can't understand JI without understanding tetrachords and odd-limits" speech ages ago.
Yet here we appear to be talking about prime limit...and there are all sorts of "hacks" that involve finding ratios in, say, 7-prime limit that just happen to be within cents of 11-limit intervals (and sound more like the 11-limit ones)...as you/Gene showed me before. So could this all be, in a way, yet another example of how the "prime-limit" way of measuring the consonance of scales is flawed?

Michael,
I agree with your reasons, all of which are well-argued. I would add one: let's say that one has created a "perfect" scale system such that all intervals in it are beautiful and consonant. Someone will come along some day and bend those intervals in performance in order to increase their expressiveness.   Out of this, new types of intervals will arise that are no longer in the system. In a closed society, one can enforce adherence to a perfect system, but in an open society, unruly human nature will assert itself.  
Some of the composers who did just what I described above include Josquin, Monteverdi, Bach, Rameau, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Schoenberg, and so on.
A good part of the expressive power of common-practice music actually lies in the interaction of consonance and dissonance, and a good part  of the development of the common practice system grows out of the  constant search for new, more expressively charged dissonances.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 4/26/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: [tuning] Why there is no such thing as a "perfect scale system"
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 3:44 AM

MikeB>"What you have not done is explain WHY your system is
"all-encompassing, " or why it is the "only" method possible for writing
tonal music."
    This statement all too frequently pops up.  Someone believes they have invented an "all-encompassing" or "perfect" music system.  Yet, doing so is impossible.  Here are just a few reasons why (and feel free to add your own :-) ):

1) "Even" if there were a perfect music system, it could not summarize all of the "imperfections" that historic artists put into original versions of their music.  If/when Bach wrote a piece in mean-tone, there's an overwhelming chance some of the "impurities" in mean-tone are actually part of the value of his artistic integrity and intention within that piece.
2)  For "consonance/ concordance" purists...maximizin g the purity of certain intervals means sacrificing the purity of others.  So when you consider someone may want an interval that's impure in your system to be pure, your system becomes imperfect.
3)  As long as someone desires to play an
interval that is not in your system, your system is imperfect.  And if you make a system that includes all possible intervals starting from all possible roots (pretty crazy system)...the complexity would almost certainly make it imperfect.
4) If your system can not achieve the same perfect consonance regardless of a constant timbre, it is imperfect.  You'll realize achieving the highest possible consonance regardless of timbre is mathematically impossible if you've looked at any of Sethares' work.
5) If your system can not emulate all historical systems, your system is imperfect
6) If your system by odd miracle of impossibility does have all perfect intervals of all types...it becomes imperfect at playing dissonant versions of those intervals. ;-)   Yes, I realize a huge part of composition is contrasting intentional dissonance, and that's not even including music where dissonance is the "sole"
goal.
............ .......

   I am not saying those of you who have called your systems "perfect" in the past should give up by any means...I just wish the false advertising would stop.   IMVHO we should all stop throwing around the word "perfect" and instead
A) Say "this scale system is designed to be excellent for X things" and be very specific what our respective scale systems excel at.  For example: my scale system excels at tall chords and maximizing the consonance of narrow intervals like 12/11 in place of typical less-consonant narrow intervals such as 15/14.
B) Give the other side of the story...say what our systems are bad at or have to compromise.  Easy example, my scale system compromises perfect 5ths, even going up to x/13 fractions for some "5ths".

Now your turn... :-)

>    I am not saying those of you who have called your systems "perfect" in the past should give up by any means...I just wish the false advertising would stop.   IMVHO we should all stop throwing around the word "perfect" and instead
> A) Say "this scale system is designed to be excellent for X things" and be very specific what our respective scale systems excel at.  For example: my scale system excels at tall chords and maximizing the consonance of narrow intervals like 12/11 in place of typical less-consonant narrow intervals such as 15/14.
> B) Give the other side of the story...say what our systems are bad at or have to compromise.  Easy example, my scale system compromises perfect 5ths, even going up to x/13 fractions for some "5ths".
>
> Now your turn... :-)

There are like four people total on this list who claim that they have
the One True Tuning™. And if it isn't the One True Tuning™, it's the
One True Method For Generating GOOD Tunings™.

The ego-driven nature of this claim is so transparent that I wonder if
these people think we don't see it.

