zurna tuning improvisation

I have a question for the tuning group.

does this sound xenharmonic?

http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3

When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to 12 et via scala.

http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/zurna-compare.txt

Please excuse the hesitations. I have been discovering chords all evening and have been working on putting them together into progressions.

What prompted this request is that I indeed did use MOTU alternate tunings in my previous MOTU posts. And while I can saturate my ears and make almost anything sound good to me usually after a break I can clearly hear the microtonalism.

Yes, I hear the "xenharmonism" in this one. But you haven't used any
zurna samples! It's an excellent Turkish-Persian-Indian double-reed
instrument, like a shawm.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On May 26, 2010, at 4:45 AM, christopherv wrote:

> I have a question for the tuning group.
>
> does this sound xenharmonic?
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3
>
> When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to
> 12 et via scala.
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/zurna-compare.txt
>
>
> Please excuse the hesitations. I have been discovering chords all
> evening and have been working on putting them together into
> progressions.
>
> What prompted this request is that I indeed did use MOTU alternate
> tunings in my previous MOTU posts. And while I can saturate my ears
> and make almost anything sound good to me usually after a break I
> can clearly hear the microtonalism.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

thanks for that tip!

And the listen and comment as well.

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Yes, I hear the "xenharmonism" in this one. But you haven't used any
> zurna samples! It's an excellent Turkish-Persian-Indian double-reed
> instrument, like a shawm.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> On May 26, 2010, at 4:45 AM, christopherv wrote:
>
> > I have a question for the tuning group.
> >
> > does this sound xenharmonic?
> >
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3
> >
> > When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to
> > 12 et via scala.
> >
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/zurna-compare.txt
> >
> >
> > Please excuse the hesitations. I have been discovering chords all
> > evening and have been working on putting them together into
> > progressions.
> >
> > What prompted this request is that I indeed did use MOTU alternate
> > tunings in my previous MOTU posts. And while I can saturate my ears
> > and make almost anything sound good to me usually after a break I
> > can clearly hear the microtonalism.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
>
> >
> > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com <tuning-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com> -
> join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@...m<tuning-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>- leave the group.
> > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com <tuning-nomail%40yahoogroups.com> - turn
> off mail from the group.
> > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com <tuning-digest%40yahoogroups.com> - set
> group to send daily digests.
> > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com <tuning-normal%40yahoogroups.com> - set
> group to send individual emails.
> > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com <tuning-help%40yahoogroups.com> - receive
> general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Chris>"http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3"

To my ears...a whole lot (maybe 20-25% of the notes and chords used) sounds un-confident and xenharmonic in the confused sense of the word that, unfortunately, most of the public knows micro-tonal music by. For example, the first repeated 3 chords sound fine, but the 4th sounds barely passable (IE still good to me, but I highly doubt the public would accept it). Meanwhile the 5th chord sounds much like a mistake (not "strategic/controlled dissonance"...but as if the musician simply missed the correct chord completely)...IE it sounds bad to me and I'm guessing most certainly bad to the average listener who's not, say, a common visitor on this list.

Sadly, this perhaps confirms one of my most common criticisms...that most micro-tonal scales I hear seem to either focus on purifying a select relatively few chords (compared to, say, 12TET) or making something that sounds no different to the average musician than 12TET.

I still say about 13 cents off a pure-sounding interval is about human tolerance...on the average...and that dyads around 11-limit (assuming the octave over that 11-limit interval is ALSO 11-limit or lower) represent the highest limit "pure" dyads. And this isn't just from surveying my own scales, but looking over Wilson's scales, several TET scales including 15,16,22, 31 TET, Ptolemy's scales, and many more.

>"And while I can saturate my ears and make almost anything sound good to
me usually after a break I can clearly hear the micro-tonalism."
The realistic problem is...at least if we're trying to pitch new tunings to not-already-microtonal musicians...we can safely assume they are not going to repeatedly listen to such pieces on repeat to "get their ears used to them".

Here is an actual piece I'm working on in that tuning with the same chords.

http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=268

or online play

http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=289&p=2016#p2016

I don't find a zurna in Ethno 2 - could it possibly have a different
name? That would be a much better solo instrument choice for the work
in progress I just posted.

Chris

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, I hear the "xenharmonism" in this one. But you haven't used any
> zurna samples! It's an excellent Turkish-Persian-Indian double-reed
> instrument, like a shawm.
>
> Oz.
>

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

> Sadly, this perhaps confirms one of my most common criticisms...that most micro-tonal scales I hear seem to either focus on purifying a select relatively few chords (compared to, say, 12TET) or making something that sounds no different to the average musician than 12TET.
>

Alright. I wrote a longer response but I realized it all boiled down to this: F*** the "general public", F*** "pure intervals", and F*** trying to "pitch" microtonal music to an audience which, by definition, only likes things similar to what it is used to. You're a fool if you think ANYTHING different than 12-tET will ever appeal to as many people in this culture as 12-tET does. Microtonal music is made BY and FOR people who like things *because* they sound different, which is the diametric opposite of the "general public". The same things that make microtonal music UNAPPEALING to the "general public" are those that make it appealing to most of us here.

You've painted yourself into a paradox by trying to find something that sounds exactly like 12-tET but completely different. Nothing meets your standards because your standards are full of self-contradictions and I don't know why you don't see that. People on this list have thrown you scale after scale, showing you the absolute best alternatives to diatonic music, and you've rejected them all as "not good enough" because they all sound too different from 12-tET. When are you going to wake up and realize that YOU just DON'T LIKE MICROTONAL MUSIC, and that you should just stick with 12-tET because nothing else is gonna meet your criteria? Stop using "I haven't found the RIGHT scale" as an excuse for your own compositional laziness.

>"You're a fool if you think ANYTHING different than 12-tET will ever
appeal to as many people in this culture as 12-tET does."

I've often released micro-tonal tracks WITHOUT telling people they are micro-tonal and gotten similar responses to my 12TET tracks. The only "rule" I follow is to keep the average level of resolve about the same as my 12TET songs. I do that by using scales where it's hard to go too sour...but it can also be done by smartly picking sweet chords from larger scales, holding the more dissonant notes for shorter durations, and such.

>"The same things that make microtonal music UNAPPEALING to the "general
public" are those that make it appealing to most of us here. "
To some yes, but to most...I seriously doubt it. Carl summed good temperament up by discussing maximizing the number of fairly pure dyads and minimizing the tuning error. Come to think of it 12TET does that, but so do loads of micro-tonal scales.
(anyone on the list please answer...)
Isn't it true that many of you turn to micro-tonal music for
A) Tonal flexibility
B) Improved consonance for certain chords
C) Easy ways to quickly find out how resolved a chord is (often via JI)
D) To understand what current tuning systems grew from?
...none of which are contradictory to what 12TET does.

>"You've painted yourself into a paradox by trying to find something that
sounds exactly like 12-tET but completely different."
Something need not sound like 12TET to maintain a similar sense of resolve to 12TET...in the same way a color need not be bright blue to qualify as a bright color.
True, you are likely going to run into some intervals from 12TET...but also many (say, a good 30% or more) that aren't. This is true of Wilson's MOS scales, the 7-tone scales from Gene's 31TET survey, and several other systems.

>"When are you going to wake up and realize that YOU just DON'T LIKE
MICROTONAL MUSIC"

I already compose about 70% of my music micro-tonally regardless of what "style" I'm going for. And two of my favorite electronic musicians EVER are Marcus Satellite and Sevish...despite the micro-tonal musicianship world has maybe 1 ten thousandth (or less) as many artists as the 12TET professional music world.

The reason I got INTO micro-tonal music in the first place is I wanted to make large chords that were impossible to do in 12TET. I was already known to push the harmonic bounds of 12TET with odd chords on the edge of consonance for the sake of a sense of musical mystique. It came to the point where I had trouble not playing, say, the same few 6 to 7-tone chords I found that worked well every song...I wanted to do more than repeat myself.
And when I heard what Sethares was doing with Ten Strings and Blue Dabo Girl I just thought "wow...now that is the kind of thing I was trying for...finally, something fresh"!

>"Stop using "I haven't found
the RIGHT scale" as an excuse for your own compositional laziness."
Only fools compose when not inspired. For the longest time I composed 2-3 songs per week. When people reviewed my songs they would VERY often say "this sounds like a forced academic exercise...the technique is there but the soul isn't". Now I compose more like one a month...but the quality per song is much better because I only compose when I'm inspired and ratings and listener response are much better as well. I released a track for Sevish's album and I'm confident it will do quite well (so much for compositional laziness). Meanwhile I see (for example) you have a lot of albums, but maybe 4 of every 18 songs per album of yours really strike me as sounding inspired...so I see that sort of thing as "really" producing 4 songs, and not 18.

I refuse to treat music making like an assembly-line job. Scale making, meanwhile, revolves enough around math and fixed logic that I can make progress on it regardless of inspiration (much like I can with computer programming). Hence I stick with scale-making when I'm not inspired to make music...and when I do make music (perhaps unlike yourself)...I don't always feel I have to release it everywhere and gloat about it to "prove I compose".

Also, for the record, I haven't as you've said really been "switched tunings" much recently. For the last 4 months or so I've basically been just making tweaks on my "Infinity" scale system.
I've even taken songs I wrote with "version 1" of the system and put in "version 5" and the mood stayed the same, only became more confident (much like changing a song from 12TET to a more JI-pure version in 31TET...just really improving the basic system, not really "changing it from scratch"). I'm just "waxing the car and cleaning the filters...not rebuilding it", at this point.

Dear Chris and Michael,

Please let me begin by warmly thanking you, Chris, for
a piece that sounded to me like a pleasant guitar
improvisation with some interesting "pitch bends";
that's just a first impression. Really I need to
listen more also more carefully, because this isn't
a genre with which I'm most familiar. While Oz and
others have nicely described what a zurna is (an
instrument I remember hearing on some recordings
maybe around the early 1970's), this doesn't of
course prevent the use of this tuning with any
instrument that seems apt.

I realize that often a given scale is a kind of
litmus test as how to one's musical language or
languages parse a given set of pitches into
potential progressions. You were very helpful to
provide the text file with a list of interval sizes,
so that we can share ideas about some of the roads
open with this "zurna" tuning set.

One idea that immediately occurs to me is a progression
using that near-just 7/4 at 967.270 cents -- or also
the slighter wider interval at 979.680 cents -- along
with the great smallish neutral second and sixth at
136.058 and 838.012 cents, quite close to 13/12 and 13/8.

967 838
698 838
0 136

The first, more active chord has a 698-cent fifth plus our
near 7/4, with a near-7/6 minor third between the two upper
voices, close to 4:6:7. Then the lower two voices each moves
up by about a 13:12 (139 cents), 136 or 140 cents; while the
highest voice moves down by about a 14:13 (128 cents),
129 cents, bringing us to a pure 3:2 fifth.

Of course, I see this because it has been a familiar
progression for me since around late 2001, when George
Secor and I explored his 17-note well-temperament and
came upon many things like this. It might or not fit in
the direction you decide to take a given piece.

Thank you also, Michael, for offering your frank opinion
and raising some general philosophical questions. I might
offer a few quick responses.

What you may be highlighing is a composer's dilemma in
many genres: will something sound like a subtle and
pleasing variation on a familiar musical language; a
"mistake" where a familiar language seems to be spoken
with a "wrong accent"; or an invitation to explore some
new or at least unfamiliar language for a given listener?

To me, "microtonality" isn't a genre, but rather a dimension
of any music with pitch: and 12-EDO is simply one tuning
within that continuum. In my view there are no good, or more
particularly bad, intervals in themselves, but rather
intervals presented in more or less fitting or unfitting
contexts. You wouldn't necessarily want to use an excellent
slendro tuning for a church organ playing Palestrina, or
tune a gender playing slendro in 1/4-comma meantone (or
12-EDO for that matter) -- maybe Yarman-79 would offer a
nice subset.

Consider, for example, one of the most popular and successful
performers of the 20th century, still loved by millions and
a cultural icon to many: Umm Kulthum. Did she call herself a
"microtonalist"? Can her music be reduced to 12-EDO -- or,
for that matter, to a regular 12-note Pythagorean or meantone
tuning, or a 12-note well-temperament of the Bach era?

Someone might rightly point out that every note she sang was
necessarily no more than 50 cents from some step of 12-equal,
and that statement also applies to my music, or Chris's, or
anyone else's. We're not out to be as similar to or different
as possible from one good system out there along the interval
spectrum, but rather to "do our thing" as relevant traditions,
preferences, and sometimes sheer inspiration move us.

In short: thanks to Chris for a pleasant piece I need to
listen to more carefully, with a due confession that I'm
not so familiar with this kind of genre; and to Michael
for asking some questions providing much food for thought.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@...

Look, dude. You're all over the place here. You spend most of your time here talking about how this scale or that scale isn't gonna "sell" microtonal music to the average listener, or about how you don't like the scale used in someone's piece, and you're just constantly talking like there's no good microtonal music out there. I never see you post music, and I never hear you really praise anything. You're never satisfied with any scale, and you dismiss nearly every scale suggested to you.

But now you say you DO like some scales, and you DO think there is some good microtonal music out there, and you claim that you ARE making music. So maybe there ARE scales and musicians that have met your stringent criteria, and you just don't like to talk about them? I just don't know. If you ever go back and re-read your posts, you'll see that just about EVERY SINGLE POST you make, it's all "well this is kind of okay, but still not good enough".

Regarding output: everything I write is in the framework of a concept album, so yeah, some songs aren't quite as inspired because they have a role to fill and I have to keep them in that role, rather than following whatever direction I want to go in. Had "Map of an Internal Landscape" NOT had the concept behind it, I would have taken those tunings in much different directions probably. It was an exercise in trying to associate EDOs with mental states. "Early Microtonal Works" is about half improvised, very unpolished. But everyone seems to like different songs on those albums, which is a testament to the fact that what I consider my best work is not a reliable indicator of how it will go over. So I write, release, and let the audience judge.

As to your output, the only music I've EVER heard from you are those two examples of 19-tET stuff you linked me to quite a while back, and the occasional 4-bar snippet of something your working on. Where are you hiding all this music you claim to have made? It's easy to criticize others when no one gets to hear what YOU'VE been making.

Aaaand, I still maintain that anything which sounds significantly different from 12-tET will NEVER be as popular in our culture as 12-tET. No matter how "consonant" or "resolved" it sounds. Because most people in our culture DON'T LIKE "DIFFERENT". Some people, maybe your friends or anyone adventurous enough to find your work, might find it "interesting", but come on...is Joe Lunchbox driving his pickup through the Heartland gonna dig it? Is Donna Preteen with her boyband posters and Tiger Beat magazine gonna dig it? Is the Carlos Hendrix-Ray-Vaughn psych-blues cover band go out and refret their guitars to it? Is Betty Soccermom gonna blast it on her minivan stereo on the way to pick up the kids? I think the answer is a resounding NO, and not just for your work, but for ALL of ours. It's people like these little archetypes that drive the market, and NONE OF THEM could give a damn about microtonal music. If you think otherwise, you're really fooling yourself.

>"or
about how you don't like the scale used in someone's piece"
Admittedly I think a whole bunch of scales either sound profoundly like 12TET or just plain old lack any sort of easy resolve.

>"You spend most of your time here talking about how this scale or
that
scale isn't gonna "sell" micro-tonal music to the average listener"
Yes...because if we actually want to grow this art beyond being mostly "fringe hobby" for those in musical academics...we need to get real, professional musicians interested. Neil Haverstick has said very similar things many times...for example. That's not me trying to push all toward MTV and major label (Lord forbid...I hate both)...but dealing with the reality that we're not getting too far at getting many musicians to try our art here and the fact it's hurting the scene. Less musicians in micro-tonallity = less micro-tonal music. It's not rocket science.

>"and you're
just constantly talking like there's no good micro-tonal music out there."
I just mentioned Marcus and Sevish. And in the past I've mentioned Cameron, Sethares, Chris, and a handful of others.

>"I never see you post music, and I never hear you really praise anything."
I've praised Chris, Sevish, Sethares, Cameron, and several more here....heck (excuse the ignorance) directly praised your own work. Yes I do often say work here sounds a bit self-indulgent and not considering any type of wider audience...because, again, I see that as a problem keeping this art from reaching more musicians.

>"But now you say you DO like some scales, and you DO think there is some
good microtonal music out there, and you claim that you ARE making
music."
Have made music for a long time. I've posted about 4 songs on here. You really need to know the honest reason I don't post a whole lot of songs? I don't think I'm that great a composer, period...and I've been composing for over 10 years...so I think my time is best off composing example and making tunings for the sake of making things easier for those WITH such skills...instead of becoming the "breakthrough artist" I've well realized I will never be. Come to think of it, Carl, Rick, Marcel, and a handful of others don't release a lot of music either...are you going to bully them as well?

>"you'll see that just about EVERY SINGLE POST you make, it's all "well
this is kind of okay, but still not good enough"."
The only time it will truly be good enough...is when the musical world sees microtonality as a more-or-less equally strong art to "regular" music. It's an ongoing process, not a goal...kind of like curing cancer.

>"As to your output, the only music I've EVER heard from you are those two examples of 19-tET stuff you linked me to quite a while back, and the
occasional 4-bar snippet of something your working on. Where are you
hiding all this music you claim to have made? It's easy to criticize
others when no one gets to hear what YOU'VE been making."
I've also linked to my old song "Sutrated", which is also micro-tonal. Dare I say it...I think Sutrated and my 19TET piece "Melancholy and Yellow" are pretty solid, though no where near good enough to change people's minds about micro-tonallity. Also I will gladly link to my new song on Sevish's album WHEN he releases it. Granted also, a lot of my music I don't consider good enough to release. In addition, I've never claimed to make a ton of music in the first place. You don't have to have made 100+ songs to call yourself a composer, do you?

>"Aaaand, I still maintain that anything which sounds significantly
different from 12-tET will NEVER be as popular in our culture as 12-tET. No matter how "consonant" or "resolved" it sounds. Because most
people in our culture DON'T LIKE "DIFFERENT". "
I seriously doubt it. There used to be no such thing as new-school hip hop and the original 303 that drives so much dance music was original supposed to be just a stand in for a rock bassist...drum and bass used to never exist and sounds dramatically different than anything before it, and now people love both of those "crazy new genres". Music has also become more dissonant over time throughout history...though not by huge jumps. Somewhat inharmonic timbres have even become the norm in many genres of electronica and people pay thousands for analog synths often for the sole purpose of making weird sounds and effects.

Considering how much difference people have gradually welcomed in music...I don't see why there's a so-called anti-difference barrier that one effects tuning...especially when they accept drastic changes in everything else.

>"Some people, maybe your friends or anyone adventurous enough to find
your work, might find it "interesting", but come on...is Joe Lunchbox
driving his pickup through the Heartland gonna dig it? Is Donna Preteen with her boyband posters and Tiger Beat magazine gonna dig it?"

Uh dude...the point is to get everyday MUSICIANS to take micro-tonal seriously enough to actually compose in it. I don't care about Tiger Beat or any marketing garbage like that. My point is that if you can't make an average pro musician take your musical art seriously your "art" is in trouble.

>"I think the answer is a resounding NO, and not just for your work, but
for ALL of ours. It's people like these little archetypes that drive
the market, and NONE OF THEM could give a damn about microtonal music.
If you think otherwise, you're really fooling yourself. "

Sad thing, I don't consider myself a good composer...and yet even I've had local DJ's play some of my microtonal tracks live and get average response playing it right along with 12TET music. But I've shown them other micro-tonal work...and they won't touch 98% of it...and when I ask for the reasons they give much the same ones I give here. If a somewhat lousy composer like myself can manage...then I swear others, if they could spare maybe even one song out of every 20 they write to make a respectable public impression, could convince both professional DJs and live musicians to take micro-tonal seriously. But, you're right...most people think it's just a circus.

And your (and often others') apparent attitude of "they will never give a damn...let's not even try...let's just do whatever we're doing and wait another 100+ years until they come to us" I swear...is helping making sure micro-tonal music is never respected in the greater world the way it deserves to be.

At least I'm trying to make scales to help fill in that gap between micro-tonality and the rest of the music world and convince more musicians to join our art...I just can't believe the hypocrisy that people like you are making fun of me and calling me pathetic for trying to HELP out here by getting us all some more recognition...

Did you try Shenai? I believe it's practically the same instrument.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On May 26, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> I don't find a zurna in Ethno 2 - could it possibly have a different
> name? That would be a much better solo instrument choice for the work
> in progress I just posted.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I hear the "xenharmonism" in this one. But you haven't used any
>> zurna samples! It's an excellent Turkish-Persian-Indian double-reed
>> instrument, like a shawm.
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>

Excellent! Very oriental and microtonal sounding. You caught the sense
of it.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On May 26, 2010, at 7:29 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

>
>
> Here is an actual piece I'm working on in that tuning with the same
> chords.
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=268
>
> or online play
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=289&p=2016#p2016
>

I'll give that a shot tonight or tomorrow - thanks!! And thanks for the
listen and comment.

I also need to reduce the randomness and increase the melodic content of
that lead. A change in the type of instrument (sustained versus plucked)
could make it sound much more natural.

Thanks again Oz!

Chris

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Did you try Shenai? I believe it's practically the same instrument.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> On May 26, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > I don't find a zurna in Ethno 2 - could it possibly have a different
> > name? That would be a much better solo instrument choice for the work
> > in progress I just posted.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...<ozanyarman%40ozanyarman.com>
> > > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, I hear the "xenharmonism" in this one. But you haven't used any
> >> zurna samples! It's an excellent Turkish-Persian-Indian double-reed
> >> instrument, like a shawm.
> >>
> >> Oz.
> >>
> >
>
>
>

Hi Margo,

Thank you for the listen and extended comment. I'll try to apply the
progression and other ideas here.
I really liked the zurna tuning - it has nice inflections as well as 4 and 5
note chords that I like the sound of.

Chris

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Margo Schulter <mschulter@calweb.com>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Chris and Michael,
>
> Please let me begin by warmly thanking you, Chris, for
> a piece that sounded to me like a pleasant guitar
> improvisation with some interesting "pitch bends";
> that's just a first impression. Really I need to
> listen more also more carefully, because this isn't
> a genre with which I'm most familiar. While Oz and
> others have nicely described what a zurna is (an
> instrument I remember hearing on some recordings
> maybe around the early 1970's), this doesn't of
> course prevent the use of this tuning with any
> instrument that seems apt.
>
> I realize that often a given scale is a kind of
> litmus test as how to one's musical language or
> languages parse a given set of pitches into
> potential progressions. You were very helpful to
> provide the text file with a list of interval sizes,
> so that we can share ideas about some of the roads
> open with this "zurna" tuning set.
>
> One idea that immediately occurs to me is a progression
> using that near-just 7/4 at 967.270 cents -- or also
> the slighter wider interval at 979.680 cents -- along
> with the great smallish neutral second and sixth at
> 136.058 and 838.012 cents, quite close to 13/12 and 13/8.
>
> 967 838
> 698 838
> 0 136
>
> The first, more active chord has a 698-cent fifth plus our
> near 7/4, with a near-7/6 minor third between the two upper
> voices, close to 4:6:7. Then the lower two voices each moves
> up by about a 13:12 (139 cents), 136 or 140 cents; while the
> highest voice moves down by about a 14:13 (128 cents),
> 129 cents, bringing us to a pure 3:2 fifth.
>
> Of course, I see this because it has been a familiar
> progression for me since around late 2001, when George
> Secor and I explored his 17-note well-temperament and
> came upon many things like this. It might or not fit in
> the direction you decide to take a given piece.
>
> Thank you also, Michael, for offering your frank opinion
> and raising some general philosophical questions. I might
> offer a few quick responses.
>
> What you may be highlighing is a composer's dilemma in
> many genres: will something sound like a subtle and
> pleasing variation on a familiar musical language; a
> "mistake" where a familiar language seems to be spoken
> with a "wrong accent"; or an invitation to explore some
> new or at least unfamiliar language for a given listener?
>
> To me, "microtonality" isn't a genre, but rather a dimension
> of any music with pitch: and 12-EDO is simply one tuning
> within that continuum. In my view there are no good, or more
> particularly bad, intervals in themselves, but rather
> intervals presented in more or less fitting or unfitting
> contexts. You wouldn't necessarily want to use an excellent
> slendro tuning for a church organ playing Palestrina, or
> tune a gender playing slendro in 1/4-comma meantone (or
> 12-EDO for that matter) -- maybe Yarman-79 would offer a
> nice subset.
>
> Consider, for example, one of the most popular and successful
> performers of the 20th century, still loved by millions and
> a cultural icon to many: Umm Kulthum. Did she call herself a
> "microtonalist"? Can her music be reduced to 12-EDO -- or,
> for that matter, to a regular 12-note Pythagorean or meantone
> tuning, or a 12-note well-temperament of the Bach era?
>
> Someone might rightly point out that every note she sang was
> necessarily no more than 50 cents from some step of 12-equal,
> and that statement also applies to my music, or Chris's, or
> anyone else's. We're not out to be as similar to or different
> as possible from one good system out there along the interval
> spectrum, but rather to "do our thing" as relevant traditions,
> preferences, and sometimes sheer inspiration move us.
>
> In short: thanks to Chris for a pleasant piece I need to
> listen to more carefully, with a due confession that I'm
> not so familiar with this kind of genre; and to Michael
> for asking some questions providing much food for thought.
>
> Most appreciatively,
>
> Margo Schulter
> mschulter@calweb.com <mschulter%40calweb.com>
>
>

Well Michael, if you like so many scales and you like so much microtonal music, why AREN'T you out pitching music to "professional quality" musicians? And if you ARE doing that, why aren't they biting, eh?

Oh, but if you're wondering what microtonality in the hands of a major-label band (you know, with pro-quality production and international distribution) looks like, google "Massive Audio Nerve". I don't like it, but it's definitely mainstream. They even have a professional video! The scale? Quarter-tones. Is this the sort of thing you want to see?

As to why I don't f*** with Carl or Marcel for not making music: Carl's a walking encyclopedia, his knowledge dwarfs all but a select few of the members here, and he does an awful lot to support the community. He also makes mostly positive and helpful comments, and keeps the negativity to a minimum, and he owns up to the fact that his preferences are his own ONLY. He'd certainly never discourage anyone from making music in any scale, either, even if he personally didn't like it. Marcel, that dude's on his own trip and he's only interested in analyzing and tuning one specific form of music, and is content to let anyone working outside that form "live and let live". I've never heard him bash someone for NOT using 5-limit JI in an original piece.

But you, Michael...you're not shy about criticizing peoples' approaches for failing to "sell" microtonality. Why? If you want to sell microtonality, then sell it. But don't get all high and mighty about the people on this list using tunings you don't like or ("Bob" forbid) being too "selfish" to try to pretty up their music into a form that'll sell to John Q. Public. We all have our own reasons for using microtonality...I'd say every one of us probably has a different reason. You think we should all be "doing our part" to sell microtonality, as if making bad/uninspired music is somehow a detriment to this project and people should be ashamed of themselves for posting music that doesn't adhere to your standards. Sure, you never say "this sucks", because you hide behind "the average musician"--"oh, I think this chord is alright, but the average musician wouldn't like it." What makes you so sure you can speak for "the average musician"?

If you want to criticize me for not doing "enough" for the movement, you have no right. I've picked "alternative EDOs" as my "cause" and I'm doing a hell of a lot to make these tunings known to the masses. In another month I'll have a primer, written in plain English using terms that any musician can understand, which explains and describes the properties, potential applications, and my subjective impressions of every EDO from 5 to 37, which will be freely available electronically to anyone who wants it. I don't see anyone else (save for the Just Intonation Network) trying to make microtonal theory so accessible as this. Let's not forget that I've already made a CD of fairly accessible music demonstrating EDOs 9 to 27, which may be a bit "uninspired" but hey, at least it might give people some ideas of what's possible. If you think I could be doing "more" with the modest resources I have available, I'd love to hear it. What have you done? Come up with a few scales, written a few songs, and spent an awful lot of time criticizing the efforts of others.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> >"or
> about how you don't like the scale used in someone's piece"
> Admittedly I think a whole bunch of scales either sound profoundly like 12TET or just plain old lack any sort of easy resolve.
>
> >"You spend most of your time here talking about how this scale or
> that
> scale isn't gonna "sell" micro-tonal music to the average listener"
> Yes...because if we actually want to grow this art beyond being mostly "fringe hobby" for those in musical academics...we need to get real, professional musicians interested. Neil Haverstick has said very similar things many times...for example. That's not me trying to push all toward MTV and major label (Lord forbid...I hate both)...but dealing with the reality that we're not getting too far at getting many musicians to try our art here and the fact it's hurting the scene. Less musicians in micro-tonallity = less micro-tonal music. It's not rocket science.
>
> >"and you're
> just constantly talking like there's no good micro-tonal music out there."
> I just mentioned Marcus and Sevish. And in the past I've mentioned Cameron, Sethares, Chris, and a handful of others.
>
> >"I never see you post music, and I never hear you really praise anything."
> I've praised Chris, Sevish, Sethares, Cameron, and several more here....heck (excuse the ignorance) directly praised your own work. Yes I do often say work here sounds a bit self-indulgent and not considering any type of wider audience...because, again, I see that as a problem keeping this art from reaching more musicians.
>
> >"But now you say you DO like some scales, and you DO think there is some
> good microtonal music out there, and you claim that you ARE making
> music."
> Have made music for a long time. I've posted about 4 songs on here. You really need to know the honest reason I don't post a whole lot of songs? I don't think I'm that great a composer, period...and I've been composing for over 10 years...so I think my time is best off composing example and making tunings for the sake of making things easier for those WITH such skills...instead of becoming the "breakthrough artist" I've well realized I will never be. Come to think of it, Carl, Rick, Marcel, and a handful of others don't release a lot of music either...are you going to bully them as well?
>
> >"you'll see that just about EVERY SINGLE POST you make, it's all "well
> this is kind of okay, but still not good enough"."
> The only time it will truly be good enough...is when the musical world sees microtonality as a more-or-less equally strong art to "regular" music. It's an ongoing process, not a goal...kind of like curing cancer.
>
> >"As to your output, the only music I've EVER heard from you are those two examples of 19-tET stuff you linked me to quite a while back, and the
> occasional 4-bar snippet of something your working on. Where are you
> hiding all this music you claim to have made? It's easy to criticize
> others when no one gets to hear what YOU'VE been making."
> I've also linked to my old song "Sutrated", which is also micro-tonal. Dare I say it...I think Sutrated and my 19TET piece "Melancholy and Yellow" are pretty solid, though no where near good enough to change people's minds about micro-tonallity. Also I will gladly link to my new song on Sevish's album WHEN he releases it. Granted also, a lot of my music I don't consider good enough to release. In addition, I've never claimed to make a ton of music in the first place. You don't have to have made 100+ songs to call yourself a composer, do you?
>
> >"Aaaand, I still maintain that anything which sounds significantly
> different from 12-tET will NEVER be as popular in our culture as 12-tET. No matter how "consonant" or "resolved" it sounds. Because most
> people in our culture DON'T LIKE "DIFFERENT". "
> I seriously doubt it. There used to be no such thing as new-school hip hop and the original 303 that drives so much dance music was original supposed to be just a stand in for a rock bassist...drum and bass used to never exist and sounds dramatically different than anything before it, and now people love both of those "crazy new genres". Music has also become more dissonant over time throughout history...though not by huge jumps. Somewhat inharmonic timbres have even become the norm in many genres of electronica and people pay thousands for analog synths often for the sole purpose of making weird sounds and effects.
>
> Considering how much difference people have gradually welcomed in music...I don't see why there's a so-called anti-difference barrier that one effects tuning...especially when they accept drastic changes in everything else.
>
> >"Some people, maybe your friends or anyone adventurous enough to find
> your work, might find it "interesting", but come on...is Joe Lunchbox
> driving his pickup through the Heartland gonna dig it? Is Donna Preteen with her boyband posters and Tiger Beat magazine gonna dig it?"
>
> Uh dude...the point is to get everyday MUSICIANS to take micro-tonal seriously enough to actually compose in it. I don't care about Tiger Beat or any marketing garbage like that. My point is that if you can't make an average pro musician take your musical art seriously your "art" is in trouble.
>
> >"I think the answer is a resounding NO, and not just for your work, but
> for ALL of ours. It's people like these little archetypes that drive
> the market, and NONE OF THEM could give a damn about microtonal music.
> If you think otherwise, you're really fooling yourself. "
>
> Sad thing, I don't consider myself a good composer...and yet even I've had local DJ's play some of my microtonal tracks live and get average response playing it right along with 12TET music. But I've shown them other micro-tonal work...and they won't touch 98% of it...and when I ask for the reasons they give much the same ones I give here. If a somewhat lousy composer like myself can manage...then I swear others, if they could spare maybe even one song out of every 20 they write to make a respectable public impression, could convince both professional DJs and live musicians to take micro-tonal seriously. But, you're right...most people think it's just a circus.
>
> And your (and often others') apparent attitude of "they will never give a damn...let's not even try...let's just do whatever we're doing and wait another 100+ years until they come to us" I swear...is helping making sure micro-tonal music is never respected in the greater world the way it deserves to be.
>
> At least I'm trying to make scales to help fill in that gap between micro-tonality and the rest of the music world and convince more musicians to join our art...I just can't believe the hypocrisy that people like you are making fun of me and calling me pathetic for trying to HELP out here by getting us all some more recognition...
>

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

> In another month I'll have a primer, written in plain English using terms that any musician can understand, which explains and describes the properties, potential applications, and my subjective impressions of every EDO from 5 to 37, which will be freely available electronically to anyone who wants it.

Will we be able to quote from it on the Xenwiki? I've been adding stuff to the EDO articles there, but most of those I've never tried out in practice, and some of them get on my nerves. But hey, I wrote articles on 2, 3, and 4 EDO, which no one before was crazy enough to try doing, and on an obscure system called 12EDO which evidently no one cares about. I was just thinking about 28, and wonder what you'd say about it beyond "excellent major thirds", "7 EDO fifths", and "dominant temperament and diminished 7th chords".

>"Well Michael, if you like so many scales and you like so much microtonal music, why AREN'T you out pitching music to "professional quality"
musicians? And if you ARE doing that, why aren't they biting, eh?"
I don't know many. But out of the five or so I do I have two "bites" IE people interested who are currently trying to figure out how to work the software to make micro-tonal music.
Most of the "personal opinions" I state hear about things like concordance echo from those "bites". I'm not saying it's the only way to attract professional musicians...but I am saying it as, to say the least, one valid way to do that IE to make or show them scales with
A) Resolved-sound chords being as easy to find as in 12TET
B) Similar number of chords (or greater) available as in 12TET
C) Not a ridiculously high amount of tones per octave for the musician to keep track of and/or map to an instrument
.....indeed many of the same criteria you have mentioned before and I wholeheartedly agree with you on.

>"Oh, but if you're wondering what micro-tonality in the hands of a
major-label band (you know, with pro-quality production and
international distribution) looks like, google "Massive Audio Nerve"."
Hate to burst your bubble but...not good. Its sounds represents many of the reasons people don't take micro-tonal seriously: it has a ton of noise and almost aims to sound chaotic. I know there has been a lot of talk of metal/micro-tonal collaborations...which I don't think along is a bad idea...but most of what has come out (at least that I've heard) sounds more like Tool than more musically involved (and considered much more classic/legendary) things like Metallica's old tunes. I'm not saying "argh, let's get rid of it"...but I don't think it's going to help much.

We can do better...much better. Again I'm going to allude to Neil Haverstick's music...because he's one of the few who manages to balance micro-tonal guitar playing in such a way it sound both distinctly different than 12TET and well thought out enough that most musicians I've gotten the chance to show it to take it seriously. I can easily see why Guitar World (which is definitely NOT Teen Beat, lol) took him seriously as well.

>"But you, Michael...you're not shy about criticizing peoples' approaches
for failing to "sell" microtonality"
I criticize my own and others. I'm not hear to kiss anyone else's ego or my own...I'm here to get to the point where micro-tonal music is taken seriously by the musical community in general. And I've found I'm not a bad guesser...if something comes across to my ears as too "unstable" most of the time when I show the work to professional musicians they echo my thoughts. We have a lot of work to do...

If we didn't...I'd be able to happily drop by a music store or watch a movie or just walk in to a store (IE Abercrombie, Urban Outfitters, or some place that plays non-musak music) and hear micro-tonal music just about anywhere.

>"But don't get all high and mighty about the people on this list using
tunings you don't like or ("Bob" forbid) being too "selfish" to try to
pretty up their music into a form that'll sell to John Q. Public. "
There's no problem in that many of us don't do that...but I do see a huge problem in that virtually none of us do. The only way your argument seems to be able to succeed is IF you can say I'm insisting all of us "go pop". Which I'm NOT.

I'm simply saying it wouldn't hurt if maybe one out of every hundred micro-tonal musicians put some serious effort into this...and do so with the mentality there may be MORE than one way to catch the public ear. Is that really such a ridiculous thing to ask?

Your technique seems to be separating the wheat from the chaff in TET scales while mine is making new scales that "produce mostly wheat"...my technique involves working on getting composers better than myself interested while your technique involves composing multitudes if music. And, in fact, I read you article on "multiple of 5" TET tunings and guitars and found it quite amusing and useful.
It may well be that both of us succeed...I get better composers to use my scales and it catches the public ear, your own compositions catch the public ear and they actually start mass-producing things like 15TET guitars and selling them at my local Guitar Center store, etc. And that would be a good thing...not some sort of terrible contradiction.

Look; both opinions can be right and help the scene...my beef with you is you appear to keep saying that one technique of popularizing micro-tonal music MUST somehow come at the expense of another. How about we stop this fighting and actually work in peace on forwarding our individual missions...we're both here to some extent to make micro-tonal music more accessible, right? :-)

-Michael

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

> Look; both opinions can be right and help the scene...my beef with you is you appear to keep saying that one technique of popularizing micro-tonal music MUST somehow come at the expense of another. How about we stop this fighting and actually work in peace on forwarding our individual missions...we're both here to some extent to make micro-tonal music more accessible, right? :-)
>
> -Michael

Michael, this is exactly what I'm trying to tell you: the way to "forward your mission" is not to spend so much energy criticizing and rejecting scales and compositions; it's to be positive and supportive of whatever good stuff emerges from this community and put your energy behind that. You don't have to kiss anyone's ass, but there's nothing to be accomplished by dismissing/denigrating anyone's scales or compositions.

What exactly IS your "plan" to sell microtonal music? What steps are YOU taking toward this goal? When a company wants to bring a product to market, they don't let it sit in R&D forever until it's absolutely perfect; they develop it until it's good enough to sell, and then they pass it on to marketing. I've gotten you to admit that there are microtonal scales and bits of microtonal music that are at least "good enough" for you, so they're good enough to "sell". There are actually already several microtonalists out there already "selling" a variety of scales and approaches, while you're still bogged down in R&D and babbling about how no one's trying to sell microtonality, which is just wrong:

Paul Rubenstein's out there teaching kids how to BUILD THEIR OWN MICROTONAL GUITARS from scratch in an after-school program; Elaine Walker's teaching community college students about Bohlen-Pierce, and writing amazing accessible microtonal pop music; Ron Sword started the world's first microtonal guitar company, and gives lectures and performances around the country about microtonality; XJ Scott invented a piece of software that can retune ANYTHING to ANY SCALE (though it only runs on the Mac), and runs one of the best microtonal websites on the 'net; Sevish started a microtonal netlabel to help distribute microtonal music, and has written (as you say) some of the absolute most accessible microtonal music ever; Andrew Heathwaite and Jacob Barton started a Wiki and a social networking site, have organized several microtonal performances in their home city, and spend a lot of time developing microtonal educational resources; Jon Catler is gigging non-stop with his JI blues band, and sells affordable microtonal guitar necks in a couple different tunings through his very slick website; Neil Haverstick continues to make excellent microtonal guitar music, has written a 19-tET guitar theory book, and has been featured in Guitar Player magazine; crikey, I could go on all day like this, I haven't even touched HALF the people who are out there really *going for it*. So don't complain that no one's out there selling it. That's just ignorant. If you were half as productive as any of these people, I might take you a little more seriously, but you're not.

And what exactly do you think the Tuning List has to do with selling microtonal music to the outside world? Just about EVERYONE I know who's actively trying to teach/preach microtonality to the uninitiated stays as FAR from this list as possible. It's a black hole, one I keep getting sucked back into (because I'm stupid like that). Trying to sell a scale to the people here is like selling ice to Eskimos.

Seriously Michael, you need to STOP complaining about what people on this list "aren't doing", because I don't see you doing it, either. Lead by example, not by sitting in the back-seat and telling people they're driving in the wrong direction.

>"Michael, this is exactly what I'm trying to tell you: the way to
"forward your mission" is not to spend so much energy criticizing and
rejecting scales and compositions; it's to be positive and supportive
of whatever good stuff emerges from this community and put your energy
behind that."
If only it were that easy. On one hand, I do see enough good micro-tonal material composed to make it worth commenting on very positively from time to time.
On the other hand, a sad majority of what I see seems to say "the only way to reach the public is to simply repackage the same theories that have been around, and have failed to really make it public, for hundreds or thousands of years". It's that attitude that seems to say "things are what they are and can never be changed and barely, if ever, improved upon".
So if, say, someone releases a tune in, say, a pure pythagorean scale or a mean-tone scale while simultaneously bragging how well it follows "expert methods", you bet I'm going to say something about how it may well push listeners back into their anti-microtonal close-mindedness. Because the sad fact is, I'm pretty sure there ARE actually some standards in micro-tonality that largely result in the putting down of any new options. It's that kind of thing, that often encourages people to, say, see JI as the only way to tune well as bitch out those who don't agree...in the same way people addicted to 12TET often bitch out those who do anything different than 12TET.

>"What exactly IS your "plan" to sell microtonal music?" What steps are YOU taking toward this goal?
A path is as follows
A) Make several simple musical examples that show ways scales can be used which 12TET can't be used (IE those 7-30 second clips I often make). Don't push toward a certain style that singles certain types of musicians out or make them think "oh it's only useful for X type of music IE metal or neo-classic"...just give basic examples that can apply to any type of music.
Also show them examples from musicians across various genres in various scales...again being careful not to allow them to think micro-tonal is only useful for certain genres.
B) Show the examples to as many professional musicians as possible.
C) Help them get set up with micro-tonal software and, when possible, micro-tonal instruments. If you can't actually sit down with them to help, at least write tutorials.
D) Help them with compositional tips and/or making situations the make it easier for them to play by-ear. Such was the idea with my "Infinity" scale system (which was designed to be an "easiest of the easy" approach)...though I also recommend other systems such as Ptolemic scales and sub-sets of TET tunings that leave few sour combinations. Not because they can't do more...but to make starting efforts as easy as possible before they move on the trickier stuff.
*********************************
I have done A and B with about 3 musicians and am currently working with one new-to-microtonal professional musician at C.

>"I've gotten you to admit that there are microtonal scales and bits of
microtonal music that are at least "good enough" for you, so they're
good enough to "sell". There are actually already several
microtonalists out there already "selling" a variety of scales and
approaches, while you're still bogged down in R&D and babbling
about how no one's trying to sell microtonality, which is just wrong:"
Never said no one...but I will admit I find it shocking how few people seem to be advertising micro-tonal as an across-all-genres approach. Too often I run into clicks...things like micro-tonalist who seem to voice things like that neo-classical is the only real way to do micro-tonality and anyone who doesn't like it doesn't like it because they are too dumb to understand true excellence...stuff like that.

>"Paul Rubenstein's out there teaching kids how to BUILD THEIR OWN MICROTONAL GUITARS from scratch in an after-school program"
Not going to argue, that's awesome.
>"Elaine Walker's teaching community college students about Bohlen-Pierce, and writing amazing accessible microtonal pop music;"
Not going to lie, I consider that a bit mixed in its net effect. This is because I figure favoritism of BP could easily lead to single-standard-ism much like that in 12TET...not to mention the way BP is based on triads very much makes it work "like 12TET but for odd harmonic instruments". I'd say the same for someone trying to promote almost solely meantone or JI diatonic guitars, for example.

>"Sevish started a microtonal netlabel to help distribute microtonal
music, and has written (as you say) some of the absolute most
accessible microtonal music ever;"
I wouldn't 100% agree after talking to him...though I will say his music, along with music from a few artists on his label such as Jacky Ligon and Carlo Serafani (sp.), really are incredibly accessible even from the very first listen. Also I release music under his label and rarely ever get into any sort of nasty battles. He's one of the few people who truly seems to understand and value my approach...but, more importantly, he runs one of the few labels I have managed to get any professional musicians across genres to take seriously as more than just an academic endeavor.

>"Andrew Heathwaite and Jacob Barton started a Wiki and a social
networking site, have organized several microtonal performances in
their home city, and spend a lot of time developing microtonal
educational resources;"
Admirable effort. One thing to note is there are TONS of micro-tonal resources...but very few toned down enough for the average musician to have the patience to learn. I haven't seen there site yet...so I don't know if it has that problem or not but, for sure, many Doctorate-level papers and guides out on micro-tonality scream "harsh learning curve ahead" for even very skilled musicians.

>"Jon Catler is gigging non-stop with his JI blues
band, and sells affordable micro-tonal guitar necks in a couple
different tunings through his very slick website;"
Sounds great...assuming there are no "JI is the only true way to do micro-tonality" under-lyings.

>"Neil Haverstick
continues to make excellent microtonal guitar music, has written a
19-tET guitar theory book, and has been featured in Guitar Player
magazine; crikey, I could go on all day like this"
Now that just pissed me off as >>I<< gave him direct credit for this last message (including the Guitar Player article part), and now you're re-introducing him as if I hadn't said a thing. That's just purely ignorant on your behalf at best and just plain cruel at worst.

>"I haven't even
touched HALF the people who are out there really *going for it*. So
don't complain that no one's out there selling it. That's just
ignorant. If you were half as productive as any of these people, I
might take you a little more seriously, but you're not."
Great, now you somehow know everything I've done without asking me. But here it is anyhow. I have not one but two DJ's playing micro-tonal music at major clubs in Houston, Texas...and that isn't 25 or so person avant-garde fringe shows it's 75+ person live venues. I have made my own tracks as well played in such venues. I have one local professional guitarist on his way to composing micro-tonal music on his MIDI keyboard. I have had an article about micro-tonal music published in a university magazine featuring links to people like Neil. Plus I, much like people such as you and Elaine, have released pop-focused micro-tonal music of my own.

And...just because I don't make huge websites or my own guitars or have a live pop group (like Elaine does) doesn't mean my efforts are trash. Heck, far as I've read, you don't do those things either. No apologies.

>"And what exactly do you think the Tuning List has to do with selling
microtonal music to the outside world?"
It is kind of like selling ice to eskimos...only the fact seems to be it's very hard to find people who actually compose micro-tonal music going beyond this list and the MMM list. I'd much rather "sell ice in Jamaica" (IE in a world in micro-tonal musicians also extending beyond the list)...the only problem is, as I've learned by searching for micro-tonality outside these lists...seems no one lives in Jamaica.

>"Seriously Michael, you need to STOP complaining about what people on
this list "aren't doing", because I don't see you doing it, either.
Lead by example, not by sitting in the back-seat and telling people
they're driving in the wrong direction."
Who's ignorant here? Maybe once every 4-5 months I work on a new scale system, with a new direction, compose a good few examples with it, carefully work out the advantages of each system, and try to help out with other systems (IE with John's system, for example). True, I don't spend as much time dealing with, say, older systems like BP...but, to be honest, if I did so I realize I'd be much so just duplicating the work of people far more expert at it.
Look, here are my areas of promotion/specialty
A) New dead-easy-to-play scales...such as the "Infinity" scale system where there are very few possible sour chords.
B) Older scales, like Ptolemic scales, with very similar properties to A
C) Introduction of musicians very easy to listen on the first try, such as Neil Haverstick ("African Stick" in particular), Sevish, Carlo Serafani, and Marcus Satellite. To be honest, while I admire people like Elaine Walker and Jacob Barton's efforts and technical knowledge, I've had little luck marketing their music to musicians.
D) Reviewing. Yes, the criticism you keep complaining about. I was the highest ranked reviews on Trax In Space for a very long time despite giving harsh yet constructive criticism much of the time...because musicians could make constructive sense out of my complaints. Dare I admit, enough musicians have told me I have talent as a reviewer that I have come to believe it (so sue me). To make it clear, when I criticize I don't do so to say "your way is wrong, here's the right way", but rather to say "here are several options you can use to fix this issue" or "here is one general pattern many options that can be used to fix this issue have". When I appear to say people are heading in the wrong direction...it usually refers to their having their mind stuck in one direction when they should be open to many more.

To make it even more obvious, the reason I focus on A-D is that appears very few people are focusing on those aspects of micro-tonal music and I don't want to be, say, the 100th person making JI guitars (and I can swear Kraig Grady preceded a whole bunch of people in that art, btw).
Far as D in particular, all too often all I hear is "great music!" from everyone on the list and rarely ever a solid critique...and I don't see how "handing out medals to everyone" is going to help people figure out how to improve their music and/or scales. I'd much rather be helpful on the scene than considered "cool" on it.

Well, this is the first I've heard of you doing anything productive off this list, so forgive me for being ignorant of your "outreach" efforts. You never talk about them, so I don't know how you expect me (or anyone) to know about it. I retract some of my criticism; if you're actually out putting your money where your mouth is, then that's fantastic. I'd like to see more of what you've done: where can I find the tracks you've gotten played at clubs? Can I see the article you had published anywhere? Who's this professional guitarist you've got "on his way"? Do you have an actual microtonal album released somewhere?

That said, I don't publicize my own efforts much here, so I don't expect you to know about them. But I am very actively engaged in trying to make the "theory" accessible to the average musician. EDOs are my thing, so that's what I'm focusing on, and if you are working on making other areas of theory accessible, that's great. Jacob and Andrew particularly are working on things like visual diagrams, vocal exercises, stuff like that. When I finish my alternative EDO primer, I think it will be the most accessible thing ever written on the subject, and I will definitely request your criticism of its accessibility. I think making "layman-level" theory easily available is an important project in general, not necessarily to "sell" microtonality but at the very least to make it accessible to those who take an interest in it. Once we have some finished resources available, we should all consolidate it. The xenharmonic wiki has a long way to go in accessibility, since it's chaotic and full of really academic stuff, so maybe we should form another group to facilitate a sort of "Web Microtonality 101" site.

I'm also paying out-of-pocket to have a set of instruments in 16-EDO made, so that I can start a band and also invite multiple people to get their hands on microtonal instruments and actually jam. The Oakland indie/art/noise scene is quite vibrant and supportive, and I have lots of connections here...lots of people interested and just waiting for me to put instruments in their hands and show them the ropes. I've also got several friends in popular local bands who are willing to let me open for them whenever I have an act together. Being in Acupuncture/Med School full-time, it's slow going for me...but I've already played a solo microtonal acoustic set at a local art opening, so at least the ball is rolling.

I guess what I just don't get about you is why you don't see this List for what it is. It's a place for research: would you write into a scientific journal like JAMA or Nature berating the scientists for making their research papers too difficult for the layman to read? MOST people here aren't interested in reaching out to the layman, they're interested in pursuing their own particular research. If people here were interested in writing for the "layman", they'd write for the layman. I keep trying to tell you: you're in the wrong place for what you're trying to do. This place is not layman-friendly. Look at what happens any time you try to discuss ways to "popularize" microtonality--most people here just get upset. Doesn't that tell you that you're in the wrong place?? You spend like 95% of your time here either clarifying yourself or defending yourself, trying to get something out of this list it just doesn't want to give. It's just wasting everyone's time--especially YOURS!

Most of the music that gets posted is not "serious" composition deserving of critique; it's exploratory doodling, little sketches of ideas meant to inspire further exploration, not to stand on its own as "great" music. This is why your criticism of it seems so misguided to me: to me it's obvious that most of the work posted here is not considered "serious" by its composers, and thus not worth critiquing. If I thought it WAS serious, I'd be critiquing it too, because yes: very little produced here has aesthetic value beyond the curiousity of its tuning. Certainly nothing I'VE produced microtonally is nearly on par with my 12-tET music, aesthetically-speaking. Not even remotely. So criticism of my microtonal work I tend to disregard--I already know what it's lacking, and I don't need to hear it from other people. Not everything produced has to be amazing; the way to learn microtonality is to work with it as much as possible, and to produce a LOT of rubbish along the way. Eventually it all starts to make sense and people can start producing GOOD stuff, or at least SERIOUS stuff which is worth critiquing.

But c'mon, Chris posts a sloppy little guitar improv and asks "hey guys, does this sound xenharmonic to you?" and then you go off on a tangent about how the chords are no good and its not gonna sell microtonality to anyone, and then you go even further off on a tangent about how most microtonal scales either sound too much like 12-tET or too "unresolved" or "unconfident", all in response to one little "doodle" he farted out, and you think THAT'S a valid criticism that's useful to the community?

Look, man, I want to tear down the barriers keeping microtonality hidden just as much as you do. I'm not as optimistic as you regarding how much interest I think we can generate in microtonality, but I agree it could be a good bit more than there currently is. But this isn't the place for that mission--it's the exact OPPOSITE, in fact. This list is WHERE all the arcane theory that MAKES microtonality inaccessible was INVENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and newer (and more arcane) theories are being developed here every day. This place has a strong tendency toward informational entropy, and if we want to combat that, we have to go elsewhere. Where? I don't know. The Ning was a good start, but it's "going out of business" in July when it stops being free and there's no alternative yet in place. Rather than trying to corral a bunch of curmudgeonly academic-types who are unsympathetic to your/our goal, you should be building and deepening your relationships with the precious few who ARE sympathetic. And most of those people AREN'T HERE.

>"Well, this is the first I've heard of you doing anything productive off
this list, so forgive me for being ignorant of your "outreach" efforts.
You never talk about them, so I don't know how you expect me (or
anyone) to know about it."
I usually am not a big believer in bragging about things unless I think I have something rather unique and at least somewhat useful...that is, unless someone forces me into a corner and blindly accuses me. Thanks for the apology but, to be real, isn't going on-and-on accusing someone of not doing anything off list without even taking at least a second to ask "what have you done off-list?" a pretty ridiculous thing to do?

>"Jacob and Andrew particularly are working on things like visual
diagrams, vocal exercises, stuff like that. When I finish my
alternative EDO primer, I think it will be the most accessible thing
ever written on the subject, and I will definitely request your
criticism of its accessibility."
Well I'll try my best. :-) And I do realize you and others truly do strive for accessibility...it's just I'm very critical because I've seen so many supposedly well-rated attempts fail...and not because I don't appreciate other people's efforts.

>"I think making "layman-level" theory easily available is an important
project in general, not necessarily to "sell" microtonality but at the
very least to make it accessible to those who take an interest in it....The xenharmonic wiki has a long way to go in accessibility, since it's
chaotic and full of really academic stuff, so maybe we should form
another group to facilitate a sort of "Web Microtonality 101" site."

Agreed. It seems to be that now you pretty much have to either be a master at music theory or math or just have an incredibly good ear to approach micro-tonality without falling flat on your face...and if efforts by you and others can change that into a more "101" style framework, than that's great. :-) IMVHO the problem is whenever someone tries to approach micro-tonal some expert says "uh, read some PHD-level paper it'll explain that"...and actually expect them to have the patience for that sort of thing...which often causes that person to not walk but run from micro-tonality due to intimidation.

>"I guess what I just don't get about you is why you don't see this List for what it is. It's a place for research"
So wait...somehow the 10+ something scale systems I've created don't count as research...or there's some Puritanistic definition of who's months of scale-crafting counts and whose doesn't?! I don't get it. If anything, I think I do a relatively large amount of research here...and even if it turns virtually no one appreciate all the hours per day I spend working on researching new scales...that doesn't mean I haven't researched anything!

>"It's a place for research: would you write into a scientific journal
like JAMA or Nature berating the scientists for making their research
papers too difficult for the layman to read?"
No, but the disclaimer for the group says "for anyone interested in micro-tonallity" and not "for advanced micro-tonal academic work". If it is really that much about strict academics and nothing else, it's a contradiction of its own mission statement.

>"This place is not layman-friendly. Look at what happens any time you
try to discuss ways to "popularize" microtonality--most people here
just get upset. Doesn't that tell you that you're in the wrong place??"
And the right place is what exactly? I've found MMM and tuning both to be about the most layman friendly...minus Sevish's Split Notes label. If you want academic, there are lists like tuning-math. Where's this so called obvious place for efforts to popularize micro-tonal music?...because it seems to me virtually every artist I've heard of who is micro-tonal is involved on this list and virtually no others I've heard of or can find that are still active.

>"Most of the music that gets posted is not "serious" composition
deserving of critique; it's exploratory doodling, little sketches of
ideas meant to inspire further exploration, not to stand on its own as
"great" music."
Fair enough, though that makes me wonder why you got fed up with me for "making short clips of micro-tonal music, but posting few full-length songs"...

>"But c'mon, Chris posts a sloppy little guitar improv and asks "hey
guys, does this sound xenharmonic to you?" and then you go off on a
tangent about how the chords are no good"
It started as my just saying which chords I thought was off and guessing as to why. It's a fair side-topic IMVHO...considering Chris's main question was "did a manage to avoid making it sound xen-harmonic?" and I was explaining "here's one (and I never said the only) way to get toward that goal". I don't recall going into the popularizing micro-tonal music in depth on that thread either...just running a few examples about dyads.

>"This list is WHERE all the arcane theory that MAKES microtonality
inaccessible was INVENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, and newer (and more
arcane) theories are being developed here every day."
Hehe...sadly, I'd say true and more true on both accounts. But what's the alternative? Truth is the few musicians I know who are or can support explanations that make micro-tonality more accessible are ALSO on this list and I haven't found them on many (if any) others. Hence why I'm still here, selling "ice to 98% Eskimos rather than ice on a tropical island with no people"...because it's the better of the two evils.

>"The Ning was a good start, but it's "going out of business" in July
when it stops being free and there's no alternative yet in place.
Rather than trying to corral a bunch of curmudgeonly academic-types who
are unsympathetic to your/our goal, you should be building and
deepening your relationships with the precious few who ARE sympathetic.
And most of those people AREN'T HERE."
Alright so...where on earth are they? I haven't managed to find out either.

WRONG~!

It's a fair side-topic IMVHO...considering Chris's main question was
"did a manage to avoid making it sound xen-harmonic?"

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>

>
> >"But c'mon, Chris posts a sloppy little guitar improv and asks "hey guys, does this sound xenharmonic to you?" and then you go off on a tangent about how the chords are no good"
>   It started as my just saying which chords I thought was off and guessing as to why.  It's a fair side-topic IMVHO...considering Chris's main question was "did a manage to avoid making it sound xen-harmonic?" and I was explaining "here's one (and I never said the only) way to get toward that goal".  I don't recall going into the popularizing micro-tonal music in depth on that thread either...just running a few examples about dyads.
>

go read my message again. Every other reply to my improvisation understood me.

However, if I try to correct you I'm a "bastard".

Chris

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> WRONG~!
>
> It's a fair side-topic IMVHO...considering Chris's main question was
> "did a manage to avoid making it sound xen-harmonic?"
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>>
>> >"But c'mon, Chris posts a sloppy little guitar improv and asks "hey guys, does this sound xenharmonic to you?" and then you go off on a tangent about how the chords are no good"
>>   It started as my just saying which chords I thought was off and guessing as to why.  It's a fair side-topic IMVHO...considering Chris's main question was "did a manage to avoid making it sound xen-harmonic?" and I was explaining "here's one (and I never said the only) way to get toward that goal".  I don't recall going into the popularizing micro-tonal music in depth on that thread either...just running a few examples about dyads.
>>
>

Chris>"go read my message again. Every other reply to my improvisation
understood me.
However, if I try to correct you I'm a "bastard"."

Well...I did assume you were looking for something a bit more in depth than a one word answer, which is why I brought up the dyad examples.

But I guess not, so in that case here's a more on-topic answer:

(re-answer to your topic) "No. (no particular reason why or possible way to improve it but...) It simply does NOT work."

Is that really what you wanted? If so, perhaps I should stop assuming constructive criticism is welcome here and just stick with shorter, un-constructive criticism and/or praise.

I'm not saying you're a bastard...I'm just saying I don't think it was that crazy of me to assume you wanted constructive criticism or would be annoyed by my attempting to give a constructive answer and an alternative (even if it wasn't your favorite alternative).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> I usually am not a big believer in bragging about things unless I think I have something rather unique and at least somewhat useful...that is, unless someone forces me into a corner and blindly accuses me. Thanks for the apology but, to be real, isn't going on-and-on accusing someone of not doing anything off list without even taking at least a second to ask "what have you done off-list?" a pretty ridiculous thing to do?
>

To be fair, I DID ask, and I also told you that *from what I've seen*, it didn't look like you'd done much. I still maintain that compared to the people I've listed, you haven't done all that much (and neither have I, to be fai).

> So wait...somehow the 10+ something scale systems I've created don't count as research...or there's some Puritanistic definition of who's months of scale-crafting counts and whose doesn't?! I don't get it. If anything, I think I do a relatively large amount of research here...and even if it turns virtually no one appreciate all the hours per day I spend working on researching new scales...that doesn't mean I haven't researched anything!
>

As I see it, yes, you HAVE been engaged in a lot of research here, and that's a totally valid approach to this list; all your work on your scales definitely DOES count as research. All your polemics about trying to popularize microtonality, OTOH, is NOT research.

> No, but the disclaimer for the group says "for anyone interested in micro-tonallity" and not "for advanced micro-tonal academic work". If it is really that much about strict academics and nothing else, it's a contradiction of its own mission statement.
>

Well, the "mission statement" is a bit more idealistic than what actually takes place here. That's why there have been so many off-shoots (like MMM): because this List just has a tendency to devolve into esotericism, which may contradict its mission statement, but what can you do about it? This list is a product of the people who frequent it, and it just so happens that the majority of people who frequent it are interested in "advanced microtonal academic work".

> And the right place is what exactly? I've found MMM and tuning both to be about the most layman friendly...minus Sevish's Split Notes label. If you want academic, there are lists like tuning-math. Where's this so called obvious place for efforts to popularize micro-tonal music?
>

Currently? Among the subgroups at the Xenharmonic Ning, mostly populated by Sean and Tony. But I think we need to work on building a bigger and more focused place.

> Fair enough, though that makes me wonder why you got fed up with me for "making short clips of micro-tonal music, but posting few full-length songs"...
>

Only because you are so critical of others. If all I see is you telling others to do better/work harder, and I don't see any work that you are doing, I'll assume you're a hypocrite, and I don't like hypocrites. I call it like I see it, though I don't always see it "right"...and if I see it wrong, I'm always willing to stand corrected and retract any mistaken statements I have made.

> It started as my just saying which chords I thought was off and guessing as to why. It's a fair side-topic IMVHO...considering Chris's main question was "did a manage to avoid making it sound xen-harmonic?" and I was explaining "here's one (and I never said the only) way to get toward that goal". I don't recall going into the popularizing micro-tonal music in depth on that thread either...just running a few examples about dyads.
>

Actually, Chris posted asking if he DID manage to make it sound xenharmonic, because it DIDN'T sound xenharmonic to him. Re-read his post if you don't believe me. But you went beyond just pointing out the chords you didn't like...you brought up how music like that isn't going to sell microtonality, when of course Chris never claimed it was supposed to. Telling someone their work fails at doing something that it was never meant to do is not a valid criticism!

> Hehe...sadly, I'd say true and more true on both accounts. But what's the alternative? Truth is the few musicians I know who are or can support explanations that make micro-tonality more accessible are ALSO on this list and I haven't found them on many (if any) others. Hence why I'm still here, selling "ice to 98% Eskimos rather than ice on a tropical island with no people"...because it's the better of the two evils.
>

Well, there is no "list" where these people have gathered, but most of them are on the Ning. They're not terribly active there because few people seem to be trying to involve them in dialogs. Just about everyone I listed in that list of "people who are out there selling microtonality" is NOT here, but IS at the Ning--Jacob Barton, Andrew Heathwaite, Elaine Walker, Ron Sword, Paul Rubenstein, XJ Scott, etc. etc. Neil Haverstick isn't there, and neither is Jon Catler (Catler's kind of in his own world, not very interested in the microtonal internet community), but most everyone else is. But you are right, that place is not as active as it could/should be, possibly because all the actually active people are too BUSY for internet discussions most of the time. But if you actually PM them or send them e-mails, most of them are very responsive, and very knowledgeable. Not all of them know the deep esoteric theory that people like Gene, Graham, and Carl possess here, but (no offense, guys), that theory is largely unnecessary for the actual making of microtonal music. The nuts and bolts that the neophyte needs to get his/her feet wet is actually pretty simple, and just about any of us could probably explain it pretty straightforwardly.

> Alright so...where on earth are they? I haven't managed to find out either.

Like I said: they're on Ning, or in their private worlds. XJ Scott is probably the most knowledgeable and most friendly AND most likely to want to help make microtonality as accessible as possible, and his site www.nonoctave.com is occasionally a good place to discuss things. At any rate, I will keep you posted once I start amalgamating parties interested in a coordinated effort to produce an accessible microtonal theory site.

IGS>"To be fair, I DID ask, and I also told you that *from what I've seen*,
it didn't look like you'd done much."
Ok, fair enough...I looked back in past messages and you did ask. But, also, even back then I mentioned lots of things I had worked on off-list and yet got blamed for "only doing things on list". The tunings I have created sure as heck and programs related to them, both of which I've mentioned plenty from the time I joined this list, surely weren't created on the list...

>"I still maintain that compared to
the people I've listed, you haven't done all that much (and neither have I, to be fair)."
True but the question is...how much of this is under our control? For example I don't have a clue how to make micro-tonal guitars well, don't have the time or money host an entire social networking site for micro-tonality, and apparently don't have the talent to be part of a live pop band period forget a micro-tonal live one. Same goes for yourself. I'm just saying it's not fair to either of us say "oh well, the reason you didn't do so well as those people is you just didn't TRY HARD ENOUGH to further the mission of micro-tonality".

>"As I see it, yes, you HAVE been engaged in a lot of research here, and
that's a totally valid approach to this list; all your work on your
scales definitely DOES count as research."
Thank you. :-)
>"All your polemics about
trying to popularize microtonality, OTOH, is NOT research."

Yet I figure (correct me if you have an alternative), it's hard to have one without the other...as my scales final purpose fits right toward the idea of providing an alternative to help popularize micro-tonality. What other type of final goal would make sense, something like "to achieve strong neutral scond dyads around 11/10 while also preserving the purity of larger intervals"? The reason I stick with stating the scales under the popularizing micro-tonality "framework" is that I assume in any type of research the final goal is its use on a more abstract scope and basis.

>"Well, the "mission statement" is a bit more idealistic than what
actually takes place here. That's why there have been so many
off-shoots (like MMM): because this List just has a tendency to devolve
into esotericism, which may contradict its mission statement, but what
can you do about it?"
You're right, absolutely nothing. My hope is that those (few?) of us not into that can at least do our own thing in peace on this list and not be shouted at for our "lack of academic credibility"...and maybe even occasionally find people willing to work with us toward our goals.

>"Well, there is no "list" where these people have gathered, but most of
them are on the Ning. They're not terribly active there because few
people seem to be trying to involve them in dialogs. Just about
everyone I listed in that list of "people who are out there selling
microtonality" is NOT here, but IS at the Ning--Jacob Barton, Andrew
Heathwaite, Elaine Walker, Ron Sword, Paul Rubenstein, XJ Scott, etc.
etc. "
Heh, don't know what to say about "ning"...used to be discussions got a lot of feedback...now very few people seem to be actively posting or replying. I wrote to Paul about 3 weeks ago...and still no response. It's a good idea and it really does seem to have the right people for that sort of thing...but discussions seem tricky to get a response from over there.

>"Actually, Chris posted asking if he DID manage to make it sound
xenharmonic, because it DIDN'T sound xenharmonic to him"

His message said
>"does this sound xenharmonic?
http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3
When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to 12
et via scala."
He did NOT anywhere specify if he wanted it to sound Xenharmonic or not...although he did say it didn't sound Xenharmonic to him. One could easily have taken it either way IE either "he wants it to sound Xenharmonic" or "he wants it to trick people into thinking it sounds like 12TET". I leaned toward the latter as he mentioned comparing it to 12TET...and in the past I've notice when most people compare a scale to 12TET like that, they are going for a 12TET-like (or better) level of consonance.
Perhaps he DID mean "I want to see how UNLIKE 12TET this scale can be"...in which case IMVHO he did a very ambiguous job of explaining what he wanted as a response.

>"Only because you are so critical of others. If all I see is you telling others to do better/work harder, and I don't see any work that you are
doing, I'll assume you're a hypocrite"
That's much your own ignorance then if you still hold that opinion...especially considering how much I post that directly reflects many projects I've worked on specifically for that goal. Again (easy example) my scales and detailed analysis of them sure as anything don't write themselves....and just because I post a lot doesn't mean I don't also do a whole ton of work off-list.

>"I
call it like I see it, though I don't always see it "right"...and if I
see it wrong, I'm always willing to stand corrected and retract any
mistaken statements I have made."
Understood, but please double-check with me and look at all the work I have posted here very closely and think "is it possible he did spend a whole lot of time off-list working this research through?" before you not only "tell" me what I've done, but do it in a very dramatic fashion as if I've "repeatedly earned your disrespect".

>"Like I said: they're on Ning, or in their private worlds. XJ Scott is
probably the most knowledgeable and most friendly AND most likely to
want to help make microtonality as accessible as possible, and his site www.nonoctave.com is occasionally a good place to discuss things."
Sounds like a plan...I've conversed with him a few times and, as with Sevish, highly recommend him as a contact for anyone who, like myself, is interested in "popularizing" micro-tonal music and/or working on new scales or scale theories that may go with it.

You did not go back and read the complete message, obviously.

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
> >"Actually, Chris posted asking if he DID manage to make it sound xenharmonic, because it DIDN'T sound xenharmonic to him"
>
> His message said
> >"does this sound xenharmonic?
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3
> When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to 12 et via scala."
>   He did NOT anywhere specify if he wanted it to sound Xenharmonic or not...although he did say it didn't sound Xenharmonic to him.  One could easily have taken it either way IE either "he wants it to sound Xenharmonic" or "he wants it to trick people into thinking it sounds like 12TET".  I leaned toward the latter as he mentioned comparing it to 12TET...and in the past I've notice when most people compare a scale to 12TET like that, they are going for a 12TET-like (or better) level of consonance.
>    Perhaps he DID mean "I want to see how UNLIKE 12TET this scale can be"...in which case IMVHO he did a very ambiguous job of explaining what he wanted as a response.
>

On 29 May 2010 06:29, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

> Well, the "mission statement" is a bit more idealistic than what
> actually takes place here.  That's why there have been so many
> off-shoots (like MMM): because this List just has a tendency to
> devolve into esotericism, which may contradict its mission
> statement, but what can you do about it?  This list is a product of
> the people who frequent it, and it just so happens that the majority
> of people who frequent it are interested in "advanced microtonal
> academic work".

So here you are, having this big old ding-dong, and thinking that "the
List" has some emergent consciousness that you're not part of. And
ignoring the fact that your conversation is making up a big chunk of
the traffic right now. And is, therefore, what the next generation of
whiners are going to cite for how "the List" isn't tailored to their
particular needs.

Yes, the list is a product of the people who frequent it, including
you. The same people will go to any other forum you set up unless you
deliberately exclude them. And a membership bar is the one thing
guaranteed to enforce elitism.

No discussion within the description (which does have an academic bias
from what I remember) contradicts the description. An open forum has
no obligation to maintain any kind of balance. Nobody is prevented
from starting a thread on a different topic.

Graham

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

>Not all of them know the deep esoteric theory that people like Gene, Graham, and Carl possess here, but (no offense, guys), that theory is largely unnecessary for the actual making of microtonal music.

Often false for the way I do things.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> No discussion within the description (which does have an academic bias
> from what I remember) contradicts the description. An open forum has
> no obligation to maintain any kind of balance. Nobody is prevented
> from starting a thread on a different topic.

Say you're in the "Alternative Vegetables" group, and that group is populated mostly by botanists. You start a thread about opening a restaurant where you will serve alternative vegetables to people who've never had them before, and you're looking for help in this endeavor. Assuming most of these botanists are not ALSO professional chefs or restauranteurs, are you likely to get much help in your endeavor? No. Would someone be justified in suggesting that you might get more helpful responses from professional chefs and restauranteurs who have some familiarity with alternative vegetables, rather than a bunch of botanists? Yes. Would starting a group specifically for "Restauranteurs Who Want to Serve Alternative Vegetables" be an "elitist" group meant to exclude botanists? No. It would just be a way of ensuring that whatever botanists come to the group keep to topics relevant to the restaurant business, rather than debating botany.

Am I getting through?

So what you are saying is that you and Michael are going to open up a Yahoo
email list group devoted to the popularization of microtonal music?

I think many here would applaud that.

Chris

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:34 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Graham Breed
> <gbreed@...> wrote:
> > No discussion within the description (which does have an academic bias
> > from what I remember) contradicts the description. An open forum has
> > no obligation to maintain any kind of balance. Nobody is prevented
> > from starting a thread on a different topic.
>
> Say you're in the "Alternative Vegetables" group, and that group is
> populated mostly by botanists. You start a thread about opening a restaurant
> where you will serve alternative vegetables to people who've never had them
> before, and you're looking for help in this endeavor. Assuming most of these
> botanists are not ALSO professional chefs or restauranteurs, are you likely
> to get much help in your endeavor? No. Would someone be justified in
> suggesting that you might get more helpful responses from professional chefs
> and restauranteurs who have some familiarity with alternative vegetables,
> rather than a bunch of botanists? Yes. Would starting a group specifically
> for "Restauranteurs Who Want to Serve Alternative Vegetables" be an
> "elitist" group meant to exclude botanists? No. It would just be a way of
> ensuring that whatever botanists come to the group keep to topics relevant
> to the restaurant business, rather than debating botany.
>
> Am I getting through?
>
>
>

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

> Am I getting through?

Yes, you're right and Graham is wrong. While controlling who
can belong and who can't is elitist, setting the ontopic/offtopic
boundaries for a list is not. Moderating to enforce them is,
but only at the margin. For instance, as I moderator I should
be deleting this whole thread, since discussing the usefulness
of music theory is well known to be useless flamebait here.

Do you need theory to make great music? No. African-American
music proved that.

Do you need some xenharmonic theory to make xenharmonic music?
Almost certainly, because the chances of hitting on a scale
with xenharmonic properties without doing some theory are
quite small. To date, all xenharmonic music ever written was
preceded by some theory effort on the part of the composer.
In your own work, Igliashon, you certainly apply it.

Is it easier to sit here and endlessly reply to people's
e-mails than make music, if you're slacking at work or cruising
the internet while your kids are sleeping? Undoubtedly.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> So what you are saying is that you and Michael are going to open
> up a Yahoo email list group devoted to the popularization of
> microtonal music?
>
> I think many here would applaud that.
>
> Chris

I wouldn't. We now have this list, MMM, the Ning, various
other yahoo offshoots too numerous to mention, the LMSO
forums, the Tribe.net tribe frequented by the LMSO contingent,
several groups on Facebook, and probably some stuff I'm
forgetting. If you can't get the job done with all that,
I don't think another group is likely to help.

-Carl

Obviously this list is not doing the job for the popularization of
microtonal music crowd considering their constant complaints of academic
bias and lack of applicability of the information and people on this list
to their quest.

You do know Ning is going away?

And what is LMSO? And Tribe.net?

Chris

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > So what you are saying is that you and Michael are going to open
> > up a Yahoo email list group devoted to the popularization of
> > microtonal music?
> >
> > I think many here would applaud that.
> >
> > Chris
>
> I wouldn't. We now have this list, MMM, the Ning, various
> other yahoo offshoots too numerous to mention, the LMSO
> forums, the Tribe.net tribe frequented by the LMSO contingent,
> several groups on Facebook, and probably some stuff I'm
> forgetting. If you can't get the job done with all that,
> I don't think another group is likely to help.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Obviously this list is not doing the job for the popularization of
> microtonal music crowd considering their constant complaints of
> academic bias and lack of applicability of the information and
> people on this list to their quest.

People who want to dick around with microtonal tunings hardly
need to talk about it. What sort of talk would be helpful?
Did musicians of prior eras engage in lengthy letter-writing
with one another? There's the technical aspects of how to
get synths to behave, which are pretty well addressed by
the MMM list I think.

The people complaining about this list are usually the ones
who aren't making music either.

> You do know Ning is going away?

No! What's the scoop?

> And what is LMSO? And Tribe.net?

Little Miss Scale Oven. Tribe.net is a URL.

-Carl

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

> > You do know Ning is going away?
>
> No! What's the scoop?

$3/month? I'll pay it. Or are we pissed about the bait
and switch?

http://about.ning.com/announcement/

-Carl

Speaking of dicking around...

From this list, I heard about Bill Sethares and was impressed with much of what he was doing.

Is there any (fairly easy) way to dabble with non-harmonic (enharmonic? xenophobic?) spectra?

That is, is there software that runs on Mac, or anything else, that will allow you to try this kind of synthesis?

please don't hurt me, nice people, I'm Just Asking Questions...

Caleb

LMSO > http://www.nonoctave.com/tuning/LilMissScaleOven/

and the nonoctave.com forum http://www.nonoctave.com/forum/

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> And what is LMSO?

All the info about xenharmonic is