Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds

http://ericwhitacre.com/music-catalog/satb-choral/sleep

I hear sustained minor 2nds in various places in this A Cappella choral piece. It is a rather lovely piece. I'd consider buying the choir from East West IF they'd make it truly microtonal capable.

NOTE: the video appears to be truly a cappella but I am not at all sure of the mp3 in the playback widget - it seems different.

I'm bring this up for Michael as yet another example of the "narrowness" of his consonance criteria.

Chris

>"I hear sustained minor 2nds in various places in this A Cappella choral
piece." (http://ericwhitacre.com/music-catalog/satb-choral/sleep)

So do I, but they are simply not consecutive minor seconds. Show me a piece written in 12TET which uses consecutive minor 2nds such as C C# D or D D# E which doesn't sound terribly tense and I'll believe 12TET encompasses the limits of narrow-spaced-interval harmony. :-D Not to mention that any cluster of three semi-tones leads to one tone that's completely out-of-key in common practice theory.

>"I'm bring this up for Michael as yet another example of the "narrowness" of his consonance criteria."

BTW, in case you are wondering, I am working on a new song which uses my new scale of 1/1 11/10 5/4 11/8 3/2 5/3 11/6 2/1 and does use consecutive semi-tones (from within that scale) such as 10:11:12 and many other similar "clustered smaller-than-major-second" type chords. Trust me, this is not possibly to do within 12TET without having many if not most people think "wow/ouch, that is out of tune and tense!" And after I do...I dare you to try and capture its sound using 12TET without sounding a whole lot more dissonant.

-Michael

>"I'm bring this up for Michael as yet another example of the "narrowness" of his consonance criteria."
On the flip side...you seem to keep on bringing up 12TET as if it solves all problems...even with 12TET's inclusion of, for example, a half-step that borders on what Plomp and Levelt clearly identify as being virtually at the interval of maximum roughness/"dissonance" and a 6th that's 15.6 cents from the "pure" 5/3 6th?

It's almost as if, for example, you believe 11/6, 12/11, 11/9, 22/15, and 11/8 (relatively consonant intervals which don't exist in common practice theory under 12TET) are irrelevant to expanding music and common practice theory intervals under 12TET like 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2...are the only valid ones. Thus my "narrow" criteria appears to actually accept a much wider range of intervals than your "non-narrow" criteria does...it accepts intervals such as those mentioned above in addition to common practice theory intervals.
************************************
My point is to try and say there are many intervals that can be used to expand common practice theory and enable chords impossible in common practice theory yet with very similar levels of consonance as 12TET and thus provide a sense of comfort for 12TET listeners and an extra set of options composers can use to make original music without sacrificing 12TET-like accessibility.

So dare I ask...if your point isn't to render scales that don't mimic 12TET intervals are invalid and, at best, produce the same compositional results (IE your apparent claim the 12TET's half-step is as good as any other interval within that range for all purposes)...what is your point?

Chris: the target moves yet again....

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
=>"I hear sustained minor 2nds in various places in this A Cappella
choral piece." (http://ericwhitacre.com/music-catalog/satb-choral/sleep)
>
"     So do I, but they are simply not consecutive minor seconds.
Show me a piece written in 12TET which uses consecutive minor 2nds
such as C C# D or D D# E which doesn't sound terribly tense and I'll
believe 12TET encompasses the limits of narrow-spaced-interval
harmony. :-D "

Chris: Not two weeks ago you wanted to just hear any "popular" piece
that used minor 2nds in a chord - and that is now not sufficient.

"Not to mention that any cluster of three semi-tones leads to one
tone that's completely out-of-key in common practice theory."

Chris: Did it occur that contemporary composers may not be using
"common practice theory"?

Chris: =>"I'm bring this up for Michael as yet another example of the
"narrowness" of his consonance criteria."

"   BTW, in case you are wondering, I am working on a new song which
uses my new scale of 1/1 11/10 5/4 11/8 3/2 5/3 11/6 2/1 and does use
consecutive semi-tones (from within that scale)" such as 10:11:12 and
many other similar "clustered smaller-than-major-second" type chords.

Chris: Calling and being a semi-tone are two different things. A rose
by any other name and all that.

"Trust me, this is not possibly to do within 12TET without having
many if not most people think "wow/ouch, that is out of tune and
tense!"  And after I do...I dare you to try and capture its sound
using 12TET without sounding a whole lot more dissonant."

Chris: So... you use intervals > minor 2nds and would dare me to not
sound more dissonant with actually using minor 2nds? This is a fool's
errand.
And.... out of tune is something different than clusters. I've used
clusters. A lot. I've never heard "out of tune". Ever.

Chris

>
> -Michael
>

My point continues to escape you despite the many times I say it.

I disagree with your statements in general about "common practice" or
12 tet music and have brought up a cornucopia of examples where your
assumptions break down, contradict, or simply don't exist in reality.

Chris

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"I'm bring this up for Michael as yet another example of the "narrowness" of his consonance criteria."
>     On the flip side...you seem to keep on bringing up 12TET as if it solves all problems...even with 12TET's inclusion of, for example, a half-step that borders on what Plomp and Levelt clearly identify as being virtually at the interval of maximum roughness/"dissonance" and a 6th that's 15.6 cents from the "pure" 5/3 6th?
>
>     It's almost as if, for example, you believe 11/6, 12/11, 11/9, 22/15, and 11/8 (relatively consonant intervals which don't exist in common practice theory under 12TET) are irrelevant to expanding music and common practice theory intervals under 12TET like 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2...are the only valid ones.   Thus my "narrow" criteria appears to actually accept a much wider range of intervals than your "non-narrow" criteria does...it accepts intervals such as those mentioned above in addition to common practice theory intervals.
> ************************************
>     My point is to try and say there are many intervals that can be used to expand common practice theory and enable chords impossible in common practice theory yet with very similar levels of consonance as 12TET and thus provide a sense of comfort for 12TET listeners and an extra set of options composers can use to make original music without sacrificing 12TET-like accessibility.
>
>     So dare I ask...if your point isn't to render scales that don't mimic 12TET intervals are invalid and, at best, produce the same compositional results (IE your apparent claim the 12TET's half-step is as good as any other interval within that range for all purposes)...what is your point?
>
>
>

On 5 May 2010 20:38, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> Show me a piece written in 12TET which uses consecutive minor 2nds such as
> C C# D or D D# E which doesn't sound terribly tense

The minor second is perfectly consonant when it's an octave inversion /
transposition of 15/8.
If you listen to for istance my computer generated "composition" on
www.develde.net you'll see it's chock full of them.

But the C C# D etc is never consonant.
But this has nothing to do with 12tet.

Marcel

Chris V>"I disagree with your statements in general about "common practice" or 12 tet music and have brought up a cornucopia of examples where your
assumptions break down, contradict, or simply don't exist in reality."

Well if that's so easy to do, please show me the example of a consonant sustained chord using two consecutive half-steps in 12TET I asked for. :-)
Furthermore say you did disprove that assumption...then what is your point (beside, say, that you seem to think 12TET is capable of anything and everything with regard to consonant harmonies and chords)?

Marcel>"But the C C# D etc is never consonant."
My point exactly!

>"But this has nothing to do with 12tet."
And yet, the point is it (clustered minor seconds) can't be done in 12tet...while Chris is posting 12TET music is if to make me believe it can. Sure it can do UN-clustered minor seconds in inversions of the 7th and such and make them sound relatively consonant...but that's not the point, the point is with clustered minor seconds.

Hence why I am discussing other ways to tune that make something nearly as clustered as three consecutive minor seconds IE "C C# D" sound about as consonant as a series of chained major seconds in 12TET (such as the chain of major seconds used in the Cadd2 chord).
IMVHO if 12TET could do that...there would be no point in exploring other scales to make a chord fairly like that possible...especially since 12TET does a fine job with most common-practice intervals.

Same goes with my other example of using 11/6 instead of the 15/8 estimate in 12TET...you can't do an 11/6 interval in 12TET and yet the consonance obtained by 11/6 is similar or better than that obtained by 15/8. So you get a new type of "7th" sound with virtually no loss in consonance compared to the "common practice theory standard" 7th of 15/8.

Again let me revert to this: I believe 12TET sounds FINE with common practice theory intervals for the most part. It's a great option for people who want to use those intervals and related chords...and only those intervals and related chords.

Why I'm looking into alternative scales has to do with handling of intervals like 12/11 (which sounds about as consonant as a 12TET major second) and 11/6 (which sounds about as consonant or a bit better than a 12TET major 7th) has to do with unlocking fresh new chords without losing 12TET-like consonance. And yet Chris seems to be pushing the idea of "there's nothing to be fixed...12TET covers all combinations of consonant intervals, including 'consonant tone clusters with all intervals involved closer than the major 2nd'.

Just a general comment so far as "how clustered a chord can you get in 12TET without sounding uncommonly dissonant"...
What do you think of the "chords" of BCF, BCDF, and BCDE?
My hunch is that those, even when they don't contain consecutive minor 2nds, are still far too dissonant to be heard as "normal" chords...to me they represent another gray area of chords too clustered to be made possible as consonant in 12TET...that poses an opportunity so far as something that can be made possible with alternative tunings.

Note I think "BCE" is perhaps the one exception far in 12TET as a clustered chord (and or part of a larger chord) that actually sounds relatively OK in 12TET...but that's really just part of an inversion on the major 7th chord of CEGB. The point is there are also several possibilities of chords with that level of density or closer that are not possible in 12TET but are with different ratio/interval sizes in other scales.

What is "uncommonly" dissonant?

I think you give Igs, or myself, or lots of other composers here a challenge
like that they will throw it back into your ear.

What I can't seem to get across is whatever pitch set material you wish to
discuss how it is handled by the composer is most of the battle.

What I wish I had in a tuning wasn't a tuning where it didn't matter what
note I hit.

What I would like is:

the ability to transpose
the ability to modulate
variety in chord quality (like major vs minor vs maj 7th ver min 7th vs 9th
etc. etc.)
be capable of melodies.

Now you may say - this sounds like 12 tet - and I will say -- if you want to
*improve* on 12 tet I suggest you'd best take the best parts of it with you.

Chris

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Just a general comment so far as "how clustered a chord can you get in
> 12TET without sounding uncommonly dissonant"...
> What do you think of the "chords" of BCF, BCDF, and BCDE?
> My hunch is that those, even when they don't contain consecutive minor
> 2nds, are still far too dissonant to be heard as "normal" chords...to me
> they represent another gray area of chords too clustered to be made possible
> as consonant in 12TET...that poses an opportunity so far as something that
> can be made possible with alternative tunings.
>
> Note I think "BCE" is perhaps the one exception far in 12TET as a
> clustered chord (and or part of a larger chord) that actually sounds
> relatively OK in 12TET...but that's really just part of an inversion on the
> major 7th chord of CEGB. The point is there are also several possibilities
> of chords with that level of density or closer that are not possible in
> 12TET but are with different ratio/interval sizes in other scales.
>
>

>"What is "uncommonly" dissonant?
I think you give Igs, or myself, or lots of other composers here a challenge like that they will throw
it back into your ear."
Something you can give a listener not on this list or with previous micro-tonal experience and have them take it seriously.

>"What I can't seem to get across is whatever pitch set material you wish
to discuss how it is handled by the composer is most of the battle. "
I understand that. My point is that while you can't just improve music by randomly tell composers "get better at composing, practice more!!" and magically get fresh music (especially if they are already practicing and reading a ton), you do have a fair chance of actually improving a musician's ability by giving them easier to handle tunings. You seem to be indirectly trying to say "we need to demand that composers get better rather than improve tunings". You're trying to optimize a somewhat non-modifiable variable in creating "good" music.

>"What I would like is:
1) the ability to transpose
2) the ability to
modulate
3) variety in chord quality (like major vs minor vs maj 7th ver min 7th vs 9th etc. etc.)
4) be capable of melodies."

1) Transposition is an admitted weakness of any scale that does not fit well into or closely match a TET tuning, and not just my scales. I'm not going to argue, 12TET, 17TET and a whole bunch of other tunings have scales under them which automatically have a significant advantage in that vs. my scales, for example. Then again, you might as well argue many of Erv Wilson's well established MOS scales and other scales that don't fit well into TETs are bad on those grounds. The other thing is...you can "transpose" electronically by pitch-shifting so long as you plan on using a soft-synth or fully electronic instrument or even on acoustic instruments using fret-less instruments like violins.

2) Modulation is possible under my scales and many other non-TET. Sure you may get an 11/8 instead of a 7/5 using the same chord in different keys with a different root tone, for example...but most of the intervals are still fairly uniform across the board.
3) Far as variety in chord quality, virtually all scales I've proposed have more variety than 12TET. You get substitutes for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th...but you also get slight variants of the substitutes as described in #2.
4) What on earth does "be capable of melodies" mean? Perhaps it means that 12TET-style melodies or melodies along 12TET-style intervals within other tunings are somehow the only ones truly valid as melodic or expressive?
This seems to be a completely subjective measure. Considering you have 7 unique and well spaced tones in my latest scale and many other systems quite different from 12TET you have as much melodic flexibility as you do in diatonic scales under 12TET. So it's at least as flexibility, if not also capable of your seemingly arbitrary measure of what makes a scale melodic.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
>
"What is "uncommonly" dissonant?  " Something you can give a listener
not on this list or with previous micro-tonal experience and have them
take it seriously. "

"  I understand that.  "My point is that while you can't just improve
music by randomly tell composers "get better at composing, practice
more!!" and magically get fresh music (especially if they are already
practicing and reading a ton), you do have a fair chance of actually
improving a musician's ability by giving them easier to handle
tunings.  You seem to be indirectly trying to say "we need to demand
that composers get better rather than improve tunings".  You're trying
to optimize a somewhat non-modifiable variable in creating "good"
music."

=> Have you not pondered why people hold Beethoven or Mozart or Bach
or Debussy or Copland in such high esteem as composers? And if you
have pondered that do you think these composers simply sat down
without any work on composition, any practice at composition and
produced pieces that are considered to be part of world heritage?
Even Mozart was *immersed* in music since birth.

Please be serious here - if you want to be good at anything it takes
work and effort and practice even if you are graced with lots of raw
talent.

>
>
> >"What I would like is:
> 1) the ability to transpose
> 2) the ability to modulate
> 3) variety in chord quality (like major vs minor vs maj 7th ver min 7th vs 9th etc. etc.)
> 4) be capable of melodies."
>
> 1) Transposition is an admitted weakness of any scale that does not fit well into or closely match a TET tuning, and not just my scales.

=> I'm thinking (I suspect) that transposition is not out of reach of
equal division tunings. It just may not be like 12 tet in all aspects.
And without electronic stuff. That is what Marcel is working on more
or less if his route becomes viable.

>
> 2) Modulation is possible under my scales and many other non-TET.  Sure you may get an 11/8 instead of a 7/5 using the same chord in different keys with a different root tone, for example...but most of the intervals are still fairly uniform across the board.

=> same comment as for transposition above applies.

> 3) Far as variety in chord quality, virtually all scales I've proposed have more variety than 12TET.  You get substitutes for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th...but you also get slight variants of the substitutes as described in #2.

To be honest, chords has been a weakness of your tunings. Only a
rather circumspect set of simultaneous intervals seem to work in the
most of not all of your tunings I've tried.

> 4) What on earth does "be capable of melodies" mean?  Perhaps it means that 12TET-style melodies or melodies along 12TET-style intervals within other tunings are somehow the only ones truly valid as melodic or expressive?

Capable of melody.... Go to xenharmonic and read what Igs wrote.

Here about 15 edo

"Of course, the guitar solo at the end is the most f'd-up sounding
solo I've ever played...15 is kind of tough to solo in because it
lacks a true major second (the whole-tone at 160¢, a near 11/10, just
doesn't cut it!), but the chords sound so nice and normal that the
weird melodic structure clashes really hard. But just think of what
Sonic Youth could do with 15-EDO guitars...."

I can't find it - perhaps it was a post to tuning - Igs says he found
16 edo to be the opposite - bad for chords but good for melodies.

BUT these are not absolutes and the opinion of one composer. But one I respect.

Chris

>"=> Have you not pondered why people hold Beethoven or Mozart or Bach
or Debussy or Copland in such high esteem as composers?"
Of course, because they are fantastic at what they do plus practiced their arts constantly throughout life. Why would something like, say, making different scales available somehow prevent these types of people with that type of talent from showing up? And/or any you perhaps implying some sort of extreme Darwinism where only a select very few people with extreme talent should ever be able to make timeless music (and, as such, that giving the average person tools like scales to increase the chance they might make very good or even great music is somehow "disrupting natural selection")? I don't understand what benefit you seek from all this grumpiness...

>"Please be serious here - if you want to be good at anything it takes work and effort and practice even if you are graced with lots of raw
talent."
Yes, but the sad thing is many people can practice endlessly and still not near any sort of greatness. Dare I say it...I think you are a fine example of this...you seem to make almost daily song releases and immerse yourself in studying 12TET theory yet can't seem to make it to the point you can make a living off music.
I short, I do think it's a somewhat virtuous act to give more of such people a better chance of achieving greatness. Composers will always have the challenges of good arrangements, catchy themes...ahead of them they will need to practice regardless of what tuning/scale-system they use. And I figure why not at least level down the challenge of things like finding good chords (via making new scales optimized for this) so they can concentrate and practicing other aspects of music and make more progress. Doing otherwise it a bit like architects' trying to build houses with termites hidden in certain pieces of wood....even without the termites only some will become great builders...but what's the use of testing their ability to "get rid of the termites" along with all their other challenges (it certainly won't help make the best few houses of all the ones the architects build any better artistically).

Michael, quite frankly.

You seem to be bent on creating a "song smith " tuning because that
will somehow solve all problems.

The problem a composer faces with composition is NOT selecting chords
or even creating a melody. For heaven's sake there are algorithmic
programs that can select these elements by applying the rules of
common practice - even constrained to a style like Bach used or Mozart
- which is just more choices on its output. I for one reject this as
art because composing music is the act of communication from one human
being to another.

I don't care if your medium is a single drum, the single pitch of a
didgeridoo, an orchestra or a bank of synthesizers using the cleverest
tuning in the universe.

Composition is about communication. It is about soul. And you can't
package that into a tuning any more than you can a computer.

And to address my lack of greatness. I'm not making a living off of
music for many reasons. And one of them is that my talent is not at
that level. Not yet, and at my age probably never. But you know
what... I'm ok with that. I enjoy writing music and that is all the
reason that I need to do it.

Chris

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>

> >"Please be serious here - if you want to be good at anything it takes work and effort and practice even if you are graced with lots of raw
> talent."
>     Yes, but the sad thing is many people can practice endlessly and still not near any sort of greatness.  Dare I say it...I think you are a fine example of this...you seem to make almost daily song releases and immerse yourself in studying 12TET theory yet can't seem to make it to the point you can make a living off music.

Chris>"You seem to be bent on creating a "song smith " tuning because that will somehow solve all problems."
Quite the opposite. Song Smith (from what I understand of it) is built upon the idea of making "people's lives easier" by limiting them to popular chord progressions. The purpose of my scale is to make more chords easily possible, thus eliminating much of the tendencies of composers to look for common chord progressions to achieve consonance and listen-ability. The only thing my scale and Song Smith have in common is the idea of making music easier to write...just like virtually every successful consumer product makes things easier to do (IE this is a typical pre-requisite for anything productive). The big difference is only Song Smith does it by trimming down possibilities (IE limiting you to only certain "popular" chords to certain melodies) and my scale system does it by expanding possibilities (IE enabling almost any chord with almost any melody).

>"The problem a composer faces with composition is NOT selecting chords or even creating a melody. For heaven's sake there are algorithmic
programs that can select these elements by applying the rules of common practice - even constrained to a style like Bach used or Mozart"
I don't even quite believe that, you sent an article on it which well proved exactly the opposite to a large extent. People actually loved the compositions it made but soon as they learned they were from a machine they pretended to hate it as they "couldn't stand the fact a machine's output made them emotional to the point of crying".
That "program" was like Song Smith in some ways but again with one huge exception...it was designed to incorporate a degree of "humanization" or random unpredictability typical of a human composer while following the general style on the whole.
That program, to a fair extent, expanded possibilities rather than limited them (unlike Song Smith)...and thus actually managed some great albeit very "anti-Darwinian" compositions. The next step in my mind would be imitating the style of a great composer who has yet to live in this world...and I believe the chances of that are only possible with human composition...and the chances of it happening are again enhanced with new scale systems.

>"Composition is about communication. It is about soul. And you can't package that into a tuning any more than you can a computer."
And even if you have such soul, if the tuning you are given blocks you from communication it the way you want it...your musical expression falls further short of the emotion it is created to represent. Easy example: would Bach have been able to express himself as well had he been restricted to using only a pentatonic scale instead of a diatonic one (assuming the scale does not matter at all for "expression of soul"?) I highly doubt it....

>"And one of them (reasons for not making a living off music) is that my talent is not at that level."
Right...I'm not saying any of this against you...I'm just pointing out that demanding "improve the composer to improve the music" is often a moot point when the composer is already working as hard as said person can to improve. Again I'm making the point you can't optimize a composer's ability...so why not pick something you can optimize across the board, like a scale system, to improve the chances of more great pieces of music being produced?
If people from an army stood by every musician...each with a whip sitting with them in a jail cell all day demanding they practice 12 hours a day would we suddenly have tons of great music due to "lots of composers who finally were forced to use 12TET to it's maximum capability"? Another example...you can't force "optimization of the composer".

On 6 May 2010, at 11:53 AM, Michael wrote:

>
>
> Chris>"You seem to be bent on creating a "song smith " tuning > because that will somehow solve all problems."
> Quite the opposite. Song Smith (from what I understand of it) > is built upon the idea of making "people's lives easier" by > limiting them to popular chord progressions. The purpose of my > scale is to make more chords easily possible, thus eliminating much > of the tendencies of composers to look for common chord > progressions to achieve consonance and listen-ability. The only > thing my scale and Song Smith have in common is the idea of making > music easier to write...just like virtually every successful > consumer product makes things easier to do (IE this is a typical > pre-requisite for anything productive). The big difference is > only Song Smith does it by trimming down possibilities (IE limiting > you to only certain "popular" chords to certain melodies) and my > scale system does it by expanding possibilities (IE enabling almost > any chord with almost any melody).
>

But music is not only melody accompanied by chords, there's much more... To see music only this way is rather limited. Music can exist even without a melody, without chords, or both, and still it will be called music.

> >"The problem a composer faces with composition is NOT selecting > chords or even creating a melody. For heaven's sake there are > algorithmic
> programs that can select these elements by applying the rules of > common practice - even constrained to a style like Bach used or > Mozart"
> I don't even quite believe that, you sent an article on it > which well proved exactly the opposite to a large extent. People > actually loved the compositions it made but soon as they learned > they were from a machine they pretended to hate it as they > "couldn't stand the fact a machine's output made them emotional to > the point of crying".
> That "program" was like Song Smith in some ways but again with > one huge exception...it was designed to incorporate a degree of > "humanization" or random unpredictability typical of a human > composer while following the general style on the whole.
> That program, to a fair extent, expanded possibilities rather > than limited them (unlike Song Smith)...and thus actually managed > some great albeit very "anti-Darwinian" compositions. The next > step in my mind would be imitating the style of a great composer > who has yet to live in this world...and I believe the chances of > that are only possible with human composition...and the chances of > it happening are again enhanced with new scale systems.

Composer rarely uses random processes, most of his output is logical and intentionally done. Random process and chance can be used as a part of compositional language, but on higher level it's only logical part of composition, not the main principle. There can be found some exceptions.

>
> >"Composition is about communication. It is about soul. And you > can't package that into a tuning any more than you can a computer."
> And even if you have such soul, if the tuning you are given > blocks you from communication it the way you want it...your musical > expression falls further short of the emotion it is created to > represent. Easy example: would Bach have been able to express > himself as well had he been restricted to using only a pentatonic > scale instead of a diatonic one (assuming the scale does not matter > at all for "expression of soul"?) I highly doubt it....

Probably he would, because scale is only material, not compositional tool or target. Even with simple material it's possible to do a lot if you have tools and knowledge. Bach had this on the highest level of his times, but of course those times they didn't use pure pentatonics so he didn't have such crazy ideas. But maybe Mr. Mussorgski explained him something about when they met in the heaven....
More important than scale or tuning itself are intervals and their direction, also work with subsets, and of course the other elements of musical language... But all this is part of compositional skill. Scale itself doesn't mean so much.

>
> >"And one of them (reasons for not making a living off music) is > that my talent is not at that level."
> Right...I'm not saying any of this against you...I'm just > pointing out that demanding "improve the composer to improve the > music" is often a moot point when the composer is already working > as hard as said person can to improve. Again I'm making the point > you can't optimize a composer's ability...so why not pick something > you can optimize across the board, like a scale system, to improve > the chances of more great pieces of music being produced?
> If people from an army stood by every musician...each with a > whip sitting with them in a jail cell all day demanding they > practice 12 hours a day would we suddenly have tons of great music > due to "lots of composers who finally were forced to use 12TET to > it's maximum capability"? Another example...you can't force > "optimization of the composer".

Scale system or tuning itself will not improve the composer, just widen his material and inspire. The way how to work with this material is again upon him, and hardly can be directly derived from the scale or tuning itself. There are exceptions.

Daniel Forro

I see where Michael is coming from, and I think to a degree all of us here agree with him on one point: a composer's interaction with a scale/tuning has a definite effect on the compositions said composer can produce--much like the way a poet's native language will affect the poems said poet can produce. However, I know the major point where *I* disagree with Michael is in the idea that an all-consonant scale will be ideal for composition. I think the best music I've heard is great because of the interplay of consonance and dissonance, and that just as "good" is often said to need "evil" in order to exist, consonance needs dissonance in order to be effective musically.

I turned to microtonality in part because I found 12-tET to be too lacking in interesting dissonances, and I think one has to work mighty HARD in 12-tET to make dissonant music...look at all the trouble the serialists went through! In 12-tET, there are really only two dissonances: the tritone and the minor second, and even those can sound perfectly consonant in many different contexts. As Michael says, clusters of multiple consecutive minor seconds are dissonant in 12-tET, and they're really about the ONLY way to achieve dissonance in that tuning...IMHO, that's not a very interesting way to go about making dissonance.

What I like about my favorite scales (though I don't expect anyone else to like them as much as I do) is that they locate dissonance in unusual but interesting places, so that familiar intervals get recontextualized. For me, the "perfect scale" would absolutely NOT be one devoid of dissonance, but one wherein the dissonances are placed exactly where I want them (wherever that might be), and wherein the consonances take a little bit more work to really bring out. It would be a scale that FORCES me to think, not one that quantizes even the most banal compositions into a pristine and polished jewel. For of course such a dissonance-free scale would be an unavoidable equalizer among composers. There has to be some measure of challenge to music, or else what is to distinguish the masters from the amateurs? When any note can be combined just as well with any other, how is one to choose notes effectively?

Though of course whether Michael has actually produced the scale he is seeking is another matter entirely, but I'm afraid I'm not too interested in that (given my staunch disagreement with the philosophical underpinnings of his quest).

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Chris>"You seem to be bent on creating a "song smith " tuning because that will somehow solve all problems."
> Quite the opposite. Song Smith (from what I understand of it) is built upon the idea of making "people's lives easier" by limiting them to popular chord progressions. The purpose of my scale is to make more chords easily possible, thus eliminating much of the tendencies of composers to look for common chord progressions to achieve consonance and listen-ability. The only thing my scale and Song Smith have in common is the idea of making music easier to write...just like virtually every successful consumer product makes things easier to do (IE this is a typical pre-requisite for anything productive). The big difference is only Song Smith does it by trimming down possibilities (IE limiting you to only certain "popular" chords to certain melodies) and my scale system does it by expanding possibilities (IE enabling almost any chord with almost any melody).
>
> >"The problem a composer faces with composition is NOT selecting chords or even creating a melody. For heaven's sake there are algorithmic
> programs that can select these elements by applying the rules of common practice - even constrained to a style like Bach used or Mozart"
> I don't even quite believe that, you sent an article on it which well proved exactly the opposite to a large extent. People actually loved the compositions it made but soon as they learned they were from a machine they pretended to hate it as they "couldn't stand the fact a machine's output made them emotional to the point of crying".
> That "program" was like Song Smith in some ways but again with one huge exception...it was designed to incorporate a degree of "humanization" or random unpredictability typical of a human composer while following the general style on the whole.
> That program, to a fair extent, expanded possibilities rather than limited them (unlike Song Smith)...and thus actually managed some great albeit very "anti-Darwinian" compositions. The next step in my mind would be imitating the style of a great composer who has yet to live in this world...and I believe the chances of that are only possible with human composition...and the chances of it happening are again enhanced with new scale systems.
>
> >"Composition is about communication. It is about soul. And you can't package that into a tuning any more than you can a computer."
> And even if you have such soul, if the tuning you are given blocks you from communication it the way you want it...your musical expression falls further short of the emotion it is created to represent. Easy example: would Bach have been able to express himself as well had he been restricted to using only a pentatonic scale instead of a diatonic one (assuming the scale does not matter at all for "expression of soul"?) I highly doubt it....
>
> >"And one of them (reasons for not making a living off music) is that my talent is not at that level."
> Right...I'm not saying any of this against you...I'm just pointing out that demanding "improve the composer to improve the music" is often a moot point when the composer is already working as hard as said person can to improve. Again I'm making the point you can't optimize a composer's ability...so why not pick something you can optimize across the board, like a scale system, to improve the chances of more great pieces of music being produced?
> If people from an army stood by every musician...each with a whip sitting with them in a jail cell all day demanding they practice 12 hours a day would we suddenly have tons of great music due to "lots of composers who finally were forced to use 12TET to it's maximum capability"? Another example...you can't force "optimization of the composer".
>

Daniel>"But music is not only melody accompanied by chords, there's much more... To see music only this way is rather limited. Music can exist
even without a melody, without chords, or both, and still it will be called music."
True, but how common is it for people worldwide to like said kind of music? Another way to say it...If it were so popular why are we stuck with 12TET as king other than it's supposed harmonic and melody capabilities? Personally I've seen things like a group called Juju Nation (an African Orchestra...literally) and often they'll go songs focusing on nothing but phrasing of sounds and drums (albeit with some amazing poly-rhythms)...and to me they're great but in reality they can barely make a living off music nor have I in any other case heard of a local group playing rhythm-only music.

>"Random process and chance can be used as a part of compositional language, but on higher level it's only logical part of composition, not the main principle."
Right...and that's exactly what the program did. Kept to the main theory for the most part and added just enough randomness on the side to make it human. And when I say randomness I don't mean just throwing in random notes, but throwing in anything, even with a very logical path, which in some way deviates from the composers usual style.

>"Scale system or tuning itself will not improve the composer, just widen his material and inspire. "
If I get it right though...what you're saying isn't much different from what I was implying. That is...the idea the scales and tuning gives more options for chords and melody...two of the key things that inspire many if not most musician...and such options are likely to entice/inspire the composer to do something both great and completely fresh/new. The odd thing about the program above (not Song Smith obviously...but the one that composed in emulated styles of Bach, Beethoven, etc.) was that it was able to make great compositions, but only ones that, for the most part, were not fresh or new and generally stuck to the styles that said-above artists used most often.

>"The way how to work with this material is again upon him, and hardly can be directly derived from the scale or tuning itself. There are exceptions."
Right...but (as I understand it) the material is not derived from but rather expressed through the tunings. In the "odd" (I'm being sarcastic, I don't think it's that odd at all) case that the mood a composer wants to hit isn't able to be expressed anywhere more than "half-fully" in 12TET having other scales available seems to be an obvious advantage. In a way, I figure having only 12TET and slight variants of it available is like having Tiger Woods head out on the golf course with only one type of club (that is really only made for a few types of shots) for the entire game.

>"I think to a degree all of us here agree with him on one point: a
composer's interaction with a scale/tuning has a definite effect on the
compositions said composer can produce--much like the way a poet's
native language will affect the poems said poet can produce."
Right...it provides a quick path to expressiveness and often allows more ways for expression (IE a poet in his native tongue has more word choices and can, say, choose the "synonym" that suits what he/she wants to express exactly rather than use a word that by and large just estimates it).

>"I think the best music I've heard is great because of the interplay of
consonance and dissonance, and that just as "good" is often said to
need "evil" in order to exist, consonance needs dissonance in order to
be effective musically."
Right...but then the question becomes how consonant or dissonant do you need to get to capture this contrast. And my point there becomes...it's generally better, far as listeners are concerned, to have the interplay between these two be between mildly dissonant and very consonant. (as, admittedly, 12TET does this to an extent) than between mildly dissonant and very dissonant. One need not get knee deep in dissonance in order to promote this consonance/dissonance contrast.

>"For me, the "perfect scale" would absolutely NOT be one devoid of
dissonance, but one wherein the dissonances are placed exactly where I
want them (wherever that might be), and wherein the consonances take a
little bit more work to really bring out."
Well...no scale is ever going to be devoid of dissonance, just as no scale is ever going to be completely devoid of consonance. I'm still trying to figure out why you appear to think high dissonance is the best way to get contrast for musicians on the average (if that's what you're implying). Sure, there will always be composers "on the edge" who revel in balancing high dissonances and a few consonances in such a clever way it still manages to feel balanced...but I doubt it is a path that will be taken seriously by a majority of non-academic composers.

>"It would be a scale that FORCES me to think, not one that quantizes
even the most banal compositions into a pristine and polished jewel."
Fair enough...my ideals are based on the assumption that the average composer wants more "jewels" and more variety in harmony available for less work. But that's just a basic product concept...one virtually all businesses use: more for less and/or ease of use. I doubt many people want their scales to feel like Rubix Cubes. If I purposefully made computer programs for my job to be as hard to use as Rubix Cubes are to solve and then said something like "well, I did it partly to help weed out incompetent users/'composers' "...I wouldn't have a job...

>"For of course such a dissonance-free scale would be an unavoidable
equalizer among composers. There has to be some measure of challenge to
music, or else what is to distinguish the masters from the amateurs?
When any note can be combined just as well with any other, how is one
to choose notes effectively?"
They don't fit equally well...anyhow such a structure is not mathematically possible even if one wanted it.
>"There has to be some measure of challenge to
music, or else what is to distinguish the masters from the amateurs?"
Well let's see....the actual mood/emotion in the song, the phrasing of the song, the instrumental arrangements used, effects used, timbre of the vocals, timing and choice of drums, tempo. The difference I see in having a scale that keeps dissonance from becoming annoyingly high (to most people) regardless of chords chosen is it forces musicians to compete on the level of actual feeling/soul/imagination in their piece rather than how well they know the scale (as it becomes very easy to know a scale).

>"Though of course whether Michael has actually produced the scale he is
seeking is another matter entirely, but I'm afraid I'm not too
interested in that (given my staunch disagreement with the
philosophical underpinnings of his quest)."
Hmm...well let me get this right. I greatly support what you are doing...proven that "wheat" can be extracted from the "chaff" of even the "worst" scales and fooling people "myself included" into thinking any scale can be easy to use judging from the quality of much of your music. And I also support your making music the way you make it and think a lot of people WILL want to listen.

But the other side of me is thinking in terms of realistic marketing and the quest to get the average musician interested in micro-tonal music...and, feel free to argue against this, but I doubt the "lure of solving the scale/tonality equivalent of a Rubix Cube" for as finding and balancing the good points of generally dissonant scales is going to make many people want to hop on board. At best a figure a musician will hear a piece you make, think it's pretty cool, try the scale you use themselves, become frustrated rather quickly, and give up (minus a few people with very good "ears" for playing by ear). So while I think your idealisms are definitely interesting, I don't see how they'd make major impact in the musical world far as an alternative composition standard in the near future.

-Michael

Michael,

you keep imposing your private templates on other composers and musicians, and it is getting irritating.  Your criterion of "making a living off one's music" seems to be the primary test of how much "people" (which people?) like the music, which seems to be the primary measure of the music's value. Probably no major European composer before the Baroque period made a living off his music; they were usually working for the church or for a patron (or in Gesualdo's case, a nobleman). There was more of a free market in the Baroque period, but most  composers still worked for church institutions or were patronized by the nobility. Bach didn't make a living off his music; he was hired to supervise sacred music and teach Latin, and the church authorities were irritated he wrote as much as he did.  He wouldn't have survived as a free-lancer, *and* people in Leipzig didn't seem to especially like his music.  Beethoven wouldn't have made a living off his music
if his primary patron hadn't been the brother of the emperor. Schubert didn't make a living off his music; he had a strong following among his friends, but he didn't make money from his compositions. Schumann didn't really make a living off his music  In contrast, nor did Wagner until toward the end of his life, nor did Bruckner, nor did Mahler, and so on. On the other hand Clementi made a lot of money off his music, each piece worked out by assistants according to formula he provided, each new work as banal as the previous one (this is surely an early case of algorithmic composition!). 

In fact, very few of what most of us view as the most significant European composers made a living off their music, whereas in general a few of the less interesting ones did.  There is not much historical support for your thesis, at least if you have any interest in originality and high quality.

As for other kinds of music than melodies supported by chords, you ask, "[H]ow common is it for people worldwide to like said kind of music?"  My answer is "Very common for almost all cultures for almost the entire history of mankind."  Perhaps you should take a serious course in Music Anthropology so that you might understand how broad the range of humankind's musical creativity is and has been.  Pop-influenced groups are not the measure of all things.

David Cope's algorithmic compositions (which is the ones I believe you are talking about) are not "great" compositions, they are generic compositions; the genre is "Bach style" or "Mozart style." I find almost no personality in them; it's a bit like seeing a hologram of a real person. 

Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Thu, 5/6/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 10:35 AM

Daniel>"But music is not only melody accompanied by chords, there's much more... To see music only this way is rather limited. Music can exist

even without a melody, without chords, or both, and still it will be called music."
    True, but how common is it for people worldwide to like said kind of music?   Another way to say it...If it were so popular why are we stuck with 12TET as king other than it's supposed harmonic and melody capabilities?   Personally I've seen things like a group called Juju Nation (an African Orchestra... literally) and often they'll go songs focusing on nothing but phrasing of sounds and drums (albeit with some amazing poly-rhythms) ...and to me they're great but in reality they can barely make a living off music nor have I in any other case heard of a local group playing rhythm-only music.

>"Random process and chance can be used as a part of compositional language, but on higher level it's only logical part of composition, not the main principle."
  Right...and that's exactly what the program did.  
Kept to the main theory for the most part and added just enough randomness on the side to make it human.  And when I say randomness I don't mean just throwing in random notes, but throwing in anything, even with a very logical path, which in some way deviates from the composers usual style.

>"Scale system or tuning itself will not improve the composer, just widen his material and inspire. "
   If I get it right though...what you're saying isn't much different from what I was implying.  That is...the idea the scales and tuning gives more options for chords and melody...two of the key things that inspire many if not most musician...and such options are likely to entice/inspire the composer to do something both great and completely fresh/new.  The odd thing about the program above (not Song Smith obviously... but the one that composed in emulated styles of Bach, Beethoven, etc.) was that it was able to make great
compositions, but only ones that, for the most part, were not fresh or new and generally stuck to the styles that said-above artists used most often.

>"The way how to work with this material is again upon him, and hardly can be directly derived from the scale or tuning itself. There are exceptions."
Right...but (as I understand it) the material is not derived from but rather expressed through the tunings.  In the "odd" (I'm being sarcastic, I don't think it's that odd at all) case that the mood a composer wants to hit isn't able to be expressed anywhere more than "half-fully" in 12TET having other scales available seems to be an obvious advantage.  In a way, I figure having only 12TET and slight variants of it available is like having Tiger Woods head out on the golf course with only one type of club (that is really only made for a few types of shots) for the entire game.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
The odd thing about the program above (not Song Smith obviously...but the one that composed in emulated styles of Bach, Beethoven, etc.) was that it was able to make great compositions, but only ones that, for the most part, were not fresh or new and generally stuck to the styles that said-above artists used most often.

If you are talking about the work of Copes you are overselling it.

Dr. Cox>"Your criterion of "making a living off one's music" seems to be the
primary test of how much "people" (which people?) like the music"
I am just using that as one example...it certainly isn't the only criterion. I use it because I figured, for example, saying something like "making top 40 music" or "having a 'household name' as a musician" would censor out a whole lot more musicians than the "making a living off one's music" criteria would .

>"Probably no major European composer before the Baroque period made a
living off his music;"
Of course...but (and it seems we frequently have this conflict)...I'm talking specifically and exclusively about modern music and musicians. In general I figure if a musician catches enough ears with his/her music...that person is quite likely to turn that talent into a way to make a living. Is that really such an odd assumption to make?

>"Beethoven wouldn't have made a living off his music if his primary
patron hadn't been the brother of the emperor."
Now this I find amusing...it sounds like Beethoven had the equivalent of a "major label owner" for a friend...the emperor was like his personal "P Diddy". :-D

>"On the other hand Clementi made a lot of money off his music, each
piece worked out by assistants according to formula he provided, each
new work as banal as the previous one (this is surely an early case of
algorithmic composition! ). "
And, sadly, so do the Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake-s of today. Particularly at the top of the (now dying) major record labels you have particularly bad artists. But if you go to a local bar or club and hear a live band who is actually making a full time living off music...there's a good chance they got there due to talent and not some sort of bizarre marketing boost or fad. That's my point.

>"[H]ow common is it for people worldwide to like said kind of music?"
My answer is "Very common for almost all cultures for almost the entire
history of mankind." Perhaps you should take a serious course in Music
Anthropology"

Here we go again where I'm talking about the present state of music and you are talking about the history of music (or so it seems). Here's a counter question...name some songs that have become hits in America or Europe since the 80's and after (IE made between 1980 and now) which don't use both chords and melodies?

>"David Cope's algorithmic compositions (which is the ones I believe you
are talking about) are not "great" compositions, they are generic
compositions; the genre is "Bach style" or "Mozart style." I find almost no personality in them; it's a bit like seeing a hologram of a real
person. "
Who knows...I might think that same thing after hearing his "artificial-intelligence-composed" music....by any chance do you know where I can find mp3's or MIDIs of his (AKA his computer's) work?
Even if neither of us find personality in them...I think it's more than worth noting he managed to trick so many people into thinking the compositions were highly emotional. Although I will again add that bringing the style a classical composer had and making a fresh new style are two completely different things. Hence my stress on the alternative of having a scale which "solves it's own music theory so the musician playing it will have more energy left to focus on emotion without worrying about complying with music theory".

_,_._,___

Gene>"If you are talking about the work of Copes you are overselling it."
Yes I was talking about David Cope...only the name escaped me when I wrote the original message.
But how do you feel I'm "overselling it" so far as his AI-produced music?

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

> >"David Cope's algorithmic compositions (which is the ones I believe you
> are talking about) are not "great" compositions, they are generic
> compositions; the genre is "Bach style" or "Mozart style." I find almost no personality in them; it's a bit like seeing a hologram of a real
> person. "
> Who knows...I might think that same thing after hearing his "artificial-intelligence-composed" music....by any chance do you know where I can find mp3's or MIDIs of his (AKA his computer's) work?

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Gene>"If you are talking about the work of Copes you are overselling it."
> Yes I was talking about David Cope...only the name escaped me when I wrote the original message.
> But how do you feel I'm "overselling it" so far as his AI-produced music?

It's not great music even after he's finished cherry-picking for the best examples. It would be interesting to see what grade they would get if slipped into a stack of assignments in a composition class, where the idea was to write a sonata movement in the style of Mozart or whatever. I think there would be a lot of red ink, and comments such as that "that isn't *like* Mozart, you are quoting him" or "this transition is awkward", etc but I would really like to hear from someone who has taught composition on that score.

Chris>"Not two weeks ago you wanted to just hear any "popular" piece
that used minor 2nds in a chord - and that is now not sufficient."

I figured it would make a more obvious goal. My original point was admittedly that "few minor seconds and used in chords"...thus indicating what I believed to be a problem with 12TET's ability to accommodate for many chords using minor seconds. You in part disproved this by giving tons of examples of chords, but a huge majority of which had B C E type of interval structure (such as the common inverted major 7th chord). So the counter-examples you gave were almost all completely based on only one permutation (and, to some extent, were really just variations on that single interval structure). Which again...I'm arguing...is proof that 12TET can only use semi-tones in chords in fairly limited ways.

So when I said
"Show me a piece written in 12TET which uses consecutive minor 2nds such as C C# D or D D# E which doesn't sound terribly tense and I'll believe 12TET encompasses the limits of narrow-spaced- interval harmony. :-D "

....I did so as I wanted to give a much more obvious challenge than spending a whole lot of time trying to make a challenge with, for example, making chords containing the interval structure in chords like B C F or B C D consonant. Bottom line again: to make consonant chords in 12TET you are limited in the types of intervals you can place around that minor second without causing dissonance. And the most obvious example of an interval that would not sound consonant next to a minor second is (of course) another minor-second.

>"So... you use intervals > minor 2nds and would dare me to not sound more dissonant with actually using minor 2nds? This is a fool's errand."
Indeed, because obviously a minor second is an incredibly dissonant interval and the closer to 1.05 the worse according to the theory of critical band dissonance. What I'm again saying here is...12TET does a lousy job at following that theory and obviously almost anything further away from the 12TET semitone of 1.05 will sound not just less dissonant but significantly so. I you really realize the minor 2nd has consonance problems, why are you going out on a limb to promote how supposedly flexible it is in consonant chords?

>"And.... out of tune is something different than clusters. I've used clusters. A lot. I've never heard "out of tune". Ever."
Well what diatonic scale used in modern popular music contains all of the following notes: C C# D? At least one tone has to be out of key...and therefore obviously also "out of tune". And since when are tonal clusters held in sustain as chords in popular music...I'd be interested to hear proof of that as well.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> It's not great music even after he's finished cherry-picking for the best examples.

I've heard more recent works with his newer AI engine, and some of it sounds very natural and somewhat substantial. He had been somewhat out of sight for a while, but there is a good recent profile of him and his work:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/

If I can find it, I'll dig up the link to a video story on some AI/robotics/music guys at a university (damn, maybe in Atlanta?) that have a robot playing a marimba in a jazz trio, and improvising in response to the other musicians in real time. If I could combine these two approaches, and have a dedicated AI assistant that I could bounce ideas off of, play together and come up with some basic stuff, I think it would be pretty dang cool.

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

> http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/

Wow, big step forward. Still not great music, but it sounds like real composing to me, not exercises for a composition class. So far the biggest triumph of AI has been playing chess, but this is interesting.

 Michael,

you continue to alternate between speaking in terms of universals and universal judgments (what "people" love, "great" music, etc.), but when pressed for details, you keep returning to modern popular music, as though there were no past before 1980 and no other music besides "hits".  If you use universal terms, you have to accept that history exists--indeed, in continues to inform the how field of what we call "music"--and that popular music is not the only type of music that exists.

I am not involved in popular music, and I don't really care what the latest hit is.   When I speak about music in terms of composers and compositions, I am speaking about the art of music, not music as a commercial enterprise.  

When you use the word "composer," you are using a term that bears some honor thanks to the outstanding composer of the past whose works raised came to be viewed as core expressions of our culture (most of whom never wrote a piece that was a "hit" in their own day). You speak about "great music" in a respectful tone because we have examples of pieces of such outstanding quality that the art of music is unthinkable without them. These terms have a history, and that history is part of what they mean now.    You speak about how new tuning systems might allow composers to write great pieces, etc. but it seems as though what you are really talking about is songwriters writing hits.  I think a lot of the misunderstandings that have arisen have resulted from your not making this distinction clear.

Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Thu, 5/6/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 6:53 PM

Dr. Cox>"Your criterion of "making a living off one's music" seems to be the
primary test of how much "people" (which people?) like the music"
    I am just using that as one example...it certainly isn't the only criterion.  I use it because I figured, for example, saying something like "making top 40 music" or "having a 'household name' as a musician" would censor out a whole lot more musicians than the "making a living off one's music" criteria would . 

>"Probably no major European composer before the Baroque period made a
living off his music;"
   Of course...but (and it seems we frequently have this conflict)... I'm talking specifically and exclusively about modern music and musicians.  In general I figure if a musician catches enough ears with his/her music...that person is quite likely to turn that talent into a way to make a living.  Is that really such an odd assumption to make?

>"Beethoven wouldn't have made a living off his music if his primary
patron hadn't been the brother of the emperor."
Now this I find amusing...it sounds like Beethoven had the equivalent of a "major label owner" for a friend...the emperor was like his personal "P Diddy". :-D

>"On the other hand Clementi made a lot of money off his music, each
piece worked out by assistants according to formula he provided, each
new work as banal as the previous one (this is surely an early case of
algorithmic composition! ).  "
    And, sadly, so do the Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake-s of today.  Particularly at the top of the (now dying) major record labels you have particularly bad artists.  But if you go to a local bar or club and hear a live band who is actually making a full time living off music...there' s a good chance they got there due to talent and not some sort of bizarre marketing boost or fad.  That's my point.

>"[H]ow common is it for people worldwide to like said kind of music?" 
My answer is "Very common for almost all cultures for almost the entire
history of mankind."  Perhaps you should take a serious course in Music
Anthropology"

   Here we go again where I'm talking about the present state of music and you are talking about the history of music (or so it seems).  Here's a counter question...name some songs that have become hits in America or Europe since the 80's and after (IE made between 1980 and now) which don't use both chords and melodies?

>"David Cope's algorithmic compositions (which is the ones I believe you
are talking about) are not "great" compositions, they are generic
compositions; the genre is "Bach style" or "Mozart style." I find almost
no personality in them; it's a bit like seeing a hologram of a real
person. "
   Who knows...I might think that same thing after hearing his "artificial- intelligence- composed" music....by any chance do you know where I can find mp3's or MIDIs of his (AKA his computer's) work?
    Even if neither of us find personality in them...I think it's more than worth noting he managed to trick so many people into thinking the compositions were highly emotional.  Although I will again add that bringing the style a classical composer had and making a fresh new style are two completely different things.  Hence my stress on the alternative of having a scale which "solves it's own music theory so the musician playing it will have more energy left to focus on emotion without worrying about complying with music theory".

_,_._,___

Michael,

you continue to alternate between speaking in
terms of universals and universal judgments (what "people" love,
"great" music, etc.), but when pressed for details, you keep
returning to modern popular music, as though there were no past before 1980 and
no other music besides "hits".  If you use universal terms, you
have to accept that history exists--indeed, in continues to inform the  field of what we call "music"--and that popular music is not the only
type of music that exists.

I am not involved in popular music, and I don't
really care what the latest hit is.   When I speak about music in terms of
composers and compositions, I am speaking about the art of music, not music as
a commercial enterprise.  

When you use the word "composer," you
are using a term that bears some honor thanks to the outstanding composers of
the past whose works  came to be viewed as core expressions of our
culture (most of whom never wrote a piece that was a "hit" in their
own day). You speak about "great music" in a respectful tone because
we have examples of pieces of such outstanding quality that the art of music is
unthinkable without them. These terms have a history, and that history is part
of what they mean now.    
You speak about how new tuning systems
might allow composers to write great pieces, etc. but it seems as though what
you are really talking about is songwriters writing hits.  I think a lot
of the misunderstandings that have arisen have resulted from your not making
this distinction clear.

Franklin

> Wow, big step forward. Still not great music, but it sounds like real
> composing to me, not exercises for a composition class. So far the biggest
> triumph of AI has been playing chess, but this is interesting.
>

Not great music yet indeed.
I'll even say that within a month I'll have produced better results.
And in pure JI, and with a pure non human interaction algorithm (Cope's
interacting with his algorithm so it's not fully AI composed music)

Marcel

Dr. Cox>"you continue to alternate between speaking in
terms of universals and universal judgments (what "people" love,
"great" music, etc.), but when pressed for details, you keep
returning to modern popular music, as though there were no past"
Right...I'm talking about what people "love" far as music as opposed to what people "love". For example, at one time people "loved" Gregorian chant and only the very purest of intervals...but much of what is loved today quite counters much of that idealism....for example.

>"as though there were no past before 1980 and
no other music besides "hits"."
Of course there was a past...but only for a select few does the past generate quick and direct interest in composing music.
I am trying to figure out a way to advertise micro-tonal music to the current public and get them to take it seriously. An obvious way to do that seems to be to look at what has advertised well to the public in recent history. Doing otherwise would be like using trends in computing in the 1960's to design systems for today's market demands.

>"I am not involved in popular music, and I don't
really care what the latest hit is. When I speak about music in terms of
composers and compositions, I am speaking about the art of music, not music as
a commercial enterprise."
Actually, so ultimately do I. The problems I see are that
A) You obviously need composers to make music. The more people competing as composers and attracted to composing music...the better chance more of them in total will create great music.
B) Far as micro-tonal music...we lack that sort of competition. There are tons of could-be-great-microtonal musicians running around composing 12TET and ignoring micro-tonal music. To bring the composers to micro-tonal music...we must first convince them the switch to micro-tonal is worth it...and showing them a song with modern techniques and values yet micro-tonal under-lyings is IMVHO a great way to attract them into micro-tonal composition. In other words, only a limited number of musicians in academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach into micro-tonal...but if someone were to write more popular-style music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to their every-day compositional style is likely higher.

>"When you use the word "composer," you
are using a term that bears some honor thanks to the outstanding composers of
the past whose works came to be viewed as core expressions of our
culture (most of whom never wrote a piece that was a "hit" in their
own day)."
It seems you can't get past the idea that I'm trying to introduce people to micro-tonality on their level rather than force them to directly refer to the greats of the past...and yet that I also greatly respect past composers. I also greatly respect the inventors of the first computers and early video gaming and realize the rest of what happend was directly influenced by them. But I also realize almost no one would take me seriously if I used a Commodore 64 from 1980 as an example of "why you should love computers"....many people would likely get so impatient and annoyed with me for "bragging about inferior technology" they wouldn't want to stick around to learn the history.

On the other hand, if a composer's attention to micro-tonality is grabbed by a pop-piece and then expands into its deeper roots like Bohlen-Pierce, mean-tone, and other constructs...more power to them! But I don't believe in suddenly forcing education or doctrines on people but rather, reeling them in with marketable material first and then letting the more advanced of them discover the roots. :-)

>"You speak about how new tuning systems
might allow composers to write great pieces, etc. but it seems as though what
you are really talking about is songwriters writing hits."
I am actually speaking about both a system that, on one hand, makes composing easier for the average musician and, on another hand, has the flexibility needed to create the sort of more complex great songs that we regard in history as "classics". Who says you have to have one at the expense of the other?

Hi Michael,

I am trying to figure out a way to advertise micro-tonal music to the
> current public and get them to take it seriously.

The only way the general public will ever take microtonal music seriously is
when great microtonal music is made that becomes popular with the public.
This can be done in 2 ways I think.
One is to retune existing music to sound better and "in tune" with the
public's ear.
Second one is to make new music that the public likes and sounds "in tune"
with the public's ear.
The second way, making great new microtonal music, has more potential to
reach a wide public.

All other ways will fail for sure.

Marcel

>"Second one is to make new music that the public likes and sounds "in tune" with the public's ear."
I agree, this is by far the better solution. One additional requirement would likely be that the new music created sound significantly different than 12TET music in many ways...enough so people see there's an obvious difference and don't think "but I can do almost the same thing on plain old 12TET instruments, so why switch?".

Just a few notes...try these dyads (if you haven't already)

11/8
11/9
11/6
7/4
12/11
22/15
5/3 (yes even this...the so called 12TET "equivalent" of 1.68179 is over 15.5 cents off this JI tone!

They all, at least to my ear, have most of if not all of the consonance of the nearest 12TET intervals/dyads and sound distinctly different!

I think using such intervals (plus maybe a few other) along with several common practice intervals may well be a key in unlocking "new music that sounds 'in tune' ".

Michael spoke: and showing them a song with modern techniques and
values yet micro-tonal under-lyings is IMVHO a great way to attract
them into micro-tonal composition.

I've been saying this for a while, I'm glad you came around.

Michael spoke: In other words, only a limited number of musicians in
academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach
into micro-tonal...but if someone were to write more popular-style
music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to
their every-day compositional style is likely higher.

My classical guitar teacher put it this way.

classical music is a great film. popular music is a cartoon.

While there is some cross-fertilization (always has been) popular
music and classical music are truly two different things.

Chris

And for those non-academics and anti-classical music

I cut my teeth on Beatles and Black Sabbath - I love my rock n roll
And then I got into the classical guitar / music theory curriculum and
found Villa Lobos and Segovia.

I really appreciate both. But I listen with two different ears. There
are places where they meet (listen to Shostakovitch's 14 symphony!!)
and some 70's art rock - but if you compare The Cure to Bach... well.

People value popular music for its directness and simplicity. So
therefore it is mostly direct and simple.

Chris

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Michael spoke: and showing them a song with modern techniques and
> values yet micro-tonal under-lyings is IMVHO a great way to attract
> them into micro-tonal composition.
>
> I've been saying this for a while, I'm glad you came around.
>
> Michael spoke:  In other words, only a limited number of musicians in
> academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach
> into micro-tonal...but if someone were to write more popular-style
> music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to
> their every-day compositional style is likely higher.
>
>
> My classical guitar teacher put it this way.
>
> classical music is a great film. popular music is a cartoon.
>
> While there is some cross-fertilization (always has been) popular
> music and classical music are truly two different things.
>
> Chris
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> Not great music yet indeed.
> I'll even say that within a month I'll have produced better results.

You know, you ought to just shut up for once and produce something, and then let everyone else decide. It's always "I'll do this" or "I'll do that", and so far you haven't produced anything but some dorky retunings of minor pieces by Beethoven.

Marcel, you can go a long ways on ego in this world, but your pronouncement/end-result ratio is basically zero. You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you produced first and talked later.

>Michael spoke: and showing them a song with modern techniques and
values yet micro-tonal under-lyings is IMVHO a great way to attract
them into micro-tonal composition.
Chris>"I've been saying this for a while, I'm glad you came around."
If you are saying what I believe you are...I completely agree. As in using the sort of emotional values/catchy-ness/balance that make 12TET popular music attractive but getting there using micro-tones.

>"Michael spoke: In other words, only a limited number of musicians in
academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach
into micro-tonal. ..but if someone were to write more popular-style
music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to
their every-day compositional style is likely higher."

Chris>"My classical guitar teacher put it this way. classical music is a great film. popular music is a cartoon. While there is some cross-fertilization (always has been) popular
music and classical music are truly two different things."

Agreed. The odd coincidence I find is that often if you want to get people to watch the "great film"...you often have to at least get them interested in the cartoon first. I used to go around trying to converse with friends about the mathematical beauty and background of micro-tonal music and they'd just give me a confused look and change the topic...quickly. Now I "know better" and often don't even call it "micro-tonal" but say something like "it's an elegant way to get new moods out of music" just show them what it sounds like. Some of them even get past the "cartoon" phase and ask about the hows and why's...and often then is the only "excuse" for me to start talking theories and history without driving those people away as listeners. :-)

On 7 May 2010, at 11:39 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> Michael spoke: In other words, only a limited number of musicians in
> academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach
> into micro-tonal...but if someone were to write more popular-style
> music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to
> their every-day compositional style is likely higher.
>
> My classical guitar teacher put it this way.
>
> classical music is a great film. popular music is a cartoon.
>
> While there is some cross-fertilization (always has been) popular
> music and classical music are truly two different things.
>
> Chris

Besides most of pop music is far behind the "high art" music concerning used means (chords, harmony, metrorhythmics, structure and other elements) and musical language, and is always derived from it. In fact there were not much innovations brought by popular music in purely musical parameters (I'm not talking about the styles).

So to expect that pop culture and its consumers will accept microtonality is far from reality when we consider how many compositional techniques of 20th century were still not accepted by pop. In fact pop musical language is 120 years or more in delay... I'm not talking about using of technology, electronic instruments etc., just about musical language. Of course we can find some exceptions.

Daniel Forro

Marcel,

You do have some interesting theories...but oddly enough I think Jon S. is dead-on here.

With your Beethoven rendition you have pretty much followed the path of your self-admittedly inferior suggestion #1 IE "trying to get people into micro-tonality simply by purifying existing songs".
You did make a computer program which could churn out some beautiful chord progressions. It was interesting...but still not quite a complete proof of compositional relevance of your theories to what we both agree is likely get people interested in micro-tonality: great and all-new music!

I would highly recommend you get on the bandwagon with Sean/Sevish's excellent "Split Notes" label and start composing songs for it. it's about time we got to hear your theories really hit the ground running in the production of all-new music! :-)

Chris> "classical music is a great film. popular music is a cartoon.While there is some cross-fertilization (always has been) popular music and classical music are truly two different things."

Daniel>"So to expect that pop culture and its consumers will accept micro-tonality is far from reality when we consider how many compositional techniques of 20th century were still not accepted by pop. In fact pop musical language is 120 years or more in delay..."

True, but in general that's compositional techniques, not tunings and scales. To an extent you have things like what Debussy does with modulation that can be considered somewhat as a different use of scale (although still within the 12TET tuning) that IMVHO should have been adopted by pop musicians but never really was. And, even then (IE in the case of Debussy) we're still dealing with this "locked" idea of "all intervals must be 12TET native intervals". Lord knows what sort of amazing things he would do in, say, 22TET.
But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords used in pop are not far behind...just used in a less complex manner IE it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or chords in one classical song.

With all due respect Michael how can you make this statement if you
haven't seriously studied classical music, let alone modern classical
music?

And lets not forget how advanced Jazz in general is. Jazz runs rings
around most pop music as well.

>     But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords used in pop are not far behind...just used in a less complex manner IE it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or chords in one classical song.
>

Michael,
Again you speak about what "people love," but I have no idea which people you are talking about, and I'm not sure that I care.  There are many different people in the world, and they love many different things.  This sort of grand statement is empirically meaningless.
From your closing sentence:"...to create the sort of more complex great songs that we regard in history as "classics".   This is an example of the sort of history I was talking about that informs the present. "We" recognize certain works as classics and use them as models for what we do at present.  This is how vital cultural traditions tend to work.
Elsewhere you write, "I also greatly respect past composers.  I also greatly respect the inventors of the first computers and early video gaming and realize the rest of what happend was directly influenced by them.  But I also realize almost no one would take me seriously if I used a Commodore 64 from 1980 as an example of 'why you should love computers.'"  This is an example of a viewpoint that treats history as "the past," a sort of quaint sideshow with no other purpose than to amuse present consumers.  
These two views of history don't fit in the same logical space.  The term for this is equivocation, and it is considered a logical error.
You write, "You obviously need composers to make music.  The more people competing as composers and attracted to composing music...the better chance more of them in total will create great music."  As of 20 years ago, there were over 10,000 people in the U.S.A who considered themselves composers.  This is exponentially more than fifty years ago not to speak of a hundred years ago. According to your theory, we should have at least several times as much great music now than a hundred years ago.  This has not proven to be the case; it is unlikely that your theory is correct.
You write, "In other words, only a limited number of musicians in academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach into micro-tonal. ..but if someone were to write more popular-style music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to their every-day compositional style is likely higher."  I've seen this pop up elsewhere in your posts: you distinguish "musicians in academia" from "modern musicians."  Musicians in academia are modern musicians, aren't they?  Or are you claiming that some people who are living now are more modern than others? On what basis?  If I may be so bold, it seems   that your criteria for being a "modern musician," include 1) being an average musician and  2) not knowing or caring very much about the theory or history of music. Thus, it appears that superb musicians and those who care deeply about the theory and history of music are old-fashioned musicians.   So if, for example,  someone
spends years learning to play and perceive complicated rhythms and microtonal systems, he or she is no longer a modern musician. An interesting theory.
If you want to compose music that attracts a large following, then more power to you.  In a sense, it really doesn't matter what your theories about what people will love really matter at all, because in your value system the acid test is sales. What you need to do now is write the music that millions of people will love...don't talk about it, do it. I would just request that you not try to impose your value system on others who don't share it.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 2:00 AM

Dr. Cox>"you continue to alternate between speaking in
terms of universals and universal judgments (what "people" love,
"great" music, etc.), but when pressed for details, you keep
returning to modern popular music, as though there were no past"
   Right...I'm talking about what people "love" far as music as opposed to what people "love".  For example, at one time people "loved" Gregorian chant and only the very purest of intervals... but much of what is loved today quite counters much of that idealism.... for example.

>"as though there were no past before 1980 and
no other music besides "hits"."
   Of course there was a past...but only for a select few does the past generate quick and direct interest in composing music. 
I am trying to figure out a way to advertise micro-tonal music to the current public and get them to take it seriously.  An obvious way to do that seems to be to look at what has advertised well to the public in recent history.  Doing otherwise would be like using trends in computing in the 1960's to design systems for today's market demands.

>"I am not involved in popular music, and I don't
really care what the latest hit is.   When I speak about music in terms of
composers and compositions, I am speaking about the art of music, not music as
a commercial enterprise."
  Actually, so ultimately do I.  The problems I see are that
A) You obviously need composers to make music.  The more people competing as composers and attracted to composing music...the better chance more of them in total will create great music.
B) Far as micro-tonal music...we lack that sort of competition.   There are tons of could-be-great- microtonal musicians running around composing 12TET and ignoring micro-tonal music.   To bring the composers to micro-tonal music...we must first convince them the switch to micro-tonal is worth it...and showing them a song with modern techniques and values yet micro-tonal under-lyings is IMVHO a great way to attract them into micro-tonal composition.  In other words, only a limited number of musicians in academia are likely to take note of, say, someone translating Bach into micro-tonal. ..but if someone were to write more popular-style
music the chance of modern musicians taking it seriously as valid to their every-day compositional style is likely higher.

>"When you use the word "composer," you
are using a term that bears some honor thanks to the outstanding composers of
the past whose works  came to be viewed as core expressions of our
culture (most of whom never wrote a piece that was a "hit" in their
own day)."
    It seems you can't get past the idea that I'm trying to introduce people to micro-tonality on their level rather than force them to directly refer to the greats of the past...and yet that I also greatly respect past composers.  I also greatly respect the inventors of the first computers and early video gaming and realize the rest of what happend was directly influenced by them.  But I also realize almost no one would take me seriously if I used a Commodore 64 from 1980 as an example of "why you should love computers".. ..many people would likely get so impatient and annoyed with me for "bragging about inferior technology" they wouldn't want to stick around to learn the history.  

    On the other hand, if a composer's attention to micro-tonality is grabbed by a pop-piece and then expands into its deeper roots like Bohlen-Pierce, mean-tone, and other constructs.. .more power to
them!  But I don't believe in suddenly forcing education or doctrines on people but rather, reeling them in with marketable material first and then letting the more advanced of them discover the roots. :-)

>"You speak about how new tuning systems
might allow composers to write great pieces, etc. but it seems as though what
you are really talking about is songwriters writing hits."
    I am actually speaking about both a system that, on one hand, makes composing easier for the average musician and, on another hand, has the flexibility needed to create the sort of more complex great songs that we regard in history as "classics".  Who says you have to have one at the expense of the other?

Michael,
Does the name "Duke Ellington" mean anything to you? Look at the harmonies of many of his songs. He knew Debussy's music, as did dozens of other jazz musicians. 
I forgot...Duke Ellington lived before 1980, so he's ancient history.  Actually, it appears that  everything that happened before 1980 is the dead past, so I guess we get to just make up history.  Is that what "modern musicians" do?

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 3:12 AM

Chris> "classical music is a great film. popular music is a cartoon.While there is some cross-fertilization (always has been) popular music and classical music are truly two different things."

Daniel>"So to expect that pop culture and its consumers will accept micro-tonality is far from reality when we consider how many compositional techniques of 20th century were still not accepted by pop. In fact pop musical language is 120 years or more in delay..."

    True, but in general that's compositional techniques, not tunings and scales.  To an extent you have things like what Debussy does with modulation that can be considered somewhat as a different use of scale (although still within the 12TET tuning) that IMVHO should have been adopted by pop musicians but never really was.  And, even then (IE in the case of Debussy) we're still dealing with this "locked" idea of "all intervals must be 12TET native intervals".  Lord knows what sort of amazing things he would do in, say, 22TET.
    But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords used in pop are not far behind...just
used in a less complex manner IE it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or chords in one classical song. 

Me>"But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords
used in pop are not far behind...just used in a less complex manner IE
it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques
or chords in one classical song."
Chris>"With all due respect Michael how can you make this statement if you haven't seriously studied classical music, let alone modern classical music?"

I'm not saying anything as a historical fact...but rather what I hear...and although I haven't studied classical music formally I certainly have listened to a good deal of it.
Or is this about to become an "elite argument" about who has the most advanced techniques regardless of what percentage of it people actually can digest or hear as unique?
If so, I swear, that's one of the sad reasons so many people are turned away from the arts of classical and jazz music...the elitist attitude of "you are too dumb/un-studied to hear the 'factual' brilliance of this type of music...it can't possibly have anything to do with the composers' inability to connect with you emotionally"

Michael, 

You wrote,  "But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords used in pop are not far behind...just used in a less complex manner IE it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or chords in one classical song."

Ok,here's a challenge: show me 20 different pop songs that cover all the techniques in the Prelude of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde.  I'll make it easier for you: the first 30 bars of the Prelude.

No elitist argument from me. I'm from both worlds. All I'm asking for
is for you to substantiate your statements with some facts.

And sadly, pop music actually regressed after the art rock era. Say
1980 and beyond.

Did you view my score + music of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? It does
get a bit out of sync but still...

http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/classical-music/stravinsky-rite-of-spring-animated-score.wmv

If you think you can equate this level of composition to 20 pop songs
then I think you are mad.

Chris

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>

Me>"But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords used
in pop are not far behind...just used in a less complex manner IE it
might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or
chords in one classical song."
Chris>"With all due respect Michael how can you make this statement if
you haven't seriously studied classical music, let alone modern
classical music?"

    I'm not saying anything as a historical fact...but rather what I
hear...and although I haven't studied classical music formally I
certainly have listened to a good deal of it.

Michael:
Perhaps you forget that I am not a "composer" by any academic standards, that I have no formal musical training, I have only moderate technical skill at performing on any instrument, and my "ears" are *MAAAAYBE* the teeniest bit above average. I guarantee you I have the most "average" ability of any musician likely to take the plunge into microtonality. My work is not an example of how some expert composer can bend even the most difficult scale to his or her whim, it's an example of how an average musician with access to common mainstream equipment can easily get good results from theoretically-terrible scales. If there's any message my music should be sending, it's not "it CAN be done if you work hard enough", but rather "it's EASY TO DO if you just try it".

If your goal for the "Infinity Scale" is to use it to "market" microtonality to the public, you're wasting your time. The "barrier" to keeping microtonality out of the hands and minds of the public is NOT a lack of the right scale--there are hundreds, maybe even THOUSANDS, of scales that can more or less satisfy your criteria, many of which have already been explored (or at least proposed). The fact that even *I*, with my dim knowledge of microtonal history, am aware of this, means that you really haven't done your homework. One more great scale is a drop in an ocean of great scales, truly.

No, the barrier is the average person's attachment to institutions and conventions. Most musicians don't CARE how cool microtonality can get, or how much easier it can make music. Why? There are many reasons: because it's unfamiliar; because microtonality requires investments in (usually expensive) retuned (or retunable) instruments; because microtonal instruments and scales are typically not "backwards-compatible" with what they already know about music; and because converting to microtonality might reduce their ability to jam with other musicians. You've got to face the fact that 12-tET is STIFF competition, because it's already pretty easy to play and learn, and it's really pretty nice-sounding...and there is a vast "support network" for it! Even if it's a little difficult to self-teach 12-tET music skills, there is a vast array of books, classes, and teachers out there to help any student along. It is ubiquitous in our culture, and that is what makes it so attractive. Even the most amazing perfect scale will lack this support group.

What would be required to see your scale find its way into the pop mainstream? Armies of singers will have to be retrained, warehouses of guitars refretted, keyboards re-designed (or at least reprogrammed), brass and woodwinds re-configured or the players taught complex new fingerings...only the drummers will be spared! With so much great music already existing in 12-tET, how can you EVER expect your one perfect scale to justify such a vast commercial undertaking?

Then consider how difficult it has been for you to even get the support of your fellow microtonalists. If you can't win US over, how can you expect to win over THE GENERAL PUBLIC? You'd need to have the support of a movement behind you, but whatever microtonal movement there might be is decidedly too PANTHEISTIC to support your approach. All the microtonalists that I see actively advancing microtonal music into the public sphere (Jacob Barton, Andrew Heathwaite, Aaron Krister Johnson, XJ Scott, Ron Sword, Elaine Walker, Paul Rubenstein, just to name a few) are polymicrotonalists, true believers that a diversity of tunings is the key, not just a "one true tuning". What most of us want is to teach people that tuning is a choice and that alternatives exist, not just to give them *one* alternative and expect them to be satisfied. We'd all happily embrace your scale and your approach if it wasn't so...monotheistic. So really, mate, you're fighting both the conformists AND the non-conformists here if you insist that your scale will be ANYONE'S ideal scale but your own.

End rant.

-Igs

Dr. Cox>"Again you speak about what "people love," but I have no idea which people you are talking about, and I'm not sure that I care."
Look at what people download far as music. What do they have on their I-Pods. Which musicians will they actually pay to hear live. The types of people on the average who engaged in such activities in order to hear musicians are the kinds of people I am aiming at pitching micro-tonality to. And to note, on the average I'm pretty sure out of all such people only a tiny fraction are, for example, teachers and/or masters of traditional music theory or history.
Saying something like "any decent way to improve music must make it past academia and be proven in a huge book proving it's relation to all predecessors before it is pitched to the public" would likely be not only elitist, but ultimately not helpful or even harmful toward getting average listeners and composers interested in micro-tonal music. What it would likely do is get the remaining, say, 0.01% of the population who are masters in academia involved...and would almost have to assume those very few people could produce more quality music than hundreds of thousands of bands in the "general public". Again I have a tough time believing the "historical approach" is going to result in better music considering just how many could-be-great musicians and listeners it "singles out".

>"I've
seen this pop up elsewhere in your posts: you distinguish "musicians in
academia" from "modern musicians." Musicians in academia are modern
musicians, aren't they?"
Not in the way I'm focusing on. How many musicians do you know deep into observing historical musical tradition have taken the same styles and made music popular enough to become a house-hold name with such styles IE be "modernly popular"?
It's true there are cases of, say, BT (Brain Transeau) being a heavily historically-trained musician and turning into a house-hold name...but even in such cases he reserved his traditional styles for things like movie soundtracks and held back or at least "tamed" them when he made "pop" music. Same goes for Metallica and their classical music training roots So an academic musician can of course be a modern musician in the pop sense...but many if not most academic musicians are not "modern popular"...otherwise they, like BT, would likely be able to do things like make a living purely off gigs and selling albums...without teaching. Again, not relating to making money = being a good musician...but their having enough fans to "get away" with that.

>"If
you want to compose music that attracts a large following, then more
power to you. In a sense, it really doesn't matter what your theories
about what people will love really matter at all, because in your value
system the acid test is sales."
No it's not...the "acid/PH test" is how many fans like the music enough to make sacrifices to hear it...and I just figured money is the most obvious sacrifice. Someone begging their piano teacher to learn how to play your song is yet another such sacrifice...as is a fan's learning micro-tonal or buying musical equipment similar to yours to "sound more like you". It's not really about money, but about loyalty. If people are loyal to a musician...they will likely be more willing to follow that musician into theories, like micro-tonality, that they wouldn't normally consider.

>"I
would just request that you not try to impose your value system on
others who don't share it."
Well ok...my goal is to find out ways to make micro-tonal music attractive to the public in such a way more composers want to learn to compose using micro-tonal scales and such. If I were >forcing< the idea onto others, I'm pretty sure I'd also have to say "all other theories toward accomplishing this goal of publicizing are wrong"...which is something I have not done.
I'm NOT saying my way is the only way to do this...but rather that it can be A right way. Perhaps there are more and, if there are, I'd love to hear other ideas how to accomplish the goal of spreading micro-tonal music and getting more people interested in composing it.

So far, sadly, I've hear a lot of whining about faults in my methods and virtually no alternatives to how to make micro-tonal music popular, minus a couple of ideas from Sean and Marcel. I just want to lean the discussion toward bringing up good ideas, rather than shooting down virtually every idea in sight (no wonder with such a low "Puritan" attitude micro-tonal music hasn't made it into the public eye much at all).

Michael, 
When you write something like, "it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or chords in one classical song," you are making a statement that appears to have some empirical content. One can test this hypothesis...maybe it's 19 pop songs, maybe 40, or maybe the statement proves to be false.  But when someone takes your statement seriously,  you can't just turn around and say, " I'm not saying anything as a historical fact...but rather what I hear..."  What you "hear" is not an empirical fact--it can't be tested.  Imagine if someone stated,  "Water consists of oxygen and helium," was corrected, and responded, "I'm not stating a fact about chemistry, but what I feel about water."
It also seems to me that your carrying an awfully big chip on your shoulder.  You make grand statements about what "people love" and others  invalidating what other musicians on this list do, but as soon as someone calls you on one of your shaky assertions, you accuse the person of elite bias. 
Your last paragraph is really offensive. Again, you're using a red herring technique, which I've seen you use in other posts, projecting a series of clichéd attitudes onto "the elites," whoever you think these people are. 
In my view, people are far more likely to take the arts seriously if artists act seriously, and a good part of this involves setting and maintaining high standards.    Music is a tough, competitive field. Speaking as a teacher, I suppose "we" might attract more people to it if we just let students do whatever they wanted.  But you know what the result would be? People would cease to value music as much; you'd have lots more people dropping in for a lesson or two, but far fewer people studying seriously for 10 or 15 years.  In my experience, (all things being equal) when you set high standards that are also fair,   you will in fact attract more people and more people who are likely to succeed.   
This has nothing to do with the issue of elitism, which is usually thrown out in a gesture of fake populism.  If a group of people is born rich and powerful and nobody from outside the group has any chance of entering,  then you've got a poisonous elitism.  But if a discipline achieves high standards, allows new people into the discipline but requires every member to meet those standards, that is not elitism in the same sense at all.  Do you scream "elitism" when doctors are required to pass rigorous examinations allowing them to practice medicine?  

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 3:52 AM

Me>"But in general so far as I've seen the scales and even chords
used in pop are not far behind...just used in a less complex manner IE
it might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques
or chords in one classical song."
Chris>"With all due respect Michael how can you make this statement if you haven't seriously studied classical music, let alone modern classical music?"

    I'm not saying anything as a historical fact...but rather what I hear...and although I haven't studied classical music formally I certainly have listened to a good deal of it. 
    Or is this about to become an "elite argument" about who has the most advanced techniques regardless of what percentage of it people actually can digest or hear as unique?
    If so, I swear, that's one of the sad reasons so many people are turned away from the arts of classical and jazz music...the elitist attitude of "you are too dumb/un-studied to hear the 'factual' brilliance of this type of music...it can't possibly have anything to do with the composers' inability to connect with you emotionally".

Dr Cox,

Yes I've heard of Duke Ellington, but yes I doubt mentioning his name or playing his music to my friends would suddenly send them in a frenzy to learn things like Debussy's composition style. To me that's like handing an 8th grader a calculus book in order to get them more interested in math. It's trying to make them level up too much too quickly. Now a popular artist who used a Debussy like modulation here and there but not extensively to the point of requiring a lot of mental effort to listen to...I believe that would have a better chance in slowly and carefully introducing interest in such ideas. Personally I love Herbie Hancock's music...but that doesn't mean I don't have the common sense to let myself know introducing something that complex to many people will more likely frighten them away by fear of complexity than make them want to compose something like that.

>"I forgot...Duke Ellington lived before 1980, so he's ancient history.
Actually, it appears that everything that happened before 1980 is the
dead past, so I guess we get to just make up history. Is that what
"modern musicians" do?"
To be honest, it's not so much to do with age but the general fact that today's listening (and composing) public in many ways has a much lower attention span than listeners in the days of musicians such as Duke Ellington or Aretha Franklin and the music of today is admittedly (on the average) much less advanced in terms of composition. Flash it in front of most people and they will likely think it's impressive but "too much effort for too little reward" far as both listening and playing. Better to start with baby steps...IE let the listeners learn to walk before you tell them to run like Kenyan marathoners.

Michael,
The only whining I see in this discussion is coming from you. I'm really tired of reading your resentment-filled rants about "academic masters."
Once again, we're in Alice in Wonderland with your definitions.  Now "modern" means "modernly popular". Now for the last few weeks I had no idea that the word meant that. But I suppose you've decided to change the meaning of the word into "whatever I mean".  And then the definition will start to shift around once someone notices that what you've written makes no sense.  If you want to make your meaning clear, you need to use terms in a reasonable and clear/consistent manner.  
Yes, there is a huge market for commercial pop music. If you want to "improve" that, fine..do it. But first you have to succeed in the business, sell a millions of copies of your pieces, and become a force in the business. There's no point in theorizing about how to do it...you are wasting not only your own time, but everyone else's.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 4:22 AM

Dr. Cox>"Again you speak about what "people love," but I have no idea which people you are talking about, and I'm not sure that I care."
   Look at what people download far as music.  What do they have on their I-Pods.  Which musicians will they actually pay to hear live.  The types of people on the average who engaged in such activities in order to hear musicians are the kinds of people I am aiming at pitching micro-tonality to.  And to note, on the average I'm pretty sure out of all such people only a tiny fraction are, for example, teachers and/or masters of traditional music theory or history.
   Saying
something like "any decent way to improve music must make it past academia and be proven in a huge book proving it's relation to all predecessors before it is pitched to the public" would likely be not only elitist, but ultimately not helpful or even harmful toward getting average listeners and composers interested in micro-tonal music.  What it would likely do is get the remaining, say, 0.01% of the population who are masters in academia involved...and would almost have to assume those very few people could produce more quality music than hundreds of thousands of bands in the "general public".  Again I have a tough time believing the "historical approach" is going to result in better music considering just how many could-be-great musicians and listeners it "singles out".

>"I've
seen this pop up elsewhere in your posts: you distinguish "musicians in
academia" from "modern musicians."  Musicians in academia are modern
musicians, aren't they?"
   Not in the way I'm focusing on.  How many musicians do you know deep into observing historical musical tradition have taken the same styles and made music popular enough to become a house-hold name with such styles IE be "modernly popular"?
   It's true there are cases of, say, BT (Brain Transeau) being a heavily historically- trained musician and turning into a house-hold name...but even in such cases he reserved his traditional styles for things like movie soundtracks and held back or at least "tamed" them when he made "pop" music.  Same goes for Metallica and their classical music training roots   So an academic musician can of course be a modern musician in the pop sense...but many if not most academic musicians are not "modern
popular"...otherwis e they, like BT, would likely be able to do things like make a living purely off gigs and selling albums...without teaching.  Again, not relating to making money = being a good musician...but their having enough fans to "get away" with that.

>"If
you want to compose music that attracts a large following, then more
power to you.  In a sense, it really doesn't matter what your theories
about what people will love really matter at all, because in your value
system the acid test is sales."
    No it's not...the "acid/PH test" is how many fans like the music enough to make sacrifices to hear it...and I just figured money is the most obvious sacrifice.  Someone begging their piano teacher to learn how to play your song is yet another such sacrifice... as is a fan's learning micro-tonal or buying musical equipment similar to yours to "sound more like you".  It's not really about money, but about loyalty.  If people are loyal to a musician...they will likely be more willing to follow that musician into theories, like micro-tonality, that they wouldn't normally consider.

>"I
would just request that you not try to impose your value system on
others who don't share it."
   Well ok...my goal is to find out ways to make micro-tonal music attractive to the public in such a way more composers want to learn to compose using micro-tonal scales and such.  If I were >forcing< the idea onto others, I'm pretty sure I'd also have to say "all other theories toward accomplishing this goal of publicizing are wrong"...which is something I have not done.
   I'm NOT saying my way is the only way to do this...but rather that it can be A right way.  Perhaps there are more and, if there are, I'd love to hear other ideas how to accomplish the goal of spreading micro-tonal music and getting more people interested in composing it.

    So far, sadly, I've hear a lot of whining about faults in my methods and virtually no alternatives to how to make micro-tonal music popular, minus a couple of ideas from Sean and Marcel.  I just want to lean the
discussion toward bringing up good ideas, rather than shooting down virtually every idea in sight (no wonder with such a low "Puritan" attitude micro-tonal music hasn't made it into the public eye much at all).

Michael,
Duke Ellington was a popular musician.    He was never as popular as Benny Goodman, but sales of music were consistent throughout his career.
I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion. 
 

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 4:34 AM

Dr Cox,

    Yes I've heard of Duke Ellington, but yes I doubt mentioning his name or playing his music to my friends would suddenly send them in a frenzy to learn things like Debussy's composition style.  To me that's like handing an 8th grader a calculus book in order to get them more interested in math.  It's trying to make them level up too much too quickly.  Now a popular artist who used a Debussy like modulation here and there but not extensively to the point of requiring a lot of mental effort to listen to...I believe that would have a better chance in slowly and carefully introducing interest in such ideas.  Personally I love Herbie Hancock's music...but that doesn't mean I don't have the common sense to let myself know introducing something that
complex to many people will more likely frighten them away by fear of complexity than make them want to compose something like that.

>"I forgot...Duke Ellington lived before 1980, so he's ancient history.
 Actually, it appears that  everything that happened before 1980 is the
dead past, so I guess we get to just make up history.  Is that what
"modern musicians" do?"
   To be honest, it's not so much to do with age but the general fact that today's listening (and composing) public in many ways has a much lower attention span than listeners in the days of musicians such as Duke Ellington or Aretha Franklin and the music of today is admittedly (on the average) much less advanced in terms of composition.   Flash it in front of most people and they will likely think it's impressive but "too much effort for too little reward" far as both listening and playing.  Better to start with baby steps...IE let the listeners learn to walk before you tell them to run like Kenyan marathoners. 

Chris>"Did you view my score + music of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? It does
get a bit out of sync but still...

http://clones. soonlabel. com/public/ classical- music/stravinsky -rite-of- spring-animated- score.wmv

If you think you can equate this level of composition to 20 pop songs
then I think you are mad."

I didn't say "level of composition"...I said the type of chords used.

I can't believe I forgot about this. Yes, yes, yes. Amazing piece,
minor seconds all over it.

But again, at this point I don't think the message bears repeating.
Michael seems to have just invented this theory on the spot that only
the "trained ear" can handle minor seconds, and the popular ear can't.

Michael, I posted an example of Imogen Heap's "Hide And Seek," which
is another pop song that had half steps all over it, as well as Jason
Derulo's "Whatcha Say," a song which sampled it. The latter was top 40
and I'm sure you've heard it too many times already. What was your
response to that? That it was R&B?

That being said, I bet you could come up with some interesting sounds
by deliberately avoiding critical band roughness, Michael, as you are
trying to do. Note that this is, however, a compositional technique,
rather than an immutable law of psychoacoustics. Like musical
pointillism, if you will.

-Mike

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://ericwhitacre.com/music-catalog/satb-choral/sleep
>
> I hear sustained minor 2nds in various places in this A Cappella choral piece. It is a rather lovely piece. I'd consider buying the choir from East West IF they'd make it truly microtonal capable.
>
> NOTE: the video appears to be truly a cappella but I am not at all sure of the mp3 in the playback widget - it seems different.
>
> I'm bring this up for Michael as yet another example of the "narrowness" of his consonance criteria.
>
> Chris
>
>

Michael, 
You are beyond belief.  Why can't you simply admit that you might be wrong? And without throwing scorn at  all the "elites"?
Okay, show us the 20 pop tunes that cover all the types of chords found in the Rite of Spring.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...m>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 4:48 AM

Chris>"Did you view my score + music of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring? It does

get a bit out of sync but still...

http://clones. soonlabel. com/public/ classical- music/stravinsky -rite-of- spring-animated- score.wmv

If you think you can equate this level of composition to 20 pop songs

then I think you are mad."

I didn't say "level of composition" ...I said the type of chords used. 

Dr. Cox>"When you write something like, "it
might take, say, 20 different pop songs to cover all the techniques or
chords in one classical song," you are making a statement that appears
to have some empirical content."
When I say "it MIGHT take"...I think it's pretty clear I'm just giving an intelligent guess...and not the result of some sort of survey.

>"It
also seems to me that your carrying an awfully big chip on your
shoulder. You make grand statements about what "people love" and
others invalidating what other musicians on this list do"
There's a HUGE difference in saying I don't think what people here often do will help make micro-tonal music more acceptable to the general public and saying it's invalid or bad. Put it this way...about 95% of what I listen to and try to compose in my spare time is certainly NOT what I expect to be well-taken by the public. It's a downright cruel assertion you are making that I'm somehow indirectly saying academic musicians and their work is somehow less valuable...I'm simply saying I don't think it's valuable for this purpose. Personally if someone told me I'd never be or sell records like Britney Spears or many other pop artists I'd say "thank the Lord!!!" back to them. :-)

Igs>"Why? There are many reasons: because it's unfamiliar; because
microtonality requires investments in (usually expensive) retuned (or
retunable) instruments; because microtonal instruments and scales are
typically not "backwards-compatib le" with what they already know about
music; and because converting to microtonality might reduce their
ability to jam with other musicians."
These are all good points...having to do with issues like compatibility between musicians and lack of easy to obtain, cheap, mass-produced micro-tonal-capable instruments.

>"You've got to face the fact that
12-tET is STIFF competition, because it's already pretty easy to play
and learn, and it's really pretty nice-sounding"
I have my doubts about this though. There are so many people looking for pretty-sounding chords and such but are doing bizarre things (crazy timbres, Tom-Morello style harmonic effects on guitars, odd de-tuning of strings on purpose...) all in an apparent to jazz up chord progressions where many musicians admit it's very hard to do something that hasn't already been done. It seems obvious to me there is a huge thirst among musicians for new scales that offer ways to jazz up playing styles.

>"All the microtonalists that I see actively advancing microtonal music
into the public sphere (Jacob Barton, Andrew Heathwaite, Aaron Krister
Johnson, XJ Scott, Ron Sword, Elaine Walker, Paul Rubenstein, just to
name a few) are polymicrotonalists, true believers that a diversity of
tunings is the key, not just a "one true tuning"."
Who ever said I believed in "one true tuning?" Consistently I've pledged support for 22TET, Erv Wilson's Hexanies scales, Sethares 10 and 11TET with spectral remapping, the Ptolemy Homalon scales, and recently 17TET...I'm certainly not for the idea of one scale being ideal for everything. You also have to remember I have made a Silver Ratio section, PHI ratio section, x/18 harmonic series based division scale, and several other scales in the past...each concentrating on different goals.

I do believe, though...that there are scales that are more ideal for most of the sorts of things people turn to 12TET for in the first place. I'm trying to create ONE of such scales...and certainly not with the idea it's the only one possible.

>"What most of us want is to teach people that tuning is a choice and
that alternatives exist, not just to give them *one* alternative and
expect them to be satisfied."
However, you have to get someone interested in one thing to get them to look at a second, third, fourth....so having another "very good option" to use as such a first thing to display to "first time viewers" obviously should help.

Dr. Cox>"The only whining I see in this discussion is coming from you. I'm
really tired of reading your resentment-filled rants about "academic
masters.""

...In the same way perhaps that I'm tired of trying to hold a discussion about pitching micro-tonality to modern musicians and modern listeners and yet getting hit over the head with history lessons about non-modern musicians and listeners.

>"Now "modern" means "modernly popular""
Considering the whole discussion started about "12TET vs. other tunings in modern pop music"...I thought the fact I started the discussion about modern popular music and audiences was blantantly obvious. Somehow it seems you almost want to forget this, though. I'm just trying to stick to the original topic.

Dr Cox>"Duke Ellington was a popular musician."
How many times do I have to state...this topic is about appealing to what "is" and not what "was". This topic concerns modern popular musicians and listeners. Duke Ellington and popular music and listener preferences exclusive to his time are NOT relevant to the time frame I've repeatedly stated I'm focusing on, which is 1980-now. So please, if you're going to do a 1960's music marketing campaign, please save it for a discussion that actually concerns that era...and this is not such a discussion.

MikeB>"But again, at this point I don't think the message bears repeating.Michael seems to have just invented this theory on the spot that only
the "trained ear" can handle minor seconds, and the popular ear can't."

Why the assumption...I never made such a statement. The only statement I ever made even vaguely related is that a minor second in 12TET is considerably more dissonant than the 12/11 "semi-tone" used in my scale, Ptolemy's Homalon scales, and I'm sure a good few other scales. If you're going to "rat me out", at least have the courtesy to quote what I said that you're arguing against (which of course you can't do in this case as I never said it).

Dr. Cox>"Okay, show us the 20 pop tunes that cover all the types of chords found in the Rite of Spring."
I never said this as a figure. I said something akin to "say, maybe 20 pop tunes to hit chords in a classical piece". Meaning that, by and large, there isn't some ridiculous gap in how they handle chords. You still have the same 11ths, 13ths, 9ths, etc. I'm not going to sit here for a couple of hours just to find enough pop singles to locate the chords.

Hey, suppose you're "right" and it takes me over 100 songs to find all the chords. What does that do so far as the original discussion topic...which is how to help spread micro-tonal music to the general public and get them interested in composing it?
Again, you seem to be veering far off topic and dead-center into your area of expertise and then blaming me for not being as expert as you all the while I did not express any doubt in your knowledge in that area...dare I admit yes, that does come across as rather elitist. And, again, way off topic.

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> MikeB>"But again, at this point I don't think the message bears repeating.Michael seems to have just invented this theory on the spot that only the "trained ear" can handle minor seconds, and the popular ear can't."
>
> Why the assumption...I never made such a statement. The only statement I ever made even vaguely related is that a minor second in 12TET is considerably more dissonant than the 12/11 "semi-tone" used in my scale, Ptolemy's Homalon scales, and I'm sure a good few other scales. If you're going to "rat me out", at least have the courtesy to quote what I said that you're arguing against (which of course you can't do in this case as I never said it).

Then I have no idea what you're saying. Can you perhaps explain it
straightforwardly? I have showed you two pieces of modern pop music
that use sustained half steps in their chords, and I don't see what
your argument is anyway. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

-Mike

Your definition of "modern" is not shared by everyone. It is not the definition one usually associates with microtonal music.  It is not the definition one finds in dictionaries.  
I consider myself a modern listener--i.e., I try to keep up on the latest developments in my field, I regularly perform works of modern composers, I compose modern music.  Yet you insist that "modern" means what you say it means.  Does anyone agree with you on this?  You've ignored the point I made earlier--you keep trying to bracket off your definition of "modern popular" as beginning in 1980, but then you use terms like "composer" and "classics" and "great pieces", whose origin and meaning won't fit within your little box.  And the discussion did stray--I believe you brought this up--into David Cope and composing algorithms; many of his examples are imitations of classical pieces.  
And why 1980?  Did anyone agree with this delimitation? Or didn't you simply decree it? 
It's the same dynamic as what happened with your statements about minor 2nds and popular music. On face value they were wrong, but when other participants provided counter-evidence, you began complaining that you meant different types of music, changed the definition of popular music, changed you criteria concerning dissonance, and so on and so forth.  You finally came up with a definition--a chord containing two consecutive half steps--that indeed is not considered a chord in either common practice music (uh-oh, this is "the past," so we're forbidden to mention it; you're allowed to mention it though, because different rules apply for you) or modern popular music.  But here's the problem--nobody ever claimed that such a chord was considered a typical chord (this does occur as a sonority in plenty of common practice music, but is not categorized as a chord), so your definition doesn't really contribute much to the discussion, and is irrelevant to your
original point.  One could just as well say, "interval combinations including all twelve tones are not considered chords in common practice music." True, but who ever made the claim that they were?
I'm sorry if you resent the historical perspective I've provided.  I didn't mean to give you a "history lesson."  I can see that whenever you make a statement about music, you want everyone to agree to it, whether it is correct or not.
 
Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 5:13 AM

Dr. Cox>"The only whining I see in this discussion is coming from you. I'm
really tired of reading your resentment-filled rants about "academic
masters.""

   ...In the same way perhaps that I'm tired of trying to hold a discussion about pitching micro-tonality to modern musicians and modern listeners and yet getting hit over the head with history lessons about non-modern musicians and listeners. 

>"Now "modern" means "modernly popular""
Considering the whole discussion started about "12TET vs. other tunings in modern pop music"...I thought the fact I started the discussion about modern popular music and audiences was blantantly obvious.  Somehow it seems you almost want to forget this, though.  I'm just trying to stick to the original topic.

1980 is the past.  It's over and done with.  Why do you keep bringing up 1980?  1981 is also the past. It's over and done with.  

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 5:16 AM

Dr Cox>"Duke Ellington was a popular musician."
How many times do I have to state...this topic is about appealing to what "is" and not what "was".  This topic concerns modern popular musicians and listeners.  Duke Ellington and popular music and listener preferences exclusive to his time are NOT relevant to the time frame I've repeatedly stated I'm focusing on, which is 1980-now.   So please, if you're going to do a 1960's music marketing campaign, please save it for a discussion that actually concerns that era...and this is not such a discussion.

MikeB>"Then I have no idea what you're saying. Can you perhaps explain it straightforwardly? I have showed you two pieces of modern pop music that use sustained half steps in their chords, and I don't see what your argument is anyway. Perhaps I am misunderstanding."

My argument was not that half steps can't be used at ALL in pop music.
My argument was that there are few varieties of intervals you can use around said half-step within 12TET, a limitation that begs for alternative scales (and not just one scale!) that can get around this issue.
For example
The 12TET "chord" C C# D is very dissonant plus has a note out-of-key in it...and I personally have never heard it in pop music.
B C D F and G A B C and F A B C are also too dissonant to likely appear in pop music.
Even B C F and F B C have somewhat of this problem. I don't recall hearing either of these as commonly used in pop music as held-sustained chords and strongly suspect the dissonance is why they don't "want to risk inflicting such chords upon the public".

Of course you can have chords like B C E G or G B C E IE inverted 7th chords...but beside those chords and chords which add notes beyond the top-bottom edges of those your choices of chords possible with half steps are pretty limited in 12TET.
The idea is...compare this to the numbers of chords with inverted 7th-like consonance you can get in scales like Ptolemy's Homalon scales with it's 9/8 10/9 11/10 12/10 10/9 11/10 12/11 interval structure (chords such as and/or nearing 9:10:11 and 9:10:12 and 18:20:24:30 and 20:24:33:36)....and you'll see 12TET is missing a lot of possible clustered chords due to it's inherent need to space notes away from the half-step to achieve a fair level of consonance and "make up" for the fact the 18/17-ish interval represented by a 12TET half step is so much more dissonant than intervals such as the 11/10 and 12/11 half steps in scales like 7TET and Ptolemic scales.

Long story short...I believe this ties into a possible avenue to expand micro-tonallity into popular music as
A) It adds the possibility of new chords and very original chord progressions, something composers often have trouble searching for
B) It does so, in micro-tonal scales, without giving up the kind of balance, consonance, and confidence composers have learned to expect from their experience with 12TET.

> MikeB>"Then I have no idea what you're saying. Can you perhaps explain it straightforwardly? I have showed you two pieces of modern pop music that use sustained half steps in their chords, and I don't see what your argument is anyway. Perhaps I am misunderstanding."
>
>   My argument was not that half steps can't be used at ALL in pop music.
>   My argument was that there are few varieties of intervals you can use around said half-step within 12TET, a limitation that begs for alternative scales (and not just one scale!) that can get around this issue.
>   For example
>   The 12TET "chord" C C# D is very dissonant plus has a note out-of-key in it...and I personally have never heard it in pop music.
>    B C D F and G A B C and F A B C are also too dissonant to likely appear in pop music.
>    Even B C F and F B C have somewhat of this problem.  I don't recall hearing either of these as commonly used in pop music as held-sustained chords and strongly suspect the dissonance is why they don't "want to risk inflicting such chords upon the public".

F B C is used all the time over the IV chord as a way of resolving
down to F A C (assuming we're in C major here).

I recommend listening to the Imogen Heap song again, a few of those
chords are used quite a bit.

So you're saying that a chord like D E F^ G would be fine because it
approximates 9:10:11:12, but not D E F# G?

-Mike

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

>"We" recognize certain works as classics and use them as models for what we do at present.  This is how vital cultural traditions tend to work.

I think some classic 20th century symphonies are those of Elgar, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, and Shostakovich. If anyone is writing comparable things now I'd like to learn about it.

When I started this topic I clearly said "modern" along with "within the last 20 years". If you really hate those limitations that much, you don't have to participate in this thread. Guess what...not everyone is going to agree with your "infinitely wide" definition of modern either, or perhaps not any more than they agree with mine.

>"I didn't mean to give you a "history lesson." I can see that whenever
you make a statement about music, you want everyone to agree to it,
whether it is correct or not."
My point is to see where the alternative I give can be used and what can be done to improve it...not to say it's perfect or make everyone agree with it.
However statements like "it just can't be done" or "it doesn't correlate with history", the likes of which have been given constantly on this thread....neither help constructively criticize or find good uses for it...but rather seem to say "I'm just giving up on this idea and providing no alternatives to it...now just give up and leave it's pointless to even try".

Again I ask "so how does all this (advice/whining/what-not) I'm getting in response try to help or help us get closer to making micro-tonal music accepted by a greater percentage of the public"? That was my original topic and what I'm still looking for constructive thoughts and answers on.

Dr. Cox>" 1980 is the past. It's over and done with"
I say 1980 as far as I have seen the type of popular music that is around hasn't changed dramatically since about 1980. Surely there's a huge difference, in comparison, to what an audience of jazz music in the 1950's would expect (IE much more complex music) compared to, say, people in a "retro-bar" listening to 80's music even nowadays. Of course I said 1980 and after...if you want to be 100% sure the music is present...only discuss artists still making pop albums today.

Gene,
There's tons of this sort of music among neo-Romantic composers. But I've found nothing as good as the originals, which is to be expected. None of the composers you mention was particularly innovative, although all achieved a distinctive style (especially Sibelius, whose music I respect tremendously).  All of these composers developed an individual style out of materials that were more or less already prepared by other composers. Someone continuing in this vein would be probably using already well-worn materials, and it would be very hard to squeeze anything distinctive out of them.  In addition, most of this syntax passed into composition for movies, where it serves a different function than music in the concert hall.
You could also check out hundreds of pieces by Soviet-era composers.  They were straight-jacketed into writing traditional music. 
best
Franklin

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 6:11 AM

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

>

>"We" recognize certain works as classics and use them as models for what we do at present.  This is how vital cultural traditions tend to work.

I think some classic 20th century symphonies are those of Elgar, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, and Shostakovich. If anyone is writing comparable things now I'd like to learn about it.

I don't want your help, thank you.
I ask you again, did anyone agree to your definition of "modern" as "modern popular"? Did anyone agree to your definition of "modern" as "starting in 1980"?  
 -----
If you want to hold a discussion, but nobody agrees with you about your basic definitions or even understands how you are using basic terminology, then perhaps     1) you should make some adjustments--such as using terms in a consistent, reasonable     manner and following the basic principles of logic and reasonable discussionOR   2) you should find another group of people who share your personal definitions of basic     musical terminology.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 6:28 AM

   When I started this topic I clearly said "modern" along with "within the last 20 years".  If you really hate those limitations that much, you don't have to participate in this thread.  Guess what...not everyone is going to agree with your "infinitely wide" definition of modern either, or perhaps not any more than they agree with mine. 

>"I didn't mean to give you a "history lesson."  I can see that whenever
you make a statement about music, you want everyone to agree to it,
whether it is correct or not."
  My point is to see where the alternative I give can be used and what can be done to improve it...not to say it's perfect or make everyone agree with it.
  However statements like "it just can't be done" or "it doesn't correlate with history", the likes of which have been given constantly on this thread....neither help constructively criticize or find good uses for it...but rather seem to say "I'm just giving up on this idea and providing no alternatives to it...now just give up and leave it's pointless to even try".

   Again I ask "so how does all this (advice/whining/ what-not) I'm getting in response try to help or help us get closer to making micro-tonal music accepted by a greater percentage of the public"?   That was my original topic and what I'm still looking for constructive thoughts and answers on.

MikeB>"I recommend listening to the Imogen Heap song again, a few of those
chords are used quite a bit."
Right, she's also from Frou Frou (one of my favorite no-longer-existing groups)...fantastic musician. It's a valid counter example...she is popular and she does get away with it...even if she's one of the very few. Same goes with Way Out West...form example. I'd still consider her a clever exception rather than the norm but, surprise me...name some more artists who use such chords... :-)

Ok, 2009 is the past.  Actually, April 2010 is the past. Yesterday is the past--it's over and done with. Do you not comprehend my basic point?  If you use terms such as "composer", "classic", "great piece," and so on, you can't arbitrary set a cut-off date before which nothing exists. 
You could have saved us all a lot of time and trouble if you had defined your terms clearly and unambiguously at the very beginning. But you began with grandiose generalities, and when people called you on them, you danced around and then changed rules in the middle of the game, without anyone else agreeing to the rule changes. You changed the meaning of commonly-used terminology.  I'm sorry, but his all seems an exercise in bullying.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 6:32 AM

Dr. Cox>" 

1980 is the past.  It's over and done with"
   I say 1980 as far as I have seen the type of popular music that is around hasn't changed dramatically since about 1980.  Surely there's a huge difference, in comparison, to what an audience of jazz music in the 1950's would expect (IE much more complex music) compared to, say, people in a "retro-bar" listening to 80's music even nowadays.  Of course I said 1980 and after...if you want to be 100% sure the music is present...only discuss artists still making pop albums today.

Dr. Cox>"If you want to hold a discussion, but nobody agrees
with you about your basic definitions or even understands how you are
using basic terminology, then perhaps
1) you should make some adjustments- -such as using terms in a consistent, reasonable
manner and following the basic principles of logic and reasonable discussion
OR
2) you should find another group of people who share your personal definitions of basic musical terminology."

Dr. Cox
In the meantime maybe you should try
0) Either sticking on topic or politely leaving if you hate the topic instead of trying to change it
1) Not making obviously passive aggressive and incredibly vague remarks (reasonable = your personal definition of reasonable?) like you just did in #1. Not only is it annoying, it gets absolutely nothing done toward the goal of helping put micro-tonal music in the public eye.
2) Typically I have few problems on this list unless people keep changing the topic or relay to others that I said something which I never did...thanks largely to you and Chris I'm now dealing with both of such issues! For the record...Chris has composed in my scales as has Cameron, Sevish, and a good few others...Cameron even worked with me to improve one of my scales. I also worked with John on his scales. If I insisted on some self-serving cryptic terminology no one understood...surely such development would not be possible. One thing is for sure though: my terminology often doesn't get along with yours...but that alone certainly doesn't single me out of making progress communicating about music with other people.

Dr. Cox>" Ok, 2009 is the past. Actually, April 2010 is the past. Yesterday is the past--it's over and done with"
Let me put it this way...say I ran a Net label for music and wanted to release an album by the end of next month with a certain number of downloads/traffic...what kind of style would I go for? It could easily be 80's (there are still plenty of 80's music bar and 80's music radio stations) or anything after that...but the chance of anything in a style of the 50's or before would likely generate far less traffic as, good as it may be or may have been, it's considered by many many people to be no longer in style. Otherwise, think about it, advertisers would pay just as much for slots on the few remaining Oldies/50's radio stations as they would on the tons of modern rock and hip-hop radio stations...but they obviously don't.

That's what I figure we're up against when spreading the word and popular positive awareness of micro-tonal music. We're not competing for the attention of some audience from the 50's (many in their 60's and 70's and not overly likely to become the leading composers of tomorrow)...we're competing for the attention of the average person, average age, now.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
> Duke Ellington was a popular musician.    He was never as popular as Benny Goodman, but sales of music were consistent throughout his career

His sales had their ups and downs, actually. Maybe he should have done like Goodman and commissioned a piano concerto from Copland, who would have loved giving it a try.

Michael,
Regarding 2). Then perhaps you haven't noticed the dozens of expressions of frustration with you over the last few weeks. Amazing.
Regarding 1) and 0) Here's a classic example of the "passive aggressive" behavior you accuse me of: you write, "Either sticking on topic or politely leaving if you hate the topic instead of trying to change it." I don't "hate" the topic. That's your invention. You have  consistently projected your own fantasies of how other people view you onto them; I've pointed out this red herring tactic several times. One problem is that you didn't define the topic clearly in the beginning and have consistently shifted it about.  I thought you were talking about modern music all along, until you re-defined "modern" as commercial popular music.   I'm a performer of modern music--that's my profession.  But now you're claiming that I'm not performing modern music. 

You have also spoken in vague generalities about helping all of us, about the urgent need for us to make microtonality popular.  When you speak in these general terms, anyone is allowed to join in the discussion. Not all of us want you as our spokesperson.  Not all of us share your goals. 
By "reasonable" I mean Karl Popper's definition of reasonable discussion.  This is one of the most widely-shared and understood definitions of the term.  

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@yahoo.com

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 6:52 AM

Dr. Cox>"If you want to hold a discussion, but nobody agrees
with you about your basic definitions or even understands how you are
using basic terminology, then perhaps     1) you should make some adjustments- -such as using terms in a consistent, reasonable     manner and following the basic principles of logic and reasonable discussionOR   2) you should find another group of people who share your personal definitions of basic     musical terminology. "

Dr. Cox
In the meantime maybe you should try
0) Either sticking on topic or politely leaving if you hate the topic instead of trying to change it
1)  Not making obviously passive aggressive and incredibly vague remarks (reasonable = your personal definition of reasonable?) like you just did in #1.  Not only is it annoying, it gets absolutely nothing done toward the goal of helping put micro-tonal music in the public eye.
2)  Typically I have few problems on this list unless people keep changing
the topic or relay to others that I said something which I never did...thanks largely to you and Chris I'm now dealing with both of such issues!   For the record...Chris has composed in my scales as has Cameron, Sevish, and a good few others...Cameron even worked with me to improve one of my scales.  I also worked with John on his scales.  If I insisted on some self-serving cryptic terminology no one understood.. .surely such development would not be possible. One thing is for sure though: my terminology often doesn't get along with yours...but that alone certainly doesn't single me out of making progress communicating about music with other people.

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

> ...In the same way perhaps that I'm tired of trying to hold a discussion about pitching micro-tonality to modern musicians and modern listeners and yet getting hit over the head with history lessons about non-modern musicians and listeners.

I'm a modern listener. The kind of stuff I like to compose is like this:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22Gene%20Ward%20Smith%22%20AND%20collection%3Aopensource_audio%20AND%20collection%3Aopensource_audio

If only I could get Britney Spears to sing it, I could make it big. It takes all kinds to make a world.

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

> You could also check out hundreds of pieces by Soviet-era composers.  They were straight-jacketed into writing traditional music. 

Some of them aren't bad, but only Shostakovich and Prokoviev strike me as read greats.

>"Regarding
2). Then perhaps you haven't noticed the dozens of expressions of
frustration with you over the last few weeks. Amazing."
I have noticed a disproportionate percentage of them are from you or Chris and I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot over one person. Mike B joined in and at first was angry, but then learned he had been mislead about what the topic was (perhaps because you and Chris keep changing it away from my original topic of promoting micro-tonal music to the general public).

>"Regarding 1) and 0) Here's a classic example of the "passive aggressive" behavior you accuse me of: you write, "Either
sticking on topic or politely leaving if you hate the topic instead of
trying to change it." I don't "hate" the topic. That's your invention.
You have consistently projected your own fantasies of how other people
view you onto them; I've pointed out this red herring tactic several
times."
You language, including the above, certainly indicates hate as opposed to talking about the original topic. And you seem to be almost asking me to dive for your bait and shoot myself in the foot when I'm honestly just trying to get some answers and ideas to help promote micro-tonallty to the general public (yes that thing...the original topic!!) BTW, if you want to talk "reasonable"...please stay on topic. If you want to go off topic, please start your own thread. That's not me being mean, that's just a common protocol of respect online...although perhaps one you are too busy trolling to follow.

> >"Regarding 2). Then perhaps you haven't noticed the dozens of expressions of frustration with you over the last few weeks. Amazing."
> I have noticed a disproportionate percentage of them are from you or Chris and I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot over one person.  Mike B joined in and at first was angry, but then learned he had been mislead about what the topic was (perhaps because you and Chris keep changing it away from my original topic of promoting micro-tonal music to the general public).

LOL... not quite. I had no idea what you were saying because you've
continually changed what you're saying as if you've been saying
something else all along. Recall that a few weeks ago your theory was
that 13 chords and chords with minor seconds in them weren't suitable
for popular music, but rather only academic music (such as R&B and the
blues). And then it turned into "no, I'm just saying that they haven't
been used after the 90s or so because pop music sucks." And then I
gave a ton of counterexamples and then it turned into "well yeah they
sometimes appear, but the majority of modern commercial mass-produced
top 40 stuff doesn't use it."

And now it's "I think if we use scales with neutral seconds we'll be
able to make cool euphonic cluster chords approximating 9:10:11:12 and
the like, thus providing a neat way for microtonal music to catch on
in popular music." This is a far cry from your original argument,
which had something to do with critical bands and dissonance.

Also, it's not "micro-tonal," it's "microtonal," and I take offense to
the former.

-Mike

MikeB>"Recall that a few weeks ago your theory was that 13 chords and chords with minor seconds in them weren't suitable for popular music, but rather only academic music (such as R&B and
the
blues)."
Well, I was wrong about that aspect of the "incomplete usability of minor seconds" and admitted that early on in the discussion. Just recently in the message I wrote to you I mentioned common usage of minor seconds in 12TET. However I did present another alternative...the idea of using intervals around 12/11 instead of the 17/16-ish 12TET half step in order to increase the variety of consonant minor second chords possible. In other words I agree 12TET actually has many more possibilities than I originally thought, but still think micro-tonal alternatives can improve upon 12TETs minor second chord flexibility...if not as much as I originally thought it could.

What I haven't heard is someone, for example, honestly evaluating the reason-ability of use of "semi minor seconds" like 12/11 and/or of a completely different alternative to 17/16...something that could help extend the range of chords possible in pop music using micro-tonality. Hence we've had a lot of hoopla about "why 12TET is valid" and very few attempts at solving the issue of using micro-tonality to extend the bounds of pop music via things like new consonant chords and getting average musicians interested in micro-tonality.

>"And now it's "I think if we use scales with neutral seconds we'll be able to make cool euphonic cluster chords approximating 9:10:11:12 and the like, thus providing a neat way for microtonal music to catch on in popular music." This is a far cry from your original argument, which had something to do with critical bands and dissonance."
No, they are both directly related. The main reason I'm championing the ideal of "neutral seconds" like 12/11 is that they obviously have so much less critical band dissonance than 17/16 (which can be considered as "emulating" the 15/14 in diatonic JI). In fact 12/11 is at a "dissonance trough/minimum" on Elrich's Harmonic Entropy curve while Sethares' dissonance curve as generated for harmonic timbres has a low area near 11/10 to 9/8...and between the two theories, the whole 12/11-10/9 area is a relative dissonance low point. I figure it's one thing pop music could take advantage of, though I'm eager to hear other ideas on things like minor second and/or other interval alternatives as well. :-)

>"Also, it's not "micro-tonal, " it's "microtonal, " and I take offense to the former."
My spell checker says it's micro-tonal but fair enough...I'll use "microtonal" from now on.

-Michael

=>Michael "we've had a lot of hoopla about "why 12TET is valid" "

Pray tell what does "12 TET is valid" mean?

Chris

Chris>"Pray tell what does "12 TET is valid" mean?"
The idea that the whole and complete answer to my question of how to introduce micro-tonality to the public is "don't" or even "what a ridiculous idea".

It's pretty much been the only thing consistent about this thread...I've asked for either ways to use my ideas or alternatives given by list members for helping adopt use of new ways to get micro-tonality into the public eye but by and large the response has been along the lines of...

A) You can already do that in 12TET...indirectly implying there's no reason to seek alternatives (kind of odd considering this a micro-tuning forum and not a 12TET ones)
B1) You need to learn more of what is possible in 12TET (even though 12TET, for example, does not even include the 12/11 neutral second ratio suggestion I posed...for example)
B2) The key to figuring out said issue in B1 (which I never asked about in the first place and doesn't really help improve the accessibility of micro-tonal music) lies in music history (giving examples of many historic composers). And (perhaps) it follows that even if you're composing for the present you should aim for the styles of the past (which to me is an incredibly whimsical way to market micro-tonal awareness in many if not most cases).
C) Making microtonal music accessible to the public is pretty much impossible -Jon
D) We supposedly already have tons of networking-connections through the classical scene and such a scene expands more than you/"Mike" give it credit for (even though, if that's so and there's little to improve about "getting micro-tonal out of just mostly classical music"...you'd think micro-tonal would be a LOT more popular than it is).

So people on this topic have gone on and on and on....about "Why my/Mike's cause for promoting micro-tonality's popularity is helpless and pointless" and supposedly why I'm just ignorant for not "accepting that any ideas for using things like new intervals, new chords, and reaching out to the popular music world are invalid...and the only thing valid revolves around 12TET". It has also presented virtually no alternative solutions while whining about one of the very few solutions presented IE my approach to solving the problem. Mike B did present an alternative solution, focusing on groups like Bjork and Radiohead...and I applauded him for it...but in general this thread has veered away from any that sort of on-topic productivity whatsoever.

Much of this thread has been dedicated to complaining about micro-tonality and the fact that I'm not an expert of every facet of 12TET music instead of generating positive solutions for how to spread micro-tonal awareness. Hence my immense frustration with all the whining and lack of ability to actually generate solutions to help make micro-tonal music reach the public ear as an acceptable form of composition. Let's get back to the business of promoting and making more accessible the world of micro-tonal music to the public, shall we?

Michael, 
there's no point in continuing this discussion.  If you want the last word, fine, I can see that you're going to have it at all costs. Yes, the original  topic was supposed to be how to bring microtonality to the general public. I thought you might welcome the perspective of someone who has practical experience with this. I am interested in bringing microtonality to the general public and have presented easily over 200 concerts including microtonal music over the last 15 years, in about a dozen countries.  However, you have a different meaning of the stated topic than I and others understood, which is something like the following: how to find a scale that will easily produce microtonal pop music that will be a hit.  Maybe you should label the thread accordingly. 
But again I would strongly suggest that instead of arguing endlessly with everyone, your best course of action would be to write a hit microtonal song.

Franklin
PS My language does not indicate "hate"--that is your fantasy.  I am completely indifferent to your topic.

Dr. Franklin Cox

1107 Xenia Ave.

Yellow Springs, OH 45387

(937) 767-1165

franklincox@...

--- On Fri, 5/7/10, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Sleep (SATB) example of using minor 2nds--Typos fixed
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 8:28 AM

>"Regarding
2). Then perhaps you haven't noticed the dozens of expressions of
frustration with you over the last few weeks. Amazing."
I have noticed a disproportionate percentage of them are from you or Chris and I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot over one person.  Mike B joined in and at first was angry, but then learned he had been mislead about what the topic was (perhaps because you and Chris keep changing it away from my original topic of promoting micro-tonal music to the general public).

>"Regarding 1) and 0) Here's a classic example of the "passive aggressive" behavior you accuse me of: you write, "Either
sticking on topic or politely leaving if you hate the topic instead of
trying to change it." I don't "hate" the topic. That's your invention.
You have  consistently projected your own fantasies of how other people
view you onto them; I've pointed out this red herring tactic several
times."
    You language, including the above, certainly indicates hate as opposed to talking about the original topic.  And you seem to be almost asking me to dive for your bait and shoot myself in the foot when I'm honestly just trying to get some answers and ideas to help promote micro-tonallty to the general public (yes that thing...the original topic!!)  BTW, if you want to talk "reasonable" ...please stay on topic.  If you want to go off topic, please start your own thread.  That's not me being mean, that's just a common protocol of respect online...although perhaps one you are too busy trolling to follow.

>    What I haven't heard is someone, for example, honestly evaluating the reason-ability of use of "semi minor seconds" like 12/11 and/or of a completely different alternative to 17/16...something that could help extend the range of chords possible in pop music using micro-tonality.   Hence we've had a lot of hoopla about "why 12TET is valid" and very few attempts at solving the issue of using micro-tonality to extend the bounds of pop music via things like new consonant chords and getting average musicians interested in micro-tonality.

Are you serious? That's like the first thing that anyone ever thought
of when starting out with microtonal music: quarter tones. 11-limit
ratios are represented very well by 24-et, and believe me when I say
you're not the first to realize that.

I do agree, however, that the "neutral second" interval has a lot of
potential musical use that might carry over to popular music if you're
creative. But what I'm telling you is that your current theory is more
of an example of an artistic technique than an all-encompassing theory
of music. Continue it, because we could use more microtonal "genres"
or "techniques" or whatever you want. But there's no reason to assume
that it's all that's "valid."

If you want to avoid critical band dissonance as an artistic tool, go
for it. It's like impressionistic painters avoiding sharp lines or
something like that. But to elevate that as a theory for how all music
must work is a bit of a stretch.

-Mike

Dr. Cox>"I am interested in bringing microtonality to the general public
and have presented easily over 200 concerts including microtonal music
over the last 15 years, in about a dozen countries. However, you have a different meaning of the stated topic than I and
others understood"

I don't see why so many people see that considering the original topic concerned. They original topic was labeled "love vs. hate of 12TET". And from the beginning I mentioned what could be possible outside 12TET that could extend the bounds of music and still be acceptable to most people and never once did I bring up things like "why is 12TET wrong vs. right" or any of the bizarre topic sidetracks Chris and soon other infiltrated the thread with and then labeled as being "introduced by me" whenever I replied to their topic-switching.

To you and others, before you respond to what Chris, Franklin, or anyone else on the list SAYS I said...make sure you can find a copy of what I actually said and, if part of it confuses you, ask me about it before telling a bunch of other people what my view supposedly is. And same goes for dealing with anyone on the list.

(your proposed topic idea to clarify the point of the thread)
>"how to find a scale that will easily produce microtonal pop music that
will be a hit. "

Indeed, that captures a lot of it, though I would modify it to
"How to find a scale that will easily produce microtonal pop music that
will be a hit to the point many more musicians will be made aware of want to compose micro-tonal music. "
...since making a "hit" isn't the ultimate goal...it's having people see micro-tonal music and see it in a positive light rather than, say, something mathematically and theoretically impressive but annoying to hear.
And it is certainly more specific than my old "Love vs. Hate of 12TET" topic name.

>"PS My language does not indicate "hate"--that is your fantasy. I am
completely indifferent to your topic."
It did come across as saying "you're just incredibly ignorant and aren't being useful in any acceptable way".
Anyhow show's over and it's a good idea: I'm changing the thread name.

_,_._,___

The topic of this thread has been changed to
"How to find a scale that will easily produce microtonal pop music that
will be a hit to the point many more musicians will be made aware of
and want to compose microtonal music. "
...due to the large amounts of off-topic posts spawned from and related to the original "Love vs. Hate of 12TET" thread.

Hopefully this will clarify things, make my original intended topic blatantly obvious, and help avoid the thread from verging off topic.

So let's share some scales and ideas for scales which we think can help the topic's cause and/or better yet, also explain things like what types of chords and other constructs make the scale unique and why you think said scales could somewhat increase the chances of make music popular enough to greatly raise public awareness of and respect for microtonality. :-)

-Michael

MikeB>"quarter tones. 11-limit ratios are represented very well by 24-et, and believe me when I say you're not the first to realize that."
Well, of course 24TET captures quarter tones....this ties well to the concept of quarter tones though I figure you'll have a tough time proving to me the second criteria: how it can be used to make very popular music...due to the very high level of dissonance of pure quarter tones. But please explain to me...how on earth does 24TET supposedly capture "neutral seconds" like 12/11? It sure doesn't seem to on the surface...

>"I do agree, however, that the "neutral second" interval has a lot of potential musical use that might carry over to popular music if you're creative."
Cool...so do you have any ideas and or examples related to creative use of neutral seconds? :-)

>"But what I'm telling you is that your current theory is more of an example of an artistic technique than an all-encompassing theory of music...Continue it, because we could use more microtonal "genres" or "techniques" or whatever you want. But there's no reason to assume that it's all that's "valid.""

You see this is what happens when people take other people's words as mine instead of asking me what I meant first. I NEVER EVER said or implied my scale was an all-encompassing theory...I simply posed it as an alternative. I'm NOT looking to monopolize music theory in any way...and firmly believe things like my theory can peacefully co-exists with 22TET octa-tonic scales, Hexanies scales, 17TET, 1/4 comma mean-tone, diatonic JI, and a whole lot of theories I also believe could be leading forces in popularizing micro-tonal music.

>"If you want to avoid critical band dissonance as an artistic tool, go for it. It's like impressionistic painters avoiding sharp lines or something like that. But to elevate that as a theory for how all music
must work is a bit of a stretch."
I actually wouldn't say any one theory describes how music must work...including JI (which many people seem to think is the single defining theory of all consonant music). Rather I think it's an artistic balance between JI, critical band dissonance, mirroring, proportionate difference tones, variety of tones (more) vs. ease of memory for tones (less) in a scale, tonal color vs. periodicity, potential masking effects between tones, and a whole bunch of other theories we simply haven't discovered.

On top of it I believe we have systems which ultimately simply make compromises between theories such as the above to fit a musician's taste and try to gain as many benefits as possible without compromises. Perhaps the example of "perfect adherence to a theory" is making a scale BE the harmonic series for JI, making a scale be only multiples of the octave for "perfect avoidance of critical band dissonance", or making a scale with unlimited tones for "perfect tonal color". Each option that perfectly complies with a theory without balance between theories, for that reason, I believe turns out to be quite lifeless and boring. The fascination in micro-tonality to a large extent for me comes from finding creative ways to balance between the theories...and the fact there are so many ways to achieve different types of good balance means there can obviously be a good few "leading" scales.

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> =>Michael "we've had a lot of hoopla about "why 12TET is valid" "
>
> Pray tell what does "12 TET is valid" mean?
>
> Chris

Chris, honestly, do you really want to know?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Cox Franklin <franklincox@...> wrote:
>
> Michael,
> there's no point in continuing this discussion.  If you want the
> last word, fine, I can see that you're going to have it at all
> costs.

Oh, he will.

-Carl

Dr. Cox>
> Michael,
> there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you want the
> last word, fine, I can see that you're going to have it at all
> costs.

Carl>"Oh, he will."

With statements like that I think it's pretty obvious here who the troll setting the bait is...and it's not me.

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

> >"Also, it's not "micro-tonal, " it's "microtonal, " and I take offense to the former."
> My spell checker says it's micro-tonal but fair enough...I'll use "microtonal" from now on.

Good, as your spell checker is confused. "Micro-tonal" sounds as if it is something which is almost but not quite atonal.

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

> Well, of course 24TET captures quarter tones....this ties well to the concept of quarter tones though I figure you'll have a tough time proving to me the second criteria: how it can be used to make very popular music...due to the very high level of dissonance of pure quarter tones. But please explain to me...how on earth does 24TET supposedly capture "neutral seconds" like 12/11? It sure doesn't seem to on the surface...

A system like 24et, which tempers out 121/120, has a neutral second which serves for both 12/11 and 11/10; putting the two together gives you 12/11 * 11/10 = 6/5, so a chord splitting the minor third in two with two neutral seconds is a natural feature. 24et also splits the fifth in two with two neutral thirds, tempering out 243/242. Putting the two together makes it natural to see 24 as a "modality" of mohajira, the 31&55 temperament discussed here recently. If you tune 24 notes to a mohajira genrerator, which I would encourage Enthno2 to do, by the way, you get a tuning you might find a little more consonant. But that gets into the whole meantone vs 12et business.

Gene>"A system like 24et, which tempers out 121/120, has a neutral second
which serves for both 12/11 and 11/10;"
Took a second look and you're right IE every third note acts as such...I had made the mistake of concentrating on the first, second, and fourth notes of the scale...being dumb, thinking in terms of 12TET, and forgetting the quarter tone in-between.

>"Putting the two together makes it natural to see 24 as a "modality" of
mohajira, the 31&55 temperament discussed here recently."
Ah ok...now it makes much more sense. If you put the two 12/11 * 11/10 ish intervals in 24TET together you get a "supposed" 6/5. The funny thing to me is that in 22TET the 6th note is 1.18921, which is 1.00907 AKA a good 15.7 cents or so away from the 6/5 it's "supposed to be" and sounds much more to me like the much more harsh 20/11 interval, which it is only about 10.8 cents away from.

So in summary, it seems like a cool idea but from my experience with tackling the 1.81921 error/"comma" in my own neutral-second intensive scales...I doubt it would sound very consonant in practice. I guess the question then becomes does Mohaijira reduce that error and, if so, how and by how much?

-Michael

Alright, you want accessible microtonal scales that could be used in pop music? Prepare yourself! All of the following scales I have selected according to the following criteria:
1. Logical structure to make learning easy (i.e. nothing "arbitrarily chosen according to one person's aesthetics).
2. Relatively easy to apply to existing instruments (i.e. nothing with an intimidating number of pitches, nothing too "non-ergonomic").
3. Has at least some basis in theoretical consonance--i.e. for any interval rendered LESS consonant than its 12-tET counterpart, some other interval must be rendered MORE consonant than its 12-tET counterpart.
4. Has at least SOME aspect that will be familiar to the average musician.
5. Has at least SOME ability to deviate significantly from sounding like 12-tET.

So, without further ado:

EDOs:
15- and 16-EDO both improve 5-limit and 7-limit harmony (at the expense of the 3-limit), do not add significantly more pitches than 12-tET, provide some familiar harmonies but deviate extremely from traditional melodic structures, and have simple proposed Halberstadt-esque keyboard designs that would not be too difficult to "hack" onto a mass-produced keyboard if one doesn't mind taking it apart. Both are easy to apply on guitar as well. Google "pentadecaphonic" and "armodue" to see proposed keyboards and theoretical structures for these two.

17- and 19-EDO both preserve familiar 3-limit harmonies while either adding some 11- and 13-limit intervals (17-EDO) or improving 5-limit harmonies and adding some additional dissonances in the form of some poorly-approximated septimal intervals (19-EDO). Both are compatible with standard notation and can play 12-tone music just fine, and both are still within a manageable number of pitches for the average musician.

24-EDO preserves everything people like about 12 while adding a host of 11-limit intervals, and performing only slightly worse than 19-EDO in the 7-limit. New scales like the "mohajira" neutral-third scale are possible. Still manageable on a guitar, though just barely, and at least somewhat sensible when applied to a halberstadt keyboard (2 octaves of keyboard becomes one acoustical octave).

18's potential I'm still evaluating. 20 is not very ergonomic on guitar, though I like it just fine and it sounds better than 15. 14 is actually pretty tricky to apply on guitar, scale-wise. 13 won't win any beauty contests, 21, 22 & 23 are probably too unwieldy for the average musician despite sounding really good, and anything above 24 will probably turn off the average musician for being "too many notes". 10-EDO or 7-EDO might actually turn some people on, though.

JI:
Any 13-limit (or lower) CPS or tonality diamond with a manageable (i.e. <24) number of pitches, such as Wilson's Eikosany, will provide plenty of consonant chords arrayed according to a logical (read: easy to learn and understand) mathematical structure. Any JI scale has the disadvantage of being difficult to apply to a guitar, but for under 24 pitches, a reconfigured halberstadt keyboard is still possible. Marimbas and tubulongs are easy enough to build, and there is some theoretical support for these tunings/scales.

A 5-limit 12-tone JI scale, such as that used in Terry Riley's "The Harp of New Albion" can also sound appreciably different from 12-tET, especially with chords further out on the spiral of fifths. Just look at what a scale of 1/1-16/15-9/8-6/5-5/4-4/3-45/32-3/2-8/5-5/3-9/5-15/8-2/1 looks like if you take the 45/32 as the tonic! This allows players the ability to select how "xenharmonic" they wish to sound by changing keys. Easy on a keyboard, still tough on guitar...but hey, Dante Rosati managed it by himself on the cheap, so it can be done!

An octave of the harmonic or subharmonic series, probably at least harmonics 12-24 and at most 24-48. Has the advantage of mathematical consistency (all ratios will share a common numerator or denominator), but has the disadvantage of musical inconsistency (scales are VERY improper, any species of chord occurs only once in the scale, and steps "bunch up" near 1/1 or 2/1)...but hey, the harmonic series "makes sense" in a way MANY JI scales don't!

Non-Octaves:
88-cET or any of the Wendy Carlos scales (alpha, beta, gamma) can go from mild to wild, but are still manageable in number of notes and plenty consonant. There's even some good music that has been written in them! Easy to apply on a guitar or a generalized/hex keyboard. Still a bit difficult for most people to conceptualize, though, as the loss of a real "equivalence" interval means the number of distinct notes goes through the roof, unless one just "decides" to consider some other interval an equivalence.

Bohlen-Pierce: I'm not really a fan, but it's the most popular non-Octave tuning in the world and there's lots of theoretical support for it, as well as an active community of enthusiasts and a few good musical examples (see Elaine Walker/Zia).

I can't think of any scales more easily-applicable, commercially-viable, and community-supported than these.

So maybe, instead of trying to "reinvent the wheel", Michael, you could give a try at writing some "hits" in one of these?

HTH.

-Igs

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

> Ah ok...now it makes much more sense. If you put the two 12/11 * 11/10 ish intervals in 24TET together you get a "supposed" 6/5. The funny thing to me is that in 22TET the 6th note is 1.18921, which is 1.00907 AKA a good 15.7 cents or so away from the 6/5 it's "supposed to be" and sounds much more to me like the much more harsh 20/11 interval, which it is only about 10.8 cents away from.

In 55et the 6/5 maps to 305.45 cents and in 31et it maps to 309.68 cents, and this suggests to me that 24 notes of mojihara might be much more to your liking than 24 equal.

Igs>"Alright, you want accessible microtonal scales that could be used in
pop music? Prepare yourself! All of the following scales I have
selected according to the following criteria:
1. Logical structure to make learning easy (i.e. nothing "arbitrarily chosen according to one person's aesthetics).
2. Relatively easy to apply to existing instruments (i.e. nothing with
an intimidating number of pitches, nothing too "non-ergonomic" ).
3. Has at least some basis in theoretical consonance-- i.e. for any
interval rendered LESS consonant than its 12-tET counterpart, some
other interval must be rendered MORE consonant than its 12-tET
counterpart.
4. Has at least SOME aspect that will be familiar to the average musician.
5. Has at least SOME ability to deviate significantly from sounding like 12-tET."

Very nice list of criteria. I really like with #2 IE avoiding having to keep track and/or play between too many pitches and #5 (since without #5 we might as well be talking about scales that are estimates of 12TET through the ages, including those created before 12TET...that untrained ears may not even think are any different or thus "worth changing instruments for").
#3 is my favorite "rule" in your list though...it captures the concept of "must be no more dissonant, on the average, than 12TET". My second favorite rules would have to be #1 because all too often people use scales that focus on just a few very narrow strengths a scale succeeds at without considering the weaknesses of, say, knocking the crap out of the consonance from most intervals to bring "perfect consonance" to or a certain tint to the sound of a select few chords, for example, that they just happen to be enamored with...it goes hand-in-hand with #3.
******************************

>"24-EDO preserves everything people like about 12 while adding a host of
11-limit intervals, and performing only slightly worse than 19-EDO in
the 7-limit. New scales like the "mohajira" neutral-third scale are
possible."
I'm rapidly gaining interest in Mohaijira...particularly as it has those sweet neutral seconds along with a whole lot of what 12TET has to offer. Actually, ever since I found out about Ptolemy's Homalon scales I've been very interested in neutral seconds...and I may very well write a piece in a "Mohaijira subset" of 24TET.

>"Just look at what a scale of 1/1-16/15-9/ 8-6/5-5/4- 4/3-45/32-
3/2-8/5-5/ 3-9/5-15/ 8-2/1 looks like if you take the 45/32 as the
tonic! This allows players the ability to select how "xenharmonic" they
wish to sound by changing keys."
Very cool...so you can scale your desired level of xenharmonicity. Agreed that's a very desirable feature for a tuning to have. Although I've found 5-limit rather narrow so far as tonal color in the past.

>"but (harmonic series scales) have the disadvantage of musical inconsistency (scales are VERY
improper, any species of chord occurs only once in the scale, and steps
"bunch up" near 1/1 or 2/1)"
Right...plus you have things like tonal color compromised. At one point I gave the thought of harmonic series scales serious consideration because of ease of learning and how it's virtually impossible to make sour chords to an extent, but gave up due to lack of tonal flexibility and single-dimensional feel.

>"Bohlen-Pierce: I'm not really a fan, but it's the most popular
non-Octave tuning in the world and there's lots of theoretical support
for it, as well as an active community of enthusiasts and a few good
musical examples (see Elaine Walker/Zia)."
Agreed it sounds very pristine and there's tons of support for it IE to me it seems as easy to learn or easier to learn than 12TET. It's one of those odd tunings...great for pop music, yet almost sounding too typical for my ears to want to write a lot of personal pieces for it...kind of like using 12TET as a painting and then taking its negative.

>"15- and 16-EDO both improve 5-limit and 7-limit harmony (at the expense
of the 3-limit), do not add significantly more pitches than 12-tET,
provide some familiar harmonies but deviate extremely from traditional
melodic structures"
Cool, I'm a fan of 7-limit and think the added tonal color is more than worth the 3-limit loss.
Plus I loaded up the scale and found a lot of ratios I like, including
1.09683 (decent 12/11 to 11/10 minor second approximation)
1.20303 (excellent 6/5 approximation)
1.38191 (very good 11/8 approximation)
1.515 (one of my favorite "alternative 5ths)
1.66248 (excellent 5/3 approximation)
1.7411 (good 7/4 approximation)
1.82345 (good 11/6 approximation)
I'm going to have to try composing in this one...looks (and sounds from your description) like a pretty well balanced tuning.

>"JI: Any 13-limit (or lower) CPS or tonality diamond with a manageable (i.e.
<24) number of pitches, such as Wilson's Eikosany, will provide
plenty of consonant chords"
I'll have to look up Wilson's Eikosany and try it. My experience with Wilson's scales in the past has been quite good...though often I find JI ends up hitting some chords almost too perfectly (read too much periodicity buzz) and comes out more shaky melodically than TET scales.

>"So maybe, instead of trying to "reinvent the wheel", Michael, you could give a try at writing some "hits" in one of these?"
Indeed I will. In fact...my first micro-tonal song ever was in 19TET, my second in 24TEt, and my third in 34TET...but even looking back I didn't particularly like those tunings, though I'm revisiting 24TET after I've learned the cool things it can do with neutral seconds on top of its "copy of 12TET" interval abilities.
However, I've heard some great music in 17TET, Wilson's scales, BP, 7TET, and a good few other tunings...and it's probably time a gave composing with existing tunings another shot...hopefully with the knowledge and feel of intervals I've gained from making my own scales I'll manage better results this time around.

-Michael

_,_._,___

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Alright, you want accessible microtonal scales that could be used in pop music? Prepare yourself! All of the following scales I have selected according to the following criteria:
> 1. Logical structure to make learning easy (i.e. nothing "arbitrarily chosen according to one person's aesthetics).
> 2. Relatively easy to apply to existing instruments (i.e. nothing with an intimidating number of pitches, nothing too "non-ergonomic").
> 3. Has at least some basis in theoretical consonance--i.e. for any interval rendered LESS consonant than its 12-tET counterpart, some other interval must be rendered MORE consonant than its 12-tET counterpart.
> 4. Has at least SOME aspect that will be familiar to the average musician.
> 5. Has at least SOME ability to deviate significantly from sounding like 12-tET.
>
> So, without further ado:
>
> EDOs:
> 15- and 16-EDO both improve 5-limit and 7-limit harmony (at the expense of the 3-limit), do not add significantly more pitches than 12-tET, provide some familiar harmonies but deviate extremely from traditional melodic structures, and have simple proposed Halberstadt-esque keyboard designs that would not be too difficult to "hack" onto a mass-produced keyboard if one doesn't mind taking it apart. Both are easy to apply on guitar as well. Google "pentadecaphonic" and "armodue" to see proposed keyboards and theoretical structures for these two.
>
> 17- and 19-EDO both preserve familiar 3-limit harmonies while either adding some 11- and 13-limit intervals (17-EDO) or improving 5-limit harmonies and adding some additional dissonances in the form of some poorly-approximated septimal intervals (19-EDO). Both are compatible with standard notation and can play 12-tone music just fine, and both are still within a manageable number of pitches for the average musician.
>
> 24-EDO preserves everything people like about 12 while adding a host of 11-limit intervals, and performing only slightly worse than 19-EDO in the 7-limit. New scales like the "mohajira" neutral-third scale are possible. Still manageable on a guitar, though just barely, and at least somewhat sensible when applied to a halberstadt keyboard (2 octaves of keyboard becomes one acoustical octave).
>
> 18's potential I'm still evaluating. 20 is not very ergonomic on guitar, though I like it just fine and it sounds better than 15. 14 is actually pretty tricky to apply on guitar, scale-wise. 13 won't win any beauty contests, 21, 22 & 23 are probably too unwieldy for the average musician despite sounding really good, and anything above 24 will probably turn off the average musician for being "too many notes". 10-EDO or 7-EDO might actually turn some people on, though.

> Bohlen-Pierce: I'm not really a fan, but it's the most popular non-Octave tuning in the world and there's lots of theoretical support for it, as well as an active community of enthusiasts and a few good musical examples (see Elaine Walker/Zia).

Not only that, but it can be used as a "modality" of 41 equal, and suddenly you've got octaves after all.

> I can't think of any scales more easily-applicable, commercially-viable, and community-supported than these.

Geez, I can. Aside from your mention of 5-limit JI most of those stink on ice unless you use Sethares methods, though 19 is fine. Meantone 12 or 19, Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22, Garibaldi[17], Pajara[12], Porcupine[7], Myna 15, 19, or 23, Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22] and so forth, just for starters, but there's lots, lots more of various kinds of scales.

Though I admit, you have a way with scales I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, so as I've remarked before, it takes all kinds.

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

> I'm rapidly gaining interest in Mohaijira...particularly as it has those sweet neutral seconds along with a whole lot of what 12TET has to offer. Actually, ever since I found out about Ptolemy's Homalon scales I've been very interested in neutral seconds...and I may very well write a piece in a "Mohaijira subset" of 24TET.

Please keep me happy and don't use 24 as a mohajira tuning!

Igs,
I must say...I tried both 16 and 15TET. My "numerology" turned out right...in 15TET I was able to find many more "sweet spots" than in 16TET. I also found the ability to make medium-sized chords about the same as in 12TET and the ability toward/ease-of writing melodies as excellent (perhaps better than 12TET) so far.

Attached is an mp3 example of a melody and backing chords in 15TET. The scale I used is
ACEHJLN (in modplug), which translates to
1 (root) 3 5 8 10 12 14....16 (next octave) in 15TET.
Does anyone know if such a subset in 15TET has a formal name? I found it by ear...but I'm sure someone has run into it before...

-Michael

_,_._,___

Gene>"Please keep me happy and don't use 24 as a mohajira tuning!"
So then...what TETs and steps in those TETs would you recommend for Mohaijira?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Gene>"Please keep me happy and don't use 24 as a mohajira tuning!"
> So then...what TETs and steps in those TETs would you recommend for Mohaijira?

31 or 55 would be better, but you don't need an equal temperament--Jacques Dudon's brat 4 mohajira generator would be fine, for instance.

Michael, you seem to prefer a gamelan sound (to my ears)

I wonder how this would go over in Indonesia, etc.

Some of my microtonal work has had a fairly big download contingent
from east asia. Perhaps this sort of music more easily resonates
there.

In any case nice motive Michael.

Chris

(PS Igs, thank you for the excellent "paper" on your view of various tunings. )

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Michael included below]
>
> Igs,
>       I must say...I tried both 16 and 15TET.  My "numerology" turned out right...in

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

> Geez, I can. Aside from your mention of 5-limit JI most of those stink on ice unless you use Sethares methods, though 19 is fine. Meantone 12 or 19, Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22, Garibaldi[17], Pajara[12], Porcupine[7], Myna 15, 19, or 23, Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22] and so forth, just for starters, but there's lots, lots more of various kinds of scales.
>

Well, I kinda tried to stay away from linear temperaments, being that they are either "non-Just, non-Equal" tunings or else subsets of intimidatingly-large equal-tunings. I define "intimidatingly large" as anything which, when applied to a guitar, would make an average guitarist cringe--so 19's really about the upper limit, and 24 works out only because it's twice twelve (and thus less intimidating). I speak from experience, being that I've showed off my microtonal guitarsenal to many many guitarists--quite a few who'd describe themselves as "adventurous" and more than a few conservatory-trained--and even the 22-EDO drew more looks of fear and disgust ("how can you PLAY a guitar like that?") than interest or excitement; by contrast, most people found the 17-tone quite approachable and fascinating. The 31-tET I once had, well, most people just laughed at it and said I should just go fretless ;->.

While linear temperaments do have an air-tight, easy-to-grasp logic to them (an understanding of generator & period is all you "really" need), and wouldn't be any more difficult to apply to a keyboard than some of the others I mentioned, they have the disadvantage that they'd be as hard to apply to a guitar as a "Just" tuning (unless the guitar is fretted to an intimidatingly-large EDO), but without the benefit of being harmonically "pure" (yeah, we all know I could give a f*** about that, but I'm focusing on "marketability" here!)--i.e., if you're gonna go to all the trouble of bent/split frets on a guitar, most people would (I imagine) to prefer to go the JI route. There seem to be a lot of people obsessed with harmonic purity, who would be willing to deal with the bent/split frets for the sake of having everything "in tune"; the same can't be said of people who are just looking for freaky new scales, it would seem.

Yeah, I'll concede lots of them sound better than 15, 16, 17, or 19-EDO, and if the guitar (i.e. probably the most popular/iconic instrument of American musical pop culture) is taken out of the equation, linear temps definitely outshine any of the EDOs I suggested, and probably even a lot of JI. But I don't think the guitar can really be left out of the equation if one really wants to foment a revolution the way Michael seems to be aiming for.

> Though I admit, you have a way with scales I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole, so as I've remarked before, it takes all kinds.
>

Thanks! But maybe you'd have just as much of a way with them if you gave them a chance ;-?

I'll admit, 16 takes a little more finesse than 15. But to see what really consonant stuff can be done with it, check out some of these tracks:

http://www.last.fm/music/Aeterna/Tribute+to+Armodue

I think the first track may be in 12, and these are only samples (no full length), but you can get an idea. They do some really nice stuff with 16! It is worth noting that 16 renders the 5th and 7th harmonics a bit better than 15, and the 3rd harmonic a bit worse. Try a chord made up of 0-5-12-18 (or 19) degrees of 16-EDO, I think you'll find it quite nice! The hard part is really the melodies. Try a 9-note scale of 0-2-4-6-7-9-11-12-14-(16), or drop the 7 & 12 for a 7-note MOS.

-Igs

PS: That scale in 15 of yours looks like the 15-EDO version of Porcupine-7, which exists with a bit better consonance in 22-EDO, and which Gene said your "Infinity Scale" reminded him of.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Igs,
> I must say...I tried both 16 and 15TET. My "numerology" turned out right...in 15TET I was able to find many more "sweet spots" than in 16TET. I also found the ability to make medium-sized chords about the same as in 12TET and the ability toward/ease-of writing melodies as excellent (perhaps better than 12TET) so far.
>
> Attached is an mp3 example of a melody and backing chords in 15TET. The scale I used is
> ACEHJLN (in modplug), which translates to
> 1 (root) 3 5 8 10 12 14....16 (next octave) in 15TET.
> Does anyone know if such a subset in 15TET has a formal name? I found it by ear...but I'm sure someone has run into it before...
>
> -Michael
>
> _,_._,___
>

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

> While linear temperaments do have an air-tight, easy-to-grasp logic to them (an understanding of generator & period is all you "really" need), and wouldn't be any more difficult to apply to a keyboard than some of the others I mentioned, they have the disadvantage that they'd be as hard to apply to a guitar as a "Just" tuning (unless the guitar is fretted to an intimidatingly-large EDO), but without the benefit of being harmonically "pure"

I don't know diddly about guitars, but it seems to me that if you can play 12et on a guitar you should be able to handle 13 notes of orwell or magic.

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

> > I can't think of any scales more easily-applicable, commercially-
> > viable, and community-supported than these.
>
> Geez, I can. Aside from your mention of 5-limit JI most of those
> stink on ice unless you use Sethares methods, though 19 is fine.
> Meantone 12 or 19, Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22,
> Garibaldi[17], Pajara[12], Porcupine[7], Myna 15, 19, or 23,
> Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22] and so forth, just
> for starters, but there's lots, lots more of various kinds
> of scales.

FWIW, I finally got a pro composer/performer friend of mine to
give a serious listen to the Blackwood etudes a couple years back,
and he liked the 18-ET etude the best, saying it was maybe the
only one that achieved something that couldn't be achieved in 12.

I'll also add that a lot of these systems start looking pretty
good when incomplete prime limits are considered.

-Carl

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

> I don't know diddly about guitars, but it seems to me that if you can play 12et on a guitar you should be able to handle 13 notes of orwell or magic.
>

The trouble is not the scale, but the fretting: see my folder in the "files" section for what a fretboard would look like in TOP Orwell-13, given an open tuning that is the "orwell" version of standard guitar tuning (0-542.9872944-971.9491776-1471.4936472-1900.4555304-2399.065314 cents). If you ran all the partial frets straight across, you'd have something other than Orwell-13 (I'm not exactly sure WHAT, but it would be messy and confusing). A guitarist would have to REALLY LIKE Orwell-13 to want to bother with a guitar like that!

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
>
> > I don't know diddly about guitars, but it seems to me that if you can play 12et on a guitar you should be able to handle 13 notes of orwell or magic.
> >
>
> The trouble is not the scale, but the fretting: see my folder in the "files" section for what a fretboard would look like in TOP Orwell-13, given an open tuning that is the "orwell" version of standard guitar tuning (0-542.9872944-971.9491776-1471.4936472-1900.4555304-2399.065314 cents).

As I said, I don't know from guitars, but I would think what you would want would be something more orwellian, such as

0-542.9872944-1085.9745888-1357.468236-1900.4555304-2399.065314

On 8 May 2010 09:05, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

> The trouble is not the scale, but the fretting: see my folder in the
> "files" section for what a fretboard would look like in TOP Orwell-13,
> given an open tuning that is the "orwell" version of standard guitar tuning
> (0-542.9872944-971.9491776-1471.4936472-1900.4555304-2399.065314
> cents).  If you ran all the partial frets straight across, you'd have
> something other than Orwell-13 (I'm not exactly sure WHAT, but it would
> be messy and confusing).  A guitarist would have to REALLY LIKE
> Orwell-13 to want to bother with a guitar like that!

My advice: run the frets straight across. What you'd have would be
Orwell-13 with the frets straight across. That'd be fine if you like
Orwell but don't care which 13 notes you use.

You'll need to junk standard tuning as well. It's based on fourths
and 4:3 is a mighty complex interval in Orwell. I don't know what to
use instead, but the approximate 7:6 generator is the obvious choice.
Be creative.

Why I think Orwell-13 would make a very good guitar tuning is that
you'd have a 9 note scale (not the same on every string) very easy to
play because the fret spacings are larger than the old equal
temperament fretting. So you can play barre chords on those frets.
And you tune the open strings to make sure you have plenty of nice
barre chords.

There are also theoretical reasons why Magic-19 (Pengcheng) should
make a good guitar fretting: it has good 9-limit intervals, isn't much
more complicated than meantone, and the notes are evenly spaced. I
did try it with fishing line last year, and couldn't make sense of it,
though. But the open string tuning was designed to give 9-limit barre
chords that didn't work. The question is whether you could play them
with proper frets.

It's no good as a dead-simple fretting because there isn't a nice MOS
like 9 from Orwell.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> My advice: run the frets straight across. What you'd have would be
> Orwell-13 with the frets straight across. That'd be fine if you like
> Orwell but don't care which 13 notes you use.

Oh, you'd have a lot more than that though...I guess you'd have 5 keys of Orwell 15, based on each note the open strings are tuned to, but it might even be more than that. I can't really figure it out at this time.

> You'll need to junk standard tuning as well. It's based on fourths
> and 4:3 is a mighty complex interval in Orwell. I don't know what to
> use instead, but the approximate 7:6 generator is the obvious choice.
> Be creative.

There's more to standard tuning than simply fourths: the point of it is to make playing a scale relatively simple, in just such a way that one can play two octaves of a scale without sliding one's hand up or down the neck--what guitarists call "playing in position". It has to do with the fact that on a guitar, the left hand typically can comfortably span no more than a minor third in the lower positions. If you tune the strings too far from approximate "standard", scales become more difficult to play, as quite a bit of position-shifting becomes necessary at some point--or else you narrow the pitch-range across the instrument. If you tuned in ~7:6's, you'd lose quite a bit of pitch-range between the highest and lowest strings, necessitating using thicker high strings to keep proper tension--definitely a pain, since strings are sold in sets of standard gauges.

> Why I think Orwell-13 would make a very good guitar tuning is that
> you'd have a 9 note scale (not the same on every string) very easy to
> play because the fret spacings are larger than the old equal
> temperament fretting. So you can play barre chords on those frets.
> And you tune the open strings to make sure you have plenty of nice
> barre chords.

Well, if you made the partial frets into full frets, the fret spacings would NOT be larger than old equal temperament--there'd be a lot of frets much closer together, unless you didn't take open string tuning into account and fretted as if all strings were tuned to the same note (i.e. having only 13 frets). But if you look at the fretting diagram I produced (which does partial frets, based on one possible open-string tuning, to ensure that only 13 notes are accessible anywhere on the guitar), imagine carrying all those frets out to full and you'll see that the fingerboard will be quite crowded.

Also, this would make things MORE confusing, just like trying to fret a meantone guitar (say 12 out of 31)--many frets would be "orphan" notes not included in any of the main keys, so a guitarist would have to figure which frets on which strings are playable and which aren't. Quite a hassle!

> There are also theoretical reasons why Magic-19 (Pengcheng) should
> make a good guitar fretting: it has good 9-limit intervals, isn't much
> more complicated than meantone, and the notes are evenly spaced. I
> did try it with fishing line last year, and couldn't make sense of it,
> though. But the open string tuning was designed to give 9-limit barre
> chords that didn't work. The question is whether you could play them
> with proper frets.

Well, unless you botched the job, proper frets shouldn't be much different than fishing line. My 18-EDO guitar is done with fishing line and it works perfectly well, save a couple frets on the highest and lowest string that buzz too much.

> It's no good as a dead-simple fretting because there isn't a nice MOS
> like 9 from Orwell.

The lack of a good low-number MOS is what has always turned me off about Magic. Trying to work with more than 10 notes in a scale gets a bit tiresome for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

-Igs

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

> As I said, I don't know from guitars, but I would think what you would want would be something more orwellian, such as
>
> 0-542.9872944-1085.9745888-1357.468236-1900.4555304-2399.065314

In terms of orwell generators, this can be called 0 2 4 6 7 0. Even more regular would be 0 2 4 6 8 0. I would think a guitarist would be able to handle that, once he or she got past the steep slope of the learning curve, but perhaps people would feel the last two strings were tuned too close together. What, then, about 0 2 4 6 3 0? or
0 2 4 1 3 0 or even 0 2 -1 1 3 0?

By way of comparison, standard guitar tuning would be 0 1 2 3 -1 0 with meantone rather than orwell generators.

Carl wrote:
> FWIW, I finally got a pro composer/performer friend of mine to
> give a serious listen to the Blackwood etudes a couple years back,
> and he liked the 18-ET etude the best, saying it was maybe the
> only one that achieved something that couldn't be achieved in 12.

I'm surprised that was his reaction. There were a few that were pretty
"out" to my ears (I think the 13 or possibly 23 ones were the most
xenharmonic). And then somehow he managed to make the 17-tet one sound
pretty normal.

Tangentially, I thought the 17-tet one was the most "in"-sounding of
them all actually, it had a melodic "sparkle" that the others lacked.
It always surprised me that everyone around here considered 17-equal
so dissonant. Then I tried messing around with it myself and found I
wasn't having such an easy time making it sound as "natural" as
Blackwood made it.

> I'll also add that a lot of these systems start looking pretty
> good when incomplete prime limits are considered.

What do you mean incomplete prime limits? like 17-tet as 2.3.7 or
something? Or 12-tet as 3.5.17.19?

-Mike

On 8 May 2010 10:58, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>> My advice: run the frets straight across.  What you'd have would be
>> Orwell-13 with the frets straight across.  That'd be fine if you like
>> Orwell but don't care which 13 notes you use.
>
> Oh, you'd have a lot more than that though...I guess you'd have 5
> keys of Orwell 15, based on each note the open strings are
> tuned to, but it might even be more than that.  I can't really figure
> it out at this time.

With 13 frets to the octave you'd have 5 keys of Orwell 15, assuming
two strings were tuned "the same". The open strings would give 5
notes and the first wide-spacing fret 5 more. You'd then have to
remember which note to leave out for Orwell-9.

You could also have two octaves-duplicated strings, so 4 different
scales. Remember which note to add to get Orwell-9.

> There's more to standard tuning than simply fourths:
> the point of it is to make playing a scale relatively simple,
> in just such a way that one can play two octaves of a scale
> without sliding one's hand up or down the neck--what
> guitarists call "playing in position".  It has to do with the
> fact that on a guitar, the left hand typically can comfortably
> span no more than a minor third in the lower positions.  If you
> tune the strings too far from approximate "standard", scales
> become more difficult to play, as quite a bit of position-shifting
> becomes necessary at some point--or else you narrow the
> pitch-range across the instrument.  If you tuned in ~7:6's,
> you'd lose quite a bit of pitch-range between the highest and
> lowest strings, necessitating using thicker high strings to
> keep proper tension--definitely a pain, since strings are
> sold in sets of standard gauges.

Diatonic scales work that way because they're built from meantone
generators. Orwell generators would work with Orwell scales. An
Orwell guitar is really not going to work if you try to pretend it's
meantone. Meantone works very well for that.

There's a flexibility to the strings. Maybe you'd need to buy two
sets for one guitar. Then you'll have some spare high-E strings to
replace the ones that always break on standard guitars.

>> Why I think Orwell-13 would make a very good guitar tuning is that
>> you'd have a 9 note scale (not the same on every string) very easy to
>> play because the fret spacings are larger than the old equal
>> temperament fretting.  So you can play barre chords on those frets.
>> And you tune the open strings to make sure you have plenty of nice
>> barre chords.
>
> Well, if you made the partial frets into full frets, the fret spacings
> would NOT be larger than old equal temperament--there'd be
> a lot of frets much closer together, unless you didn't take
> open string tuning into account and fretted as if all strings
> were tuned to the same note (i.e. having only 13 frets).  But
> if you look at the fretting diagram I produced (which does
> partial frets, based on one possible open-string tuning, to
> ensure that only 13 notes are accessible anywhere on the
> guitar), imagine carrying all those frets out to full and you'll
> see that the fingerboard will be quite crowded.

Yes, only 13 frets per octave. So it wouldn't be like your diagram.
The wider spacings would be wider than 12-equal, giving 9 positions
per octave for barre chords.

> Also, this would make things MORE confusing, just like trying
> to fret a meantone guitar (say 12 out of 31)--many frets would
> be "orphan" notes not included in any of the main keys, so
> a guitarist would have to figure which frets on which strings
> are playable and which aren't.  Quite a hassle!

I have fretted a meantone guitar. Roughly 19 out of 31. I reckon 12
notes of 1/5-comma meantone/well temperament with the first fret
doubled would do very well for standard chords. But that's a
different issue.

> Well, unless you botched the job, proper frets shouldn't be much
> different than fishing line.  My 18-EDO guitar is done with
> fishing line and it works perfectly well, save a couple frets on the
> highest and lowest string that buzz too much.

The thickest fishing line I could find was still thinner than the
frets that came off. I couldn't get barre chords with the 12+1
meantone (above).

> The lack of a good low-number MOS is what has always turned
> me off about Magic.  Trying to work with more than 10 notes in a
> scale gets a bit tiresome for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

That's why I didn't really grasp it until I came up with the tripod
scale -- 9 notes, unevenly spaced, but good enough.

Graham

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

> > FWIW, I finally got a pro composer/performer friend of mine to
> > give a serious listen to the Blackwood etudes a couple years back,
> > and he liked the 18-ET etude the best, saying it was maybe the
> > only one that achieved something that couldn't be achieved in 12.
>
> I'm surprised that was his reaction. There were a few that were
> pretty "out" to my ears (I think the 13 or possibly 23 ones were
> the most xenharmonic). And then somehow he managed to make the
> 17-tet one sound pretty normal.

As everyone by now knows, the 15-tone etude is my favorite and
it certainly achieves something for me that 12 cannot. Ditto the
15-tone guitar suite. My friend didn't agree (and in fact I can't
even think of another microtonalist who likes the guitar suite).
Then again, this is the same guy who doesn't mind insane pitch
drifts due to comma pumps. Of course I also disagree, but then
again he probably sees my attitude somewhat how I see Jacques'.
I say, if it's significant to some people, it's significant. He
says sure, but only to those people.

> What do you mean incomplete prime limits? like 17-tet as 2.3.7 or
> something? Or 12-tet as 3.5.17.19?

Jep.

-Carl

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

> With 13 frets to the octave you'd have 5 keys of Orwell 15, assuming
> two strings were tuned "the same". The open strings would give 5
> notes and the first wide-spacing fret 5 more. You'd then have to
> remember which note to leave out for Orwell-9.
>
> You could also have two octaves-duplicated strings, so 4 different
> scales. Remember which note to add to get Orwell-9.

The standard guitar tuning, in meantone generators, goes
0 1 2 3 -1 0. This encompasses keys from -1 to 3 on the strings. One of my proposals was 0 2 -1 1 3 0, which gives the same -1 to 3 key gamut, with a different arrangement. You have two strings a major third apart and would have to get used to this degree of irregularity, but apparently the irregulaity of the standard guitar tuning is not a big problem.

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

> With 13 frets to the octave you'd have 5 keys of Orwell 15, assuming
> two strings were tuned "the same". The open strings would give 5
> notes and the first wide-spacing fret 5 more. You'd then have to
> remember which note to leave out for Orwell-9.

I suppose it would make more sense if I was looking at it. But I still think partial frets would be less confusing.

> Diatonic scales work that way because they're built from meantone
> generators. Orwell generators would work with Orwell scales. An
> Orwell guitar is really not going to work if you try to pretend it's
> meantone. Meantone works very well for that.

I wish I had written down the tunings I used to play Orwell in 22 and 31. They were definitely variants on standard, but I recall them working well enough. Never played barre chords with them, though, probably because I never found any barre chords in Orwell-9 that I liked.

> There's a flexibility to the strings. Maybe you'd need to buy two
> sets for one guitar. Then you'll have some spare high-E strings to
> replace the ones that always break on standard guitars.

Well, I'm not saying it can't be done! However, this isn't a thread on the feasibility of applying linear temperaments to guitar, it's a thread on the most "marketable" microtonal scales we can come up with. The further you ask a guitarist to deviate from what he or she is used to, the better the "payoff" has to be. Yet I maintain that the issue with linear temperaments on a guitar is that they provide all the "headache" of JI without the reward of purely-tuned intervals. Sure, linear temperaments are theoretically simpler than JI because they lack "comma problems" (though those don't seem to bother some composers); but in practical application they really aren't any simpler.

Really, I'm just observing some well-established trends here: there's quite a bunch of JI guitarists out there, and comparatively-fewer EDO and EDONOI guitarists, but aside from Charles Lucy I don't think I've heard of ANY strict-non-EDO linear-temperament guitarists who've actually produced music with their instruments. The appeal seems to be lacking, and I suspect it is for the reasons I've stated: all the complications of JI without the harmonic purity.

I'm also reflecting on my induction to the microtonal world...to answer the question of marketability, perhaps we should be reflecting on what "sold us" in the first place. I'm willing to bet "linear temperaments" other than meantone are an uncommon gateway drug.

Not that I am in any way disparaging linear temperaments--I just don't see their "selling points" as strong enough to compete in the marketplace with equal tunings or JI.

> The thickest fishing line I could find was still thinner than the
> frets that came off. I couldn't get barre chords with the 12+1
> meantone (above).

Hmm...I used 80-lb test I picked up at a local drug store. Smaller than the original frets but still works just fine! I'll be happy to send you the rest of my roll if you want to give it another go. I don't see myself hooking any marlins in the near future.

-Igs

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

> Well, I'm not saying it can't be done! However, this isn't a thread on the feasibility of applying linear temperaments to guitar, it's a thread on the most "marketable" microtonal scales we can come up with.

I thought the question was not what people do (mostly, that's 12et) but what they could do, with scales and instruments which could be used for live performance. I think more than three generators for that sort of thing is really not practical unless you bring to the matter the heroic obstinacy of a Harry Partch. That means the 5-limit is still OK, but let's face it, that's awfully limiting. The only really all-purpose, utility rank one temperaments in the size range are 12, 19 and 22. That leaves rank two and rank three tempering, or irregular methods such as circulating temperaments.

There's a hell of a lot which can be done with rank three tempering in the size range, and people mostly don't do it. But then, they mostly don't know how. Rank two temperaments, as we've been discussing, do have many systems which work in the 24 notes or less to the octave size range which we seem to want to focus on. And it's not true that there aren't any pure sounds in there--orwell is often tuned by 53 or 84, for gosh sake, and it shows up already with nine note MOS. There are plenty more possibilities, and people who like synchronized beating, as you may have noticed with recent discussions, are at their happiest in rank two, where these are easiest to work out.

>"Michael, you seem to prefer a gamelan sound (to my ears)"
Admittedly, that's me "timbre cheating" a bit (not Setharesian timbre cheating...but something in-between).
15TET does have some timbre-to-root-tone clashing/"bite" in some places and that lead, I found, counters that better than many other instruments. The flip side is...it does seem indeed their sorts of instruments do better in many cases with layered micro-tonal music (at least if you're a consonance junkie like myself).

Glad you enjoyed that little melody/experiment though. :-)

Igs>"PS: That scale in 15 of yours looks like the 15-EDO version of
Porcupine-7, which exists with a bit better consonance in 22-EDO, and
which Gene said your "Infinity Scale" reminded him of."
Well turns out it really does have a similar feel, albeit with a few extra "sour" fifths and worse for "tall" chord, but significantly better ability toward melodies (at least I've found so far...it's really just a trade-off: could be easily better or worse than my scale depending on the tastes of who's playing it). I'm going to have to try this in 22TET then. :-)

________________________________
From: cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 7, 2010 10:43:48 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: How to find a scale that will easily produce microtonal pop music that will be a hit to the point many more musicians will be made aware of and want to compose micro-tonal music. "

I'll admit, 16 takes a little more finesse than 15. But to see what really consonant stuff can be done with it, check out some of these tracks:

http://www.last. fm/music/ Aeterna/Tribute+ to+Armodue

I think the first track may be in 12, and these are only samples (no full length), but you can get an idea. They do some really nice stuff with 16! It is worth noting that 16 renders the 5th and 7th harmonics a bit better than 15, and the 3rd harmonic a bit worse. Try a chord made up of 0-5-12-18 (or 19) degrees of 16-EDO, I think you'll find it quite nice! The hard part is really the melodies. Try a 9-note scale of 0-2-4-6-7-9- 11-12-14- (16), or drop the 7 & 12 for a 7-note MOS.

-Igs

PS: That scale in 15 of yours looks like the 15-EDO version of Porcupine-7, which exists with a bit better consonance in 22-EDO, and which Gene said your "Infinity Scale" reminded him of.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:
>
> Igs,
> I must say...I tried both 16 and 15TET. My "numerology" turned out right...in 15TET I was able to find many more "sweet spots" than in 16TET. I also found the ability to make medium-sized chords about the same as in 12TET and the ability toward/ease- of writing melodies as excellent (perhaps better than 12TET) so far.
>
> Attached is an mp3 example of a melody and backing chords in 15TET. The scale I used is
> ACEHJLN (in modplug), which translates to
> 1 (root) 3 5 8 10 12 14....16 (next octave) in 15TET.
> Does anyone know if such a subset in 15TET has a formal name? I found it by ear...but I'm sure someone has run into it before...
>
> -Michael
>
> _,_._,___
>

Igs>"But I don't think the guitar can really be left out of the equation if
one really wants to foment a revolution the way Michael seems to be
aiming for."
Agreed, fairly low numbered TET tunings seem to be both the easiest to implement on guitars and among the easiest to do without scaring the crap out of guitarists with huge fretboard. And you can't discount the guitarist considering it's virtually the most popular instrument in America and perhaps Europe.

>"Meantone 12 or 19, Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22,
Garibaldi[17] , Pajara[12], Porcupine[7] , Myna 15, 19, or 23,
Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22]"
Argh...too many capable tunings to try (hehehe)! But seriously I wonder
A) How many of these sound really distinct from 12TET? I'd think (on the surface) mean-tone really wouldn't.
B1) How many of these have "decent" 5ths so many musicians demand? Note: I think 22/15 and 50/33 count as "decent" 5ths.
B2) How many of these scales have either strong major, minor, or neutral thirds...such as 6/5, 11/9, 5/4...or anything so close to those as to be virtually indistinguishable?
...I just say this as think those are among the first things musicians are going to look for...and test.

>"they'd be as hard to apply to a guitar as a "Just" tuning (unless the
guitar is fretted to an intimidatingly- large EDO), but without the
benefit of being harmonically "pure" (yeah, we all know I could give a
f*** about that, but I'm focusing on "marketability" here!)"
Sad but true, I think we may (as least at first) want to try to market micro-tonality by throwing a rod at the stereotype that micro-tonal is more dissonant...including things like producing "boring" diatonic JI guitars that can actually play pretty easily vis-a-vis 12TET instruments. Once we get musicians to at least take that seriously, I figure we have their attention for more interesting scales. ;-)

I think I've already done it with my NPT "just" scale. In harmony (not melody), with NPT, more than half of the possible intervals (not wider than two octaves) are good (to me at least). Plenty to choose from so I don't need to temper it. I suspect that among wider (than two octaves) intervals there is an even higher proportion of "good" intervals.

As I said before, my reasoning for NPT can be found in chapters 4, 6 and 7 of my book "The Mathematics of Music" in the JohnOSullivan folder in the "Files" section. Have a look, it should only take twenty minutes or so to read these chapters.

Note that this version of the book is based on sine save tones but I have since built on the basic princples in the book to deal with complex tones (i.e. the Interval Calculator v7.0) and I used the calculator to test my NPT scale and it still seems, to me, to be best (for reasons outlined in the book).

Before you post a criticism of what constitutes a "best" scale, read the three chapters of my book first and you will probably find an answer to your criticisms there.

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Igs>"But I don't think the guitar can really be left out of the equation if
> one really wants to foment a revolution the way Michael seems to be
> aiming for."
> Agreed, fairly low numbered TET tunings seem to be both the easiest to implement on guitars and among the easiest to do without scaring the crap out of guitarists with huge fretboard. And you can't discount the guitarist considering it's virtually the most popular instrument in America and perhaps Europe.
>
> >"Meantone 12 or 19, Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22,
> Garibaldi[17] , Pajara[12], Porcupine[7] , Myna 15, 19, or 23,
> Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22]"
> Argh...too many capable tunings to try (hehehe)! But seriously I wonder
> A) How many of these sound really distinct from 12TET? I'd think (on the surface) mean-tone really wouldn't.
> B1) How many of these have "decent" 5ths so many musicians demand? Note: I think 22/15 and 50/33 count as "decent" 5ths.
> B2) How many of these scales have either strong major, minor, or neutral thirds...such as 6/5, 11/9, 5/4...or anything so close to those as to be virtually indistinguishable?
> ...I just say this as think those are among the first things musicians are going to look for...and test.
>
> >"they'd be as hard to apply to a guitar as a "Just" tuning (unless the
> guitar is fretted to an intimidatingly- large EDO), but without the
> benefit of being harmonically "pure" (yeah, we all know I could give a
> f*** about that, but I'm focusing on "marketability" here!)"
> Sad but true, I think we may (as least at first) want to try to market micro-tonality by throwing a rod at the stereotype that micro-tonal is more dissonant...including things like producing "boring" diatonic JI guitars that can actually play pretty easily vis-a-vis 12TET instruments. Once we get musicians to at least take that seriously, I figure we have their attention for more interesting scales. ;-)
>

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

> >"Meantone 12 or 19, Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22,
> Garibaldi[17] , Pajara[12], Porcupine[7] , Myna 15, 19, or 23,
> Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22]"

> A) How many of these sound really distinct from 12TET? I'd think (on the surface) mean-tone really wouldn't.

All except for Meantone[12] and Pajara[12].

> B1) How many of these have "decent" 5ths so many musicians demand? Note: I think 22/15 and 50/33 count as "decent" 5ths.

All of them. Pajara or Porcupine have the worst fifths on the list, tuned to 22et that would mean seven cents sharp. Meantone would be less flat than that, and the rest all have far better fifths. But I like accurate, more complex temperaments; there are others aside from porcupine or pajara which are lower complexity systems.

> B2) How many of these scales have either strong major, minor, or neutral thirds...such as 6/5, 11/9, 5/4...or anything so close to those as to be virtually indistinguishable?

All of them.

John,

Here's my experience with realistic attempts to compose with "NPT".
NPT sounds quite concordant...better than 12TET IMVHO and with most of the flexibility.
I don't hear many surprising new intervals. There is no very new type of second, third so far as I can tell, only often better-tuned versions of the original intervals. Thus it makes a solid "re-tuning" scale for original songs, but IMVHO not much of an advantage to helping musicians compose new songs...it falls into the same category as, say, a really cool effects pedal.

True...some people may jump at it the same way they'd jump at a diatonic JI guitar thinking "I want to purify my existing sound"...but I strongly suspect a far larger amount of people would go for it if it included some significantly different intervals. Things like 11/9 for the second instead of 6/5, 11/6 instead of 15/8, 11/8 instead of 7/5, etc. ... intervals that are still quite consonant yet not very close in feel to 12TET intervals. It is up to debate which intervals are best for that sort of thing...but I'm pretty confident many of not most musicians who hear a scale with around 90%+ 12TET intervals will likely say "oh, so it's just like a new mode in 12TET that I need to buy a whole new instrument to play...it's too much sacrifice for not-so-much a gain toward making original sounding music...count me out"

Me> A) How many of these sound really distinct from 12TET? I'd think (on the surface) mean-tone really wouldn't.
Gene>All except for Meantone[12] and Pajara[12].

Thanks to these and other answers you gave on things like their strong purity of thirds and fifths (including good alternatives)...I suppose I'm just going to have to try them all meaning....

> "Magic 13, 16 or 19, Orwell 9, 13, or 22,
> Garibaldi[17] , Porcupine[7] , Myna 15, 19, or 23,
> Sensi[19], Miracle[21] (Blackjack), Wizard[22]"
I'll also see just how sour those (as you said, worst of the bunch) Porcupine 5ths are. The above scales you mentioned fortunately also meet the spec of not having too many notes that could confuse and scare 12TET musicians when mapped to things like guitars. Miracle and Blackjack I've heard come up a lot as "optimal scales".

I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me are the intervals used in scales for these tunings (in fractions and or cents...I admit not being advanced enough at this to understand some of the vector and generator-based notations you guys often toss around). :-) Yes, I am going to try and test these scales one by one in composition...along with the rest of Igs(cityoftheasleep)'s suggested scales and let you guys know what issues (if any) and strengths I find.

-Michael

_,_._,___

Michael,

you said "I don't hear many surprising new intervals". In my system the following "good" intervals occur and how they differ from 12TET in cents is shown...

8/7.....31.2cents
7/6.....33.1cents
9/7.....35.1cents
12/7....33.1cents
7/4.....31.2cents

Plus all the usual suspects are now perfectly in tune whereas with 12TET many of them are more than 15 cents out of tune.

If you read my last post (subjest: 21 good intervals) then of the 21 possible good intervals that occur over a one octave range my system only misses 4 of them (11/8, 11/7, 11/6 and 13/7). So seventeen 'hits' out of 21 is not too bad (80%).

I can understand your quest for new and unusual intervals (check out 11/8, 11/7, 11/6 and 13/7) but at some point the maximum will be reached and you just can't add any more.

I would love to include 11/8, 11/7, 11/6 and 13/7 in my system but (because I'm going for 12 keys per octave) if I do substitute them for the other "usual" notes, far fewer good intervals (and therefore fewer musical possibilities) would occur.

So for me NPT is the best compromise. I will concede that to many people the difference between 12TET and NPT is subtle but when I played my guitar tune to a musician acquaintance of mine his comment was:"it sounds very in tune".

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Here's my experience with realistic attempts to compose with "NPT".
> NPT sounds quite concordant...better than 12TET IMVHO and with most of the flexibility.
> I don't hear many surprising new intervals. There is no very new type of second, third so far as I can tell, only often better-tuned versions of the original intervals. Thus it makes a solid "re-tuning" scale for original songs, but IMVHO not much of an advantage to helping musicians compose new songs...it falls into the same category as, say, a really cool effects pedal.
>
> True...some people may jump at it the same way they'd jump at a diatonic JI guitar thinking "I want to purify my existing sound"...but I strongly suspect a far larger amount of people would go for it if it included some significantly different intervals. Things like 11/9 for the second instead of 6/5, 11/6 instead of 15/8, 11/8 instead of 7/5, etc. ... intervals that are still quite consonant yet not very close in feel to 12TET intervals. It is up to debate which intervals are best for that sort of thing...but I'm pretty confident many of not most musicians who hear a scale with around 90%+ 12TET intervals will likely say "oh, so it's just like a new mode in 12TET that I need to buy a whole new instrument to play...it's too much sacrifice for not-so-much a gain toward making original sounding music...count me out"
>

Hi John,

John>"you said "I don't hear many surprising new intervals". In my system the
following "good" intervals occur and how they differ from 12TET in
cents is shown...
8/7.....31.2cents
7/6.....33.1cents
9/7.....35.1cents
12/7....33.1cents
7/4.....31.2cents"<
Well the 7/6 and 8/7 I'd count as not at all far from the same (just I do with the combining 12/11 11/10 and somewhat the 10/9 interval I like so much as a "range" rather than 3 unique tones).
The 9/7 is notably different in sound than anything in 12TET. Upon blind testing it vs. the nearby 7/4 and 5/3 intervals (even though I admitted myself on your 21 consonant tones post it sounded both good and different from 12TET)...the 12/7 actually doesn't sound very concordant to me at all (though perhaps that's partly personal preference)...it sounds to me like a weak tone that can't decide if it wants to be a 7/4 or 5/3.

So, far as consonant intervals that are different out of your set vs. 12TET, I'd say
1) The 8/7-7/6 range
2) 9/7
3) 7/4
...really 3 new/different types/"classes" of sound that are also quite concordant...at least to my ears. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad (I've seen many mean-tone and JI scales with maybe one "significantly different from 12TET but still very concordant" interval...but I am not sure it's enough variety of new intervals to get people to notice it just upon listening. I'd say something more like 7 completely unique new corcordant intervals (possible within 2 octaves space) would probably get their attention.

>"I would love to include 11/8, 11/7, 11/6 and 13/7 in my system but
(because I'm going for 12 keys per octave) if I do substitute them for
the other "usual" notes, far fewer good intervals (and therefore fewer
musical possibilities) would occur."
Agreed. I ran into this in several of my old attempts to boost my 7-tone scales up into 12+-tone ones. Thus, to achieve such difference without making a lot of sour intervals, I'd highly recommend making a new scale within the 7-9 tone range...rather than a "transpose-able" tuning like the one your NPT scale fits under. I have made an monster 18-tone version of my scale for Sevish loaded with almost every interval on your consonant interval list (including tons with no near-matches in 12TET) possible b/c he said he wanted one. But that one has a lot of sour areas takes a lot of patience to get around and isn't exactly easy enough for the greater world of musicians to have patience for.

>"So for me NPT is the best compromise. I will concede that to many
people the difference between 12TET and NPT is subtle but when I played
my guitar tune to a musician acquaintance of mine his comment was:"it
sounds very in tune"."

I can believe it...and your "John's song" example also sounds incredibly "in-tune". :-) I'd say you know you have someone's attention when you can, say, get a professional guitarist to ask "BTW, how do you play X chords...I have no clue how to?"...and it turns out you can't play anything that sounds remotely like those chords in 12TET. So you tell him "here let me show you...you can't make this chord in 12TET b/c it doesn't exist in 12TET". Then "hopefully" the guitarist asks "so if I need your type of special guitar to play it...where can I get one?" :-D Then if get him actually buying a guitar from you and/or learning to play your scale by playing it on a fret-less...I'd say you made an excellent case for why your scale is worth the switch. Then all you two would need to do is get the next guitarist interested enough in the scale to actually buy an instrument to play it and so on...until the scale was widely accepted. :-)

Thanks Michael,

here's a scale just for you...

1/1
15/14
8/7
7/6
9/7
11/8
10/7
3/2
11/7
12/7
7/4
11/6
2/1

I haven't tested it yet but I'm curious to hear how it sounds.

John :-)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> John>"you said "I don't hear many surprising new intervals". In my system the
> following "good" intervals occur and how they differ from 12TET in
> cents is shown...
> 8/7.....31.2cents
> 7/6.....33.1cents
> 9/7.....35.1cents
> 12/7....33.1cents
> 7/4.....31.2cents"<
> Well the 7/6 and 8/7 I'd count as not at all far from the same (just I do with the combining 12/11 11/10 and somewhat the 10/9 interval I like so much as a "range" rather than 3 unique tones).
> The 9/7 is notably different in sound than anything in 12TET. Upon blind testing it vs. the nearby 7/4 and 5/3 intervals (even though I admitted myself on your 21 consonant tones post it sounded both good and different from 12TET)...the 12/7 actually doesn't sound very concordant to me at all (though perhaps that's partly personal preference)...it sounds to me like a weak tone that can't decide if it wants to be a 7/4 or 5/3.
>
> So, far as consonant intervals that are different out of your set vs. 12TET, I'd say
> 1) The 8/7-7/6 range
> 2) 9/7
> 3) 7/4
> ...really 3 new/different types/"classes" of sound that are also quite concordant...at least to my ears. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad (I've seen many mean-tone and JI scales with maybe one "significantly different from 12TET but still very concordant" interval...but I am not sure it's enough variety of new intervals to get people to notice it just upon listening. I'd say something more like 7 completely unique new corcordant intervals (possible within 2 octaves space) would probably get their attention.
>
> >"I would love to include 11/8, 11/7, 11/6 and 13/7 in my system but
> (because I'm going for 12 keys per octave) if I do substitute them for
> the other "usual" notes, far fewer good intervals (and therefore fewer
> musical possibilities) would occur."
> Agreed. I ran into this in several of my old attempts to boost my 7-tone scales up into 12+-tone ones. Thus, to achieve such difference without making a lot of sour intervals, I'd highly recommend making a new scale within the 7-9 tone range...rather than a "transpose-able" tuning like the one your NPT scale fits under. I have made an monster 18-tone version of my scale for Sevish loaded with almost every interval on your consonant interval list (including tons with no near-matches in 12TET) possible b/c he said he wanted one. But that one has a lot of sour areas takes a lot of patience to get around and isn't exactly easy enough for the greater world of musicians to have patience for.
>
> >"So for me NPT is the best compromise. I will concede that to many
> people the difference between 12TET and NPT is subtle but when I played
> my guitar tune to a musician acquaintance of mine his comment was:"it
> sounds very in tune"."
>
> I can believe it...and your "John's song" example also sounds incredibly "in-tune". :-) I'd say you know you have someone's attention when you can, say, get a professional guitarist to ask "BTW, how do you play X chords...I have no clue how to?"...and it turns out you can't play anything that sounds remotely like those chords in 12TET. So you tell him "here let me show you...you can't make this chord in 12TET b/c it doesn't exist in 12TET". Then "hopefully" the guitarist asks "so if I need your type of special guitar to play it...where can I get one?" :-D Then if get him actually buying a guitar from you and/or learning to play your scale by playing it on a fret-less...I'd say you made an excellent case for why your scale is worth the switch. Then all you two would need to do is get the next guitarist interested enough in the scale to actually buy an instrument to play it and so on...until the scale was widely accepted. :-)
>

I would like to try Orwell-13 on my Roland GR-20 guitar / midi thing.

I looked in my scala folder and nothing jumped out as Orwell - 13

Does anyone know if / which scala package file is Orwell-13?

Thanks,

Chris

> You'll need to junk standard tuning as well. It's based on fourths
> and 4:3 is a mighty complex interval in Orwell. I don't know what to
> use instead, but the approximate 7:6 generator is the obvious choice.
> Be creative.
>
> Why I think Orwell-13 would make a very good guitar tuning is that
> you'd have a 9 note scale (not the same on every string) very easy to
> play because the fret spacings are larger than the old equal
> temperament fretting. So you can play barre chords on those frets.
> And you tune the open strings to make sure you have plenty of nice
> barre chords.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to try Orwell-13 on my Roland GR-20 guitar / midi thing.

Here you go:

! orwell13eb.scl
Equal beating version of Orwell[13], x^10 + 2x^3 - 8 generator
13
!
43.573939095570593791
157.54107727531699652
271.50821545506339932
315.08215455063399307
429.04929273038039591
543.01643091012679865
586.59037000569739241
700.55750818544379516
814.52464636519019800
858.09858546076079170
972.06572364050719448
1086.0328618202535973
1200.0000000000000000

Thank you Gene!!

and math question - does the equation mean (X^10) + (2x^3)-8 or (x^10)+(2x^-5) ?

Chris

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:59 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to try Orwell-13 on my Roland GR-20 guitar / midi thing.
>
> Here you go:
>
> ! orwell13eb.scl
> Equal beating version of Orwell[13], x^10 + 2x^3 - 8 generator
> 13
> !
> 43.573939095570593791
> 157.54107727531699652
> 271.50821545506339932
> 315.08215455063399307
> 429.04929273038039591
> 543.01643091012679865
> 586.59037000569739241
> 700.55750818544379516
> 814.52464636519019800
> 858.09858546076079170
> 972.06572364050719448
> 1086.0328618202535973
> 1200.0000000000000000
>
>
> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
> Messages in this topic (132)
> Recent Activity:
>
> New Members 3
> New Files 7
>

On 8 May 2010 14:21, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
>> With 13 frets to the octave you'd have 5 keys of Orwell 15, assuming
>> two strings were tuned "the same".  The open strings would give 5
>> notes and the first wide-spacing fret 5 more.  You'd then have to
>> remember which note to leave out for Orwell-9.
>
> I suppose it would make more sense if I was looking at it.  But
> I still think partial frets would be less confusing.

The fewer the better, at least.

>> Diatonic scales work that way because they're built from meantone
>> generators.  Orwell generators would work with Orwell scales.  An
>> Orwell guitar is really not going to work if you try to pretend it's
>> meantone.  Meantone works very well for that.
>
> I wish I had written down the tunings I used to play Orwell in
> 22 and 31.  They were definitely variants on standard, but I
> recall them working well enough.  Never played barre chords
> with them, though, probably because I never found any
> barre chords in Orwell-9 that I liked.

What I came up with overnight is to tune the strings in thirds, to
each three notes of Orwell-9. Then you can play Orwell-9 on the open
strings and first three frets. It does mean a total of 6 generators
between strings, so 13 frets won't obviously give you the same 9 notes
on each string. Maybe there's a workaround but it depends on what you
want the other frets to do.

The big problem with Orwell generators is that they're so small. You
end up with things like 5:6:7:8 being playable but not 3:4:5.

>> There's a flexibility to the strings.  Maybe you'd need to buy two
>> sets for one guitar.  Then you'll have some spare high-E strings to
>> replace the ones that always break on standard guitars.
>
> Well, I'm not saying it can't be done!  However, this isn't a thread
> on the feasibility of applying linear temperaments to guitar, it's a
> thread on the most "marketable" microtonal scales we can
> come up with.  The further you ask a guitarist to deviate from
> what he or she is used to, the better the "payoff" has to be.  Yet
> I maintain that the issue with linear temperaments on a guitar
> is that they provide all the "headache" of JI without the reward of
> purely-tuned intervals.  Sure, linear temperaments are
> theoretically simpler than JI because they lack "comma problems"
> (though those don't seem to bother some composers); but in
> practical application they really aren't any simpler.

The payoff for Orwell is pretty high. You get reasonable 11-limit
harmony, every 9-limit interval better than 12-equal, few "wolf"
intervals, a proper MOS in the Miller limit (7 +/- 2) and a guitar
fretting that will give barre chords. The argument is that it was a
nice idea for keyboards but wouldn't work on guitars. I say that
doesn't follow at all.

Of course it's different. If guitarists don't want to deviate from
what they're used to, they'd better stick with 12-equal, or a slight
variation. Any change and there'll be something they expect to work
that doesn't.

The standard open string tuning is a fundamental problem outside of
meantone. It assumes the syntonic comma is tempered out. There's no
way of getting standard chords to work without some kind of meantone
temperament. And as soon as you lose the standard chords the
guitarists have to relearn. You may as well be bold and give them
something worth learning.

Linear temperaments are practically simpler than JI on a guitar. That
shows itself by giving you more chords on open strings and fewer (if
any) partial or narrowly spaced frets. They also give more purity
than equal temperaments of equivalent size. The small intervals of
Orwell-13 are roughly 53-equal (or commas) but the large intervals
make the fretboard much easier to navigate than having 53 frets to the
octave, and the 11-limit tuning's better than 53-equal. Magic-19
gives 9-limit harmony about as pure as a guitar can deliver with no
commas.

> Really, I'm just observing some well-established trends here:
> there's quite a bunch of JI guitarists out there, and
> comparatively-fewer EDO and EDONOI guitarists, but aside from
> Charles Lucy I don't think I've heard of ANY strict-non-EDO
> linear-temperament guitarists who've actually produced music
> with their instruments.  The appeal seems to be lacking, and
> I suspect it is for the reasons I've stated: all the complications
> of JI without the harmonic purity.

I think this is still online. It's up to you to decide if it
qualifies as music:

http://x31eq.com/music/noisy.mp3

Magic and Orwell were completely unknown 10 years ago. They're still
very little known to the average guitarist, or even microtonal
guitarist. The only attempt to get a fretting specific to either was
my fishing line job last year, which I had to put aside to get music
done with Tripod Notation and a keyboard. Some of you have used
Orwell subsets on equally tempered guitars, which is interesting, but
doesn't give you the purity.

Miracle was an obscure, unnamed temperament sitting in Xenharmonikon
10 years ago. Since then, I think there have been Blackjack
prototypes, but not in America where the trends for both JI and EDO
guitars are established. I have no knowledge of any guitarists saying
the result isn't harmonically pure enough. I do, in fact, have word
of an American building a Miracle-31 (Canasta) guitar, so we'll see
how that goes. You can well argue that it'd be too complex, but the
same goes double for JI. Really.

Schismatic's interesting in theory, but it has the same comma problems
as JI. It's so close to 5-limit JI that I don't think it offers any
advantages.

Pajara's good, but it works with 22-equal.

> I'm also reflecting on my induction to the microtonal world...to
> answer the question of marketability, perhaps we should be
> reflecting on what "sold us" in the first place.  I'm willing to bet
> "linear temperaments" other than meantone are an uncommon
> gateway drug.

Of course they're uncommon. Nobody knows about them.

> Not that I am in any way disparaging linear temperaments--I just
> don't see their "selling points" as strong enough to compete in
> the marketplace with equal tunings or JI.

What sense does it make to categorize tunings like that? Equal
tunings have their advantages, if you're going to use all the notes.
But if you take subsets they look exactly like regular temperaments.
JI is a big bag of tunings that have arbitrary rank and good
harmonies. Regular temperaments are the same. Almost anything that
works with JI can work with some regular temperament or other. Some
regular temperaments have a rank of 2, and that makes them easy to
think about, so we concentrate on them. Some are simple, some are
precise.

>> The thickest fishing line I could find was still thinner than the
>> frets that came off.  I couldn't get barre chords with the 12+1
>> meantone (above).
>
> Hmm...I used 80-lb test I picked up at a local drug store.
> Smaller than the original frets but still works just fine!  I'll be
> happy to send you the rest of my roll if you want to give it
> another go.  I don't see myself hooking any marlins in the
> near future.

Thanks, but I've got plenty to keep myself busy with for now. And
every now and then I get a question about how my fishing's going.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Gene!!
>
> and math question - does the equation mean (X^10) + (2x^3)-8 or (x^10)+(2x^-5) ?

Sorry. It means I used the unique positive real root of the polynomial equation x^10 + 2*x^3 - 8 = 0 as a generator. That gives a generator of 271.51 cents, as opposed to 53 which has a generator of 271.70 cents, and 84 which has a generator of 271.43 cents. It's actually very close to what you get in 358 equal, where the generator of 81/358 octave works. 358 simply happens to be both an almost exactly equal beating tuning and a good orwell tuning.

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@> wrote:
> > and math question - does the equation mean (X^10) + (2x^3)-8 or (x^10)+(2x^-5) ?

In case Gene's answer is not clear: it's the former; the -8 is a constant term not part of an exponent. The normal order of precedence of operators, Gene has used correctly. If he had meant the latter, I feel sure he would have written it differently.

Steve M.

I wrote:

> <snip>  The small intervals of
> Orwell-13 are roughly 53-equal (or commas) but the large intervals
> make the fretboard much easier to navigate than having 53 frets to the
> octave, and the 11-limit tuning's better than 53-equal.  Magic-19
> gives 9-limit harmony about as pure as a guitar can deliver with no
> commas.

Those small steps are roughly 2/53, aren't they? Even better! No
comma-sized intervals. Even the 22 note scale doesn't have commas.

Graham

Hi Gene,

Thanks for the answer. I have another question - I assume there must
be some advantage presenting a generator as a polynominal.

Can you tell me why that is preferred - or what are the advantages? If
I were to guess it has something to do with the data set represented
by the solution line and / or area.

Thanks,

Chris

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:05 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Gene!!
> >
> > and math question - does the equation mean (X^10) + (2x^3)-8 or (x^10)+(2x^-5) ?
>
> Sorry. It means I used the unique positive real root of the polynomial equation x^10 + 2*x^3 - 8 = 0 as a generator. That gives a generator of 271.51 cents, as opposed to 53 which has a generator of 271.70 cents, and 84 which has a generator of 271.43 cents. It's actually very close to what you get in 358 equal, where the generator of 81/358 octave works. 358 simply happens to be both an almost exactly equal beating tuning and a good orwell tuning.
>

> "Magic-19 gives 9-limit harmony about as pure as a guitar can deliver with no
> commas.
9-limit harmony with which 9-limit intervals?
I fear this thread may be suffering from too many options and too few ways to compare them to each other. Unless we expect the public (not to mention people on this list) to actually try and learn 20+ tunings to figure out what they do/don't like about this...I doubt this approach will work.

I've heard a huge number of selections/suggestions for good guitar tuning go up as "being great for 5,7,9,11...limit". So the question becomes if I have say 5 so scales that supposedly give great 9-limit intervals...which intervals show up in the scale and to what accuracy? For example, 11-limit has both 11/6 and 11/7 dyads...personally I like 11/6 but can't stand 11/7...but when someone says "scale great for 11-limit" I have no clue which 11-limit intervals it uses! And other musicians I realize may rate how much they like those intervals precisely the opposite of what I did.

Here's an idea so far as helping musicians decide "which great 7,9,11...limit scale they want"...I figure it may make sense to have some sort of program for testing available that
A) Lets them pick what instruments/timbres they want to use
B) Randomly plays dyads with various intervals with those instruments and lets them rate the intervals from 1 to 10
C) Shows them scales which closely match how much they liked certain types of intervals in part B

Also, If anyone has any alternative to trimming down the scale offering to something more realistic...I'm all ears.

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> I fear this thread may be suffering from too many options and too few ways to compare them to each other. Unless we expect the public (not to mention people on this list) to actually try and learn 20+ tunings to figure out what they do/don't like about this...I doubt this approach will work.
>

This is definitely the difficulty with microtonal music: given the infinite possibilities, how does one know where to begin? Like if the only spices you've ever had are salt and pepper, how will you know what to do with cardamom or cumin?

This is why I've been thinking about writing an online "microtonal personality test". Really, anyone who's been into microtonality for a while can tell you that different personalities seem to match with different metatunings. Some people crave order and purity, others crave dissonance and novelty, still others want purity and novelty, or dissonance and familiarity. To some people, practical considerations outweigh ideals, and to others practical considerations are just a small hurdle to be overcome for the sake of ideals.

I'm also planning on writing a primer on alternative EDOs for the average musician, one which doesn't involve any more "theory" than absolutely necessary and instead focuses on the moods of the tunings and the kinds of music they might work well for. This is also why having lots of music in lots of different tunings--organized systematically and freely available--is helpful in initiating new-comers. I would have certainly appreciated having such resources available to me in the beginning!

Right now, the JI Network is the only group with a novice-level primer, but of course it's totally JI-centric and is the reason why I began my microtonal experiments with near-JI (and JI) tunings--they were the only people with a good sales pitch! So my goal for the near future is to develop a sales-pitch for alternative EDOs. If some people would like to write a novice-level primer on linear temperaments, non-octave scales, Wilson's Eikosany/hexanies, etc., I think it'd be great to compile all these primers somewhere, where they're easy to find and freely available, so that whenever someone starts looking into microtonality, they have a good resource to make the beginning stages easier.

I definitely don't think it's necessary or helpful to try to cherry-pick "the best ones", because I don't think there's really a fair way to that without importing personal biases. Microtonality is about having more FREEDOM with tuning, not just about tuning "better".

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> Thanks for the answer. I have another question - I assume there must
> be some advantage presenting a generator as a polynominal.
>
> Can you tell me why that is preferred - or what are the advantages? If
> I were to guess it has something to do with the data set represented
> by the solution line and / or area.

First, it gives an exact definition of the generator. Second, it tells someone who wants to set up a recurrent sequence to do something similar where to start. Third, it tells us about beat relationships.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> > "Magic-19 gives 9-limit harmony about as pure as a guitar can deliver with no
> > commas.
> 9-limit harmony with which 9-limit intervals?

Here is the 9-limit diamond:

10/9, 9/8, 8/7, 7/6, 6/5, 5/4, 9/7, 4/3, 7/5, 10/7, 3/2, 14/9,
8/5, 5/3, 12/7, 7/4, 16/9, 9/5, 2

> I fear this thread may be suffering from too many options and too few ways to compare them to each other.

Other people thought there were too few options. It's hard to please everyone.

> I've heard a huge number of selections/suggestions for good guitar tuning go up as "being great for 5,7,9,11...limit". So the question becomes if I have say 5 so scales that supposedly give great 9-limit intervals...which intervals show up in the scale and to what accuracy? For example, 11-limit has both 11/6 and 11/7 dyads...personally I like 11/6 but can't stand 11/7...but when someone says "scale great for 11-limit" I have no clue which 11-limit intervals it uses! And other musicians I realize may rate how much they like those intervals precisely the opposite of what I did.

If you are looking at rank two temperaments, a key thing to look at is the complexity of the intervals. For instance, septimal meantone
sorts out the 9-limit diamond I gave above thusly:

1: 4/3, 3/2
2: 10/9, 9/8, 9/5, 16/9
3: 6/5, 5/3
4: 5/4, 8/5
6: 7/5, 10/7
8: 9/7, 14/9
9: 7/6, 12/7
10: 8/7, 7/4

A clear a pattern emerges of septimal intervals being more complex. Magic does things differently:

1: 5/4, 8/5
2: 9/7, 14/9
4: 6/5, 5/3
5: 4/3, 3/2
7: 7/6, 12/7
9: 10/9, 9/5
10: 9/8, 16/9
11: 7/5, 10/7
12: 8/7, 7/4

Augmented triads a specialty of the house. And those 11-limit intervals? 11/6 has complexity 13, and 11/7 complexity 20. So you wouldn't be bothered by the 11/7 problem.

Me>" I fear this thread may be suffering from too many options and too
few ways to compare them to each other. Unless we expect the public
(not to mention people on this list) to actually try and learn 20+
tunings to figure out what they do/don't like about this...I doubt this
approach will work."
Igs>"This is why I've been thinking about writing an online "microtonal
personality test". Really, anyone who's been into microtonality for a
while can tell you that different personalities seem to match with
different meta-tunings. Some people crave order and purity, others crave
dissonance and novelty, still others want purity and novelty, or
dissonance and familiarity..."
I think that's a fantastic alternative way to help people figure out quickly which type of scales they are likely to enjoy . :-)

>"If some people would like to write a novice-level primer on linear
temperaments, non-octave scales, Wilson's Eikosany/hexanies, etc., I
think it'd be great to compile all these primers somewhere"
Indeed....and, on the side, all to often it seems we get into "who has the best tuning" or "who knows the tunings best" sort of arguments and forget to write simple "sales pitches" and guides people can get results from quickly and easily...without being PHD's (or people who have taken many many courses from PHD's) themselves.

>"I definitely don't think it's necessary or helpful to try to
cherry-pick "the best ones", because I don't think there's really a
fair way to that without importing personal biases."
Ultimately neither do I....I think popular music could easily use 20+ different types of scales. However, practical limitations come in IE if we went up to Yamaha and Fender and told them 20 different piano or guitar tunings (complete with thousands of results from, say, your music/tuning personality test) their response would likely be "sounds interesting but there's no way we can make that many different types of instruments cheaply mass-produced!" And musicians, meanwhile, could easily get stuck in a "Tower of Babel" type scenario where very few of them have instruments in compatible tunings.

Therefore I believe, as a starting ground, we should base our "sales pitch" around maybe 5 or so tunings...such as the most common 5 revealed from your "tuning personality test" (not saying they are better but rather "more likely to please people on the average"). Then once we actually have lots of musicians and instrument manufacturers producing music and instruments from those tunings...we can use bargaining power to push more tunings...and give musicians more freedom realistically.

-Michael

_,_._,___

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

> For example, 11-limit has both 11/6 and 11/7 dyads...personally I like 11/6 but can't stand 11/7...

If you are looking for a ridiculously accurate, idiotically complex, and mind-bogglingly high-limit temperament--and who isn't--may I suggest Michael Temperament?

I first ran across Michael Temperament while surveying 11-limit rank two temperaments, where it showed up via 72&311.But the 311 tells us we can take it to much higher limits, defining it as generated by 203/311 octave. The above comment brought it to mind, as it seemed to me that any interval which can inspire this kind of hatred might have some kind of serious mojo working which could be put to a good purpose, and so the question arises, are there any good temperaments with 11/7 as a generator? Unfortunately, all I know is Michael Temperament. It has an 11/7 generator, and this generator goes on and on and on. And on. And on. And as it goes, it generates preposterously high limit intervals by the score. And, of course, as a bonus, you get all those 11/7s. For starters I suppose 72 notes of it to the octave would have to serve.

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

> FWIW, I finally got a pro composer/performer friend of mine to
> give a serious listen to the Blackwood etudes a couple years back,
> and he liked the 18-ET etude the best, saying it was maybe the
> only one that achieved something that couldn't be achieved in 12.
>
> I'll also add that a lot of these systems start looking pretty
> good when incomplete prime limits are considered.
>
> -Carl
>

That could be an interesting comment on the Blackwood etudes, but it is clearly no comment at all on the equal divisions of the octave themselves. Any equal division with middle intervals ( ~350 cents thirds for example) can obviously and blatantly achieve things 12-tET physically cannot, for example.

-Cameron Bobro

Me/Michael> For example, 11-limit has both 11/6 and 11/7 dyads...personally I
like 11/6 but can't stand 11/7...

Gene>"the question arises, are there any good temperaments with 11/7 as a
generator? Unfortunately, all I know is Michael Temperament. It has an
11/7 generator, and this generator goes on and on and on. And on. And
on. And as it goes, it generates preposterously high limit intervals by
the score."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry because I didn't create this temperament and don't support it at all but find its existence rather hilarious. It takes intervals I DO like, such as 11/6 and 11/8...but puts them in a framework where many of the intervals have no steady (by low limit or any other criteria) relationships to anything but the root tone.

If there were anything I'd be proud to call, "Michael Temperament", it would be the "Infinity" scale I did post of
1/1 11/10 5/4 11/8 3/2 5/3 11/6 2/1

.....or, better yet, my tempered version which gets rid of a majority the few sour dyads left (IE those around 1.818181 or 20/11 and 1.363636 or 15/11). Again I note this whole "5,7,9,11...limit" business of organizing consonance often doesn't ring true to me...11/7 being a chief example of something that's "11-limit" but sounds terrible and 11/6 being a chief example of something "11-limit" that sounds great. Why not just give a double-blind survey of dyads to people and have them rate those...then make a system of categorizing scales from those results? I'm in fact very confident it would blow a lot of this "7-limit is always more consonant than 11-limit" stereotyping out of the water...

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I finally got a pro composer/performer friend of mine to
> > give a serious listen to the Blackwood etudes a couple years back,
> > and he liked the 18-ET etude the best, saying it was maybe the
> > only one that achieved something that couldn't be achieved in 12.
> >
> > I'll also add that a lot of these systems start looking pretty
> > good when incomplete prime limits are considered.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> That could be an interesting comment on the Blackwood etudes,
> but it is clearly no comment at all on the equal divisions of the
> octave themselves. Any equal division with middle intervals
> ( ~350 cents thirds for example) can obviously and blatantly
> achieve things 12-tET physically cannot, for example.
>
> -Cameron Bobro

Not to him. He doesn't care about intonation. Obviously
every one of those ETs contains intervals not found in 12.

Not saying his comments say something about the ETs though,
you're right.

-Carl