-Mike

On 26 April 2010 05:09, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> And what does it do that Jean-Philippe Rameau hasn't already done with his
> theory of the fundamental bass? I don't see a theory, because I haven't seen
> any specifically formulated theoretical principles, something which Rameau
> did, much less any evidence the principles so formulated have any real
> validity, which has always been a problem for this type of analysis.
>

It will come very soon.
I do think I've formulated some theoretical principles allready.
But in any case, some very specific theoretical principles are on their way,
with audio examples.

This would be very interesting, but I'll believe it only if you can actually
> do it, and give the algorithm.
>

I've given my previous algorithm.
I think I'll give my next one too.

> Btw, I've just finished writing the basic permutations of harmonic-6-limit
> > and harmonic-7-limit in code (will be part of the basis of my
> algorithms).
>
> Good. What sort of code?
>

I'm writing it in php again.
I wish to use another language etc.
But it'll take me time to learn it, so I'm better of in php for now as I
allready know it a little.

Marcel

Right. Well all of that is great, nice background information and all
of that, but what I said here -

> You have come up with a system for writing music.

> What you have not done is explain WHY your system is "all-encompassing," or why it is the "only" method possible for writing tonal music.

> "Because I think everything else sounds bad" is not a valid answer, as you are just one person, and the rest of us like 11-limit JI just fine.

still applies. If you want everyone else to buy into your system, you
need to convince us that there is some kind of psychoacoustical
element to your system that somehow ties together music and sound.
That isn't happening. At this point, I'm more or less convinced that
you're listening along to pieces of music and constantly thinking
about how they would "artificially" fit into your system, disregarding
the ones that don't. And I think if you stopped, you'd enjoy more
music.

Also, what you said here:

> Somewhere along the line I've found logic in seeing things as connections of intervals, and as combinations of connections of intervals comming from a single point. (1/1)
> Somewhere I've found logic in this way of doing things and it works with actual music.
> I realise now that I find it hard to write down this logic in a few easy sentences.
> But a lot of this logic is somewhat mathematical.
> For instance the I vi ii V I chord progression has only so many possiblities.
> My way of seeing it makes a lot of sense I think.

I'd like to point out that you have not explained any logic at all,
just your own emotional enjoyment at learning how to perform
mathematical operation on the harmonic series.

And finally,

> True,
> I think the ultimate judge is if it works, and this includes if it sounds right.

No. There will NEVER be a theory that can describe "everything" that
an arbitrary person will like. I happen to much enjoy the "atonal"
variant of microtonal music, even though that's about as far away from
your system as it can get. The ultimate judge for whether a theory
that claims to encompass "all of music" is valid is

1) if it makes testable predictions that turn out to be true.

Your theory makes no predictions at all and hence is unfalsifiable.

-Mike

> Well, my system does encompass all possible music.
> That's a thing that's certain.
> It's the the ordening / cataloging from simple to more complex where you can argue you don't agree.
> My system doesn't say anything is impossible.

Are you serious? You post here two or three times a week saying that
"x/x" interval is "invalid" in your theory only to "validate" it two
weeks later, and then "invalidate" it again.

-Mike

I am beginning to think all that truly exists are the tunings you like
to work with.

In some places JI no doubt sounds wonderful - but I just heard a
rocking piece by Igs on xenharmonic alliance that knocked my socks off
with 15 EDO.

This just makes me think all the more that if you want popular
microtonal music then one needs to be part of the solution and write
popular microtonal music. It is not the tuning that is the key (though
of course has a role) - it is the mixture of all the elements that
make up "music" that is the key. Every other aspect that one would
single out just has a role, just like a player in an orchestra - or a
rock band. You need it all to make it work.

>
> There are like four people total on this list who claim that they have
> the One True Tuning™. And if it isn't the One True Tuning™, it's the
> One True Method For Generating GOOD Tunings™.
>
> The ego-driven nature of this claim is so transparent that I wonder if
> these people think we don't see it.
>
> -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
>
>
>
>

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> I am beginning to think all that truly exists are the tunings you like
> to work with.

???

> This just makes me think all the more that if you want popular
> microtonal music then one needs to be part of the solution and write
> popular microtonal music.

I don't get it, are you addressing these statements to me? I'm not
getting the meaning here.

-Mike

Let's see...I'm a bit rusty working with the fractions. Bb7 is 7/4 (the 56/), then F7 &  8/11 quarter-tone flat (=8/11 from the 7/4  Bb7; this would be  56/44), and then Db 7 & 8/11 quarter-tone flat & 4/5 arrow up.  An odd interval, but it's all do-able.
You could ask Marc Sabat ("Marc Sabat" <masa@...>) for details...he's much faster with this notation than I am.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 4/26/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:

From: gdsecor <gdsecor@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 3:48 AM

Well, it's not very clear to me in instances where you have symbol elements altering in opposite directions. Let me illustrate this with an example. Taking C as 1/1, how would you notate 56/55? Is the size (and direction) of the alteration easily perceived when you look at the combination of symbol-elements required by the notation?

In Sagittal, this is notated as C.(| -- not one of the simplest symbols, but relatively uncomplicated as Sagittals go.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

>

> Both the Johnston and the Schweinitz-Sabat notations are absolutely clear regarding the amount a note is "altered" (i.e., from 12 edo), but the Schweinitz-Sabat notation is much easier for me to process (those who have been working with Ben's notation for ages swear by it). I had to make up an Excel sheet with all the cents and pitch-bend alterations from 12 edo for any reasonably conceivable note in the Johnston system.

>

>

> Dr. Franklin Cox

>

> 1107 Xenia Ave.

>

> Yellow Springs, OH 45387

>

> (937) 767-1165

>

> franklincox@ ...

>

> --- On Sun, 4/25/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@... > wrote:

>

> From: gdsecor <gdsecor@... >

> Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel

> To: tuning@yahoogroups. com

> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 10:15 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Thanks for pointing this out; I'm new to this list, and I hadn't heard of this approach before. 

>

> > I developed an ad-hoc notation for 72-ET about 20 years ago, based on the  quarter-tone symbols most widely-used in contemporary music (backwards flat for 1/4 flat, single cross-stroke for quarter sharp, etc.); I then attached crooks upward and downward from the standard symbols to represent 1/12th tone alterations.  I found this system efficient to use, because  excepting the crook,  it used well-known symbols.  

>

> > For JI, I have to admit I've never felt completely comfortable with Johnston's notation, although I've recorded two of his pieces now.  I find that his starting decision of using the same type of symbols for both Pythagorean and 5-limit intervals (i.e., a syntonic C major scale is notated C D E F G A B, even though the E, A, and B are 5/4-derived intervals, the rest 3/2-derived) led to a crazy-quilt of plusses and minuses that are hard to figure out even for devoted students of his music.  (I've found numerous mistakes in Ben's manuscripts, usually where he's forgotten to add or subtract a "+" or "-".)

>

>

>

> Yes, and it gets even more confusing when you move up the 7 limit.

>

>

>

> >  I'm writing a piece now using the Sabat/Schweinitz notation, which visually distinguishes the 5/4-derived and 3/2-derived intervals (the syntonic scale being C D E-arrow down F G A-arrow down B-arrow down C). I have no trouble keeping track of where I am using this notation.

>

>

>

> Another problem Dave Keenan & I found with the Johnston notation involves the stacking of symbol-modifiers for ratios with complex combinations of prime factors, so you may be left in the dark regarding the resulting amount of alteration to the nominal notes. It doesn't appear that the Schweinitz/Sabat notation does much to address this problem.

>

>

>

> With Sagittal, any ratio can be notated using only one new symbol (or, in the mixed-symbol version of Sagittal, one single-shaft Sagittal symbol in combination with a conventional sharp or flat symbol), so one can easily perceive the amount of alteration.

>

>

>

> --George

>

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

> So could this all be, in a way, yet another example of how the "prime-limit" way of measuring the consonance of scales is flawed?

Prime limit isn't a way of measuring consonance at all, which is part of the point I am making here. Anything above the two limit is dense in the positive reals, and so can get arbitrarily close to anything.

I was - I believe I quoted your post of skepticism.

I wasn't clear.

IMHO there is no perfect tuning / system. All there is  the tunings
you chose to work in. I'm thinking the quest for the perfect universal
tuning system is an exercise in futility. It does not exist.

This was in reaction to your comment about  four people claiming this
or that tuning systems..

The main result from 21st century music I'm guessing will be - there
is no one tuning system - tuning system is a choice just like timbre,

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

Hi Mike,

Right. Well all of that is great, nice background information and all
> of that, but what I said here -
>
>
> > You have come up with a system for writing music.
>

Yes, I will.
A very strong system for writing music in JI.
From simple to more complex music.

> > What you have not done is explain WHY your system is "all-encompassing,"
> or why it is the "only" method possible for writing tonal music.
>

Well it is all-encompassing because it doesn't stop.
One can go as high up the harmonic series as one likes and get more and more
tones.

And it's not the only system for writing tonal music, but I do personally
think it will be the best.
I do think it's currently the only system that can tune common practice
music to JI in an acceptable manner for a normal publics ear.

> "Because I think everything else sounds bad" is not a valid answer, as you
> are just one person, and the rest of us like 11-limit JI just fine.
>
> still applies. If you want everyone else to buy into your system, you
> need to convince us that there is some kind of psychoacoustical
> element to your system that somehow ties together music and sound.
> That isn't happening.

I'll leave the psychoacoustical element to others.
It's not how I started.
And I personally think most of music isn't in the ear, or "translation"
brain regions, but in higher brain regions.
Besides that, things have to add up mathematically anyhow, so that's how I
did it.

> At this point, I'm more or less convinced that
> you're listening along to pieces of music and constantly thinking
> about how they would "artificially" fit into your system, disregarding
> the ones that don't. And I think if you stopped, you'd enjoy more
> music.
>

I have not disregarded anything.
I do see some music is more complex than other music.
But I do not make an artificial distinction here myself, normal music
history does it the same way as I do.

>
> Also, what you said here:
>
>
> > Somewhere along the line I've found logic in seeing things as connections
> of intervals, and as combinations of connections of intervals comming from a
> single point. (1/1)
> > Somewhere I've found logic in this way of doing things and it works with
> actual music.
> > I realise now that I find it hard to write down this logic in a few easy
> sentences.
> > But a lot of this logic is somewhat mathematical.
> > For instance the I vi ii V I chord progression has only so many
> possiblities.
> > My way of seeing it makes a lot of sense I think.
>
> I'd like to point out that you have not explained any logic at all,
> just your own emotional enjoyment at learning how to perform
> mathematical operation on the harmonic series.
>
> And finally,
>
>
> > True,
> > I think the ultimate judge is if it works, and this includes if it sounds
> right.
>
> No. There will NEVER be a theory that can describe "everything" that
> an arbitrary person will like.

Oh but I never said this.
"Like" is a taste thing :)

> I happen to much enjoy the "atonal"
> variant of microtonal music, even though that's about as far away from
> your system as it can get. The ultimate judge for whether a theory
> that claims to encompass "all of music" is valid is
>
> 1) if it makes testable predictions that turn out to be true.
>
> Your theory makes no predictions at all and hence is unfalsifiable.

The predictions in the way you mean will come very soon.

Btw I wished to give another example of the way the harmonic model works.

Take for instance the diminished 7th chord.
Dissonance actually doesn't matter how it's tuned, the ratios of dissonance
are too complex to be heard as exact information probably.
But the consonant part (the permutations) of the tones, that together form
dissonance are still audibly consonant.

diminished 7th:
9/8 4/3 8/5 15/8

If we look at the permutation structure underlying it, it could be for
instance this:
permutation 1: 1/1 2/1 3/1 15/4 9/2 6/1
permutation 2: 1/1 4/3 8/5 2/1 3/1 6/1
Or any other permutation structure giving these notes somewhere in the
octaves, try it out sounds right.

The dissonant intervals beeing the ones between permutation 1 and 2.
The consonant intervals beeing the permutation 1 itself and permutation 2
itself.
The consonant intervals in the actual diminished chord relate the
information of what the actual root is (1/1 even though it isn't played)

Marcel

Ah. I know there are a lot of people who advocate that on this list. I
still can't tell if that's going to happen, or if something like
31-tet will catch on in the mainstream for a bit, or perhaps something
even denser like 72-tet.

But to elaborate on your point further, I think there's a lot of merit
to your way of thinking. I'm not sure what the psychoacoustic basis
behind "temperament" is, but it appears to be more than just detuning
intervals slightly out of convenience. Chord progressions involving
comma pumps, for example, sound great when tempered out, and they
literally have no seamless JI equivalent. In addition, there are
chords like C-E-A-D-G that imply multiple JI interpretations at the
same time.

Perhaps people will figure out how all of this works and write music
with it, but I have a hard time imagining a sufficiently flexible
enough instrument to do so, much less an ensemble of instruments.

-Mike

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I was - I believe I quoted your post of skepticism.
>
> I wasn't clear.
>
> IMHO there is no perfect tuning / system. All there is  the tunings
> you chose to work in. I'm thinking the quest for the perfect universal
> tuning system is an exercise in futility. It does not exist.
>
> This was in reaction to your comment about  four people claiming this
> or that tuning systems..
>
> The main result from 21st century music I'm guessing will be - there
> is no one tuning system - tuning system is a choice just like timbre,
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>

> Are you serious? You post here two or three times a week saying that
> "x/x" interval is "invalid" in your theory only to "validate" it two
> weeks later, and then "invalidate" it again.
>

I have done minimal switching on intervals.
Perhaps a bit with the german sixth. I really felt it could make sense as a
6-limit chord too.
(which it does, as 1/1 32/25 3/2 9/5)

But "invalid" yes I've often said so, but allways in relation to common
practice music which is basically harmonic-6-limit music.
One doesn't tune the dominant 7th with the 7th harmonic for instance (well
I'll never say never, depends on the music and on what normal music theory
all sees as a dominant 7th, but usually, no)
But I'm not excluding the 7th harmonic from music with such a statement.

Marcel

On 26 April 2010 05:52, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> The ego-driven nature of this claim is so transparent that I wonder if
> these people think we don't see it.
>

Mike you see wrong. (and I'm assuming you mean me with what you said)
I would love to see nothing more than other people picking up where I'm at
and doing better than me with it.
Just so I won't have to anymore! :)
I mean I enjoy it, but I'm not doing it for me I'm doing it for the music,
to do something meaningfull.
And I don't need any personal credit.
And I mean common.. has anybody made himself more rediculous on this list
than me??
I'm well aware of this.

Marcel

Chris>"It is not the tuning that is the key (though of course has a role)"..."You need it all to make it work."

I fully agree with this statement...assuming that there is no one key that dominates over the others.
On one hand, a huge part of this list IMVHO is to make tunings that ideally fulfill that role. One the other hand, it's not the only thing needed to "make it all work". Having only the tuning (and/or a compositional theory that extracts 'wheat from chaff' in the tuning) work is like having a car on a racing team with the "best" engine, but not guarantees on the best transmission, tires, fuel, etc. If any of these is weak the chances you'll have a problem are more likely...however if you happen to be Mario Andretti (the equivalent of a very crafty composer), you'll still likely do very well in the race regardless of the other factors ("tuning" included). Unless your tire is sure to blow, for example (IE your "tuning" has virtually no strong parts for even the smartest composer to exploit).

Mike>> So could this all be, in a way, yet another example of how the
"prime-limit" way of measuring the consonance of scales is flawed?
Gene>"Prime limit isn't a way of measuring consonance at all, which is part
of the point I am making here. Anything above the two limit is dense in
the positive reals, and so can get arbitrarily close to anything."

Point proven! I wonder then why there is so much stress on things like "making scales 7-limit or less"? If it doesn't measure consonance well, what is it supposed to measure well?
Another thing...if Marcel's scales are in 6-prime-limit, what implications does that have on how its functionality can be proved (if any)?

Chris>"I'm thinking the quest for the perfect universal tuning system is an exercise in futility. It does not exist."
Agreed. There is no perfect universal "all inclusive" tuning system.

What there are is better tuning systems for a specific purpose or set of purposes. There's no one scale system that perfectly satisfies all possible compositional purposes (not can there be)...although through clever design one can make a tuning system which satisfies a good deal of purposes well.
That's what I am trying to do and think a good deal of others on this list are working toward...make tunings that satisfy a good range of purposes..."even" the ones who mis-advertise their tunings as "perfect" or "all inclusive".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Well, at least we've found some common ground.
> Your last sentence, however, I would reverse: a 7-tone diatonic system expanded to 12 tones and limited to those 12 tones.  That's precisely what happened at the turn into the 20th century.  I love, honor, and respect Schönberg as a composer and theorist, but I have felt for decades that the wonderful opportunity was missed when the limit to the tonal system was closed at 12.  Of course, at that time the discipline of  musicology was just getting off the ground, and even music historians didn't understand that there were more than 12 tones in Renaissance/early Baroque tuning systems, and that there were plenty of organs and harpsichords built with split keys (C#/Db, etc.).  
> Franklin

Schoenberg however was quite aware of the harmonic series and JI (reine Stimmung) and approved of 53-equal, see Stil und Gedanke. As far as I can make out, he just didn't find tunings other than 12-tET practical in his time, and, if I recall correctly, specifically mentioned that the move to 12 tones was a big step already, leaving microtonal exploration to future generations.

It's quite true that musicology of the time was hazy. There is even a book that rips into Schoenberg's writings on historical music, saw it some 20 years ago. Unfairly- he certainly wasn't alone in having incomplete or innaccurate information on medieval music etc. and of course anachronistic statements about historical music doesn't render 12-tone music suddenly meaningless (such implied "reasoning" being a big logical flaw of the book).

-Cameron Bobro

It's only about 31 cents above C, so I figure you'd want to write it as C altered by something. I'll leave it to you to come up with an answer.

Anyway, my point is, once you've combined the 5-, 7-, and 11-components of the alteration, how quickly would a player reading this notation be able to determine what the net alteration to the nominal should be?

In Sagittal there are separate symbols for alterations of 27:28, 51200:531441, 8192:8505, and 26:27, which all differ by less than 2.5 cents. By looking at the symbols for each of these (which are very similar in appearance), it's very easy to put them in order of size. I expect that they're very different in appearance in the Schweinitz-Sabat notation and that there would be very little indication that, for most practical purposes, they're virtually the same thing. For this very reason, Sagittal provides an option that simplifies the task of sight-reading for the player, by allowing a single (comparatively simple) symbol to notate any or all of these ratios.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Let's see...I'm a bit rusty working with the fractions. Bb7 is 7/4 (the 56/), then F7 &  8/11 quarter-tone flat (=8/11 from the 7/4  Bb7; this would be  56/44), and then Db 7 & 8/11 quarter-tone flat & 4/5 arrow up.  An odd interval, but it's all do-able.
> You could ask Marc Sabat ("Marc Sabat" <masa@...>) for details...he's much faster with this notation than I am.
> Franklin
> Dr. Franklin Cox
> 1107 Xenia Ave.
> Yellow Springs, OH 45387
> (937) 767-1165
> franklincox@...
>
> --- On Mon, 4/26/10, gdsecor <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> From: gdsecor <gdsecor@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 3:48 AM
>
> Well, it's not very clear to me in instances where you have symbol elements altering in opposite directions. Let me illustrate this with an example. Taking C as 1/1, how would you notate 56/55? Is the size (and direction) of the alteration easily perceived when you look at the combination of symbol-elements required by the notation?
>
> In Sagittal, this is notated as C.(| -- not one of the simplest symbols, but relatively uncomplicated as Sagittals go.
>
> --George
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:
>
> > Both the Johnston and the Schweinitz-Sabat notations are absolutely clear regarding the amount a note is "altered" (i.e., from 12 edo), but the Schweinitz-Sabat notation is much easier for me to process (those who have been working with Ben's notation for ages swear by it). I had to make up an Excel sheet with all the cents and pitch-bend alterations from 12 edo for any reasonably conceivable note in the Johnston system.
>
> > Dr. Franklin Cox
> > 1107 Xenia Ave.
> > Yellow Springs, OH 45387
> > (937) 767-1165
> > franklincox@ ...

MikeB>"The ego-driven nature of this claim is so transparent that I wonder if these people think we don't see it."Marcel>"Mike you see wrong. (and I'm assuming you mean me with what you said)"

I think a majority of the people on this list who are seen as "egotists" actually have good intentions having virtually nothing to do with fame or fortune. People who are claiming "perfect" scales certainly aren't going around patenting them or anything like that.
I think the one thing such people are guilty of is giving themselves too much credit for accomplishment, a bit like someone adopting a poor child (still a very good deed) but then calling him/herself "Mother Teresa". Sometimes I think there's a confused drive, however, to over-advertise for the sake of getting people to think your cause is worth helping in (see below).

Marcel>"I would love to see nothing more than other people picking up where I'm at and doing better than me with it. Just so I won't have to anymore! :)"

Amen to that!...and I can completely empathize with that statement. In a few cases people like Cameron and Kalle agreed to help "fine tune" my scales and the results were significantly better than the originals...so I rushed at the chance to ask them to do the same to further tunings and gave credit in the names of said tunings.
In fact I trust some of the people here who have dedicated their lives to tunings (instead of, say, my 3 or so measly years of obsessing about tunings) would best my efforts to death while still keeping a lot of my positive intentions for my scales intact...if only I could get far enough to convince them to work with me more on them. :-) I guess that's where the tuning design gets weird...if you want people good enough to seriously improve your cause, you first need to convince them to take you seriously. It sometimes almost feels you need to be recognized as established to get the help and resources to truly make your theory/theories become established.

It's true that early on Schoenberg was interested in the possibilities of microtonality, but after  he developed his 12-tone system, his interest waned. He also considered JI inartistic precisely because it used a natural rather than an artificial tuning system.  He was rigorous about insisting that players perform with 12 edo; I met a violist who had played for Schoenberg in a quartet, and he told me how much he hated having to play in 12 edo, how artificial it sounded.  Which is interesting, and further confirms the evidence that I've seen so far, which indicates that most string players were not consistently playing in 12 edo until later on in the century.  They weren't playing in JI, either, but in any of a number of tuning approaches influenced by other players in their region, their teachers, etc.
But Schoenberg was always open to further developments, and he would have been appalled by the dogmatism of many East Coast serialists who insisted that the 12 edo system comprised the total universe of pitch relationships.  
Was the book "Schoenberg's Error"?  A real hatchet job.
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Mon, 4/26/10, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

From: cameron <misterbobro@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Marcel
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 5:18 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@ ...> wrote:

>

> Well, at least we've found some common ground.

> Your last sentence, however, I would reverse: a 7-tone diatonic system expanded to 12 tones and limited to those 12 tones.  That's precisely what happened at the turn into the 20th century.  I love, honor, and respect Schönberg as a composer and theorist, but I have felt for decades that the wonderful opportunity was missed when the limit to the tonal system was closed at 12.  Of course, at that time the discipline of  musicology was just getting off the ground, and even music historians didn't understand that there were more than 12 tones in Renaissance/ early Baroque tuning systems, and that there were plenty of organs and harpsichords built with split keys (C#/Db, etc.).  

> Franklin

Schoenberg however was quite aware of the harmonic series and JI (reine Stimmung) and approved of 53-equal, see Stil und Gedanke. As far as I can make out, he just didn't find tunings other than 12-tET practical in his time, and, if I recall correctly, specifically mentioned that the move to 12 tones was a big step already, leaving microtonal exploration to future generations.

It's quite true that musicology of the time was hazy. There is even a book that rips into Schoenberg's writings on historical music, saw it some 20 years ago. Unfairly- he certainly wasn't alone in having incomplete or innaccurate information on medieval music etc. and of course anachronistic statements about historical music doesn't render 12-tone music suddenly meaningless (such implied "reasoning" being a big logical flaw of the book).

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Mike>> So could this all be, in a way, yet another example of how the
> "prime-limit" way of measuring the consonance of scales is flawed?
> Gene>"Prime limit isn't a way of measuring consonance at all, which is part
> of the point I am making here. Anything above the two limit is dense in
> the positive reals, and so can get arbitrarily close to anything."
>
> Point proven! I wonder then why there is so much stress on things like "making scales 7-limit or less"? If it doesn't measure consonance well, what is it supposed to measure well?

What it measures well is the number of generators, unless you leave off some of the primes or temper things. There's a regularity in the structure of, for instance, 7-limit JI which can be applied to chord constuctions and relationships, and so forth. And the 5 and 7 limits have a nice geometrical picture.

> Another thing...if Marcel's scales are in 6-prime-limit, what implications does that have on how its functionality can be proved (if any)?

Marcel isn't using as many primes as six, which would be the 13-limit. Nor is six a prime.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> On 26 April 2010 05:22, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > Nah, the answer isn't acceptable to you. Gene just said it
> > for the two-dozenth time: the common-practice music you want
> > to understand is based on temperament, not "just intonation".
> >
>
> Well and I've said many times on this list allready that I don't
> agree with this.

Right. But you don't say why. And you're not willing to say
anything more than, you don't agree. So what's the point in
going on about it? This was debating dozens of times on this
list in the past, and your thesis has always lost. That's not
to say it's wrong, but if you're not willing to consider that
it might be, it should be no surprise your activity on these
lists has been unproductive.

> Music makes sense as rational intervals, not as tempered ones.
> A 1/1 5/4 3/2 tonic chord should be tuned as such, and not tempered.
> And I've started showing that it indeed doesn't HAVE to be tempered.

This isn't a reason, it's just an assertion. The same one
you've always made. Why should it produce a different result
this time?

> Infact I've challenged any temperament to take on my retuning of
> the Beethoven piece.

Your challenge has been going on all year. Will it ever end?

> I think my tuning of Beethoven will win, and this should give a
> strong signal that JI is the way music works.

"Win" on what grounds? Of course I think it's funny, because
I suggested the Beethoven because I thought it was ripe for
the 7-limit treatment you so disdain(ed), NOT because it is
hard to perform in strict JI. Of course I've said this literally
over ten times by now, so why should I expect a different
result?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> I've given my previous algorithm.
> I think I'll give my next one too.

Every time you present your algorithm, you post that it must be
changed an hour later, and promise a follow-up. And I do mean
every time. Have you noticed this pattern?

> I'm writing it in php again.

Oh, are we talking about your algo comp. algorithm? It's safe
to say you impressed a lot of folks with it, including me.
But it isn't clear what it has to do with your "tonal JI".

-Carl

> Oh, are we talking about your algo comp. algorithm? It's safe
> to say you impressed a lot of folks with it, including me.
> But it isn't clear what it has to do with your "tonal JI".

Add me to the list of folks highly impressed with it, but I wouldn't
say it encompasses all of music or anything like that.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> It's true that early on Schoenberg was interested in the >possibilities of microtonality, but after  he developed his 12-tone >system, his interest waned. He also considered JI inartistic >precisely because it used a natural rather than an artificial tuning >system.  He was rigorous about insisting that players perform with >12 edo; I met a violist who had played for Schoenberg in a quartet, >and he told me how much he hated having to play in 12 edo, how >artificial it sounded.  Which is interesting, and further confirms >the evidence that I've seen so far, which indicates that most string >players were not consistently playing in 12 edo until later on in >the century.  They weren't playing in JI, either, but in any of a >number of tuning approaches influenced by other players in their >region, their teachers, etc.
> But Schoenberg was always open to further developments, and he >would have been appalled by the dogmatism of many East Coast >serialists who insisted that the 12 edo system comprised the total >universe of pitch relationships.  
> Was the book "Schoenberg's Error"?  A real hatchet job.

Yes that was indeed precisely the book I was referring to, hahaha!

I wasn't aware that Schoenberg demanded strict 12-tET in performance, always wondered about that. Very interesting!

Of course there's a clash there with his explanation of the twelve tones being derived from harmonics, 11/8 and 13/8 (fis and as) are about a quartertone off of 12 and should disqualify that theory even for those for whom the syntonic comma does not.

Listening to pre-War records, and East Bloc records well after that, should convince entirely that strings (and everyone else with pitch performance flexibility) most certainly did not attempt to perform in strict 12-tET until quite recently. And it wasn't a matter of sloppiness, sloppiness creates quite the opposite effect of the homogenous sound character of older performances.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:
> >
> > Mike>> So could this all be, in a way, yet another example of how the
> > "prime-limit" way of measuring the consonance of scales is flawed?
> > Gene>"Prime limit isn't a way of measuring consonance at all, >which is part
> > of the point I am making here. Anything above the two limit is >dense in
> > the positive reals, and so can get arbitrarily close to anything."
> >
> > Point proven! I wonder then why there is so much stress on things like "making scales 7-limit or less"? If it doesn't measure consonance well, what is it supposed to measure well?
>
> What it measures well is the number of generators, unless you leave off some of the primes or temper things. There's a regularity in the structure of, for instance, 7-limit JI which can be applied to chord constuctions and relationships, and so forth. And the 5 and 7 limits have a nice geometrical picture.
>
> > Another thing...if Marcel's scales are in 6-prime-limit, what implications does that have on how its functionality can be proved (if any)?
>
> Marcel isn't using as many primes as six, which would be the 13-limit. Nor is six a prime.
>

The actual complexity of an interval is context-dependent. 512/343 looks like a humdinger until it is put into the context of steps of 8/7 and judged against references within clearly audible spectra (where it clearly can function as a detuned 3/2 as well). Context and modality, selah.

Marcel's judgements and terminology make no sense outside of his personal prescriptions and proscriptions (in which they are actually well thought-out and consistent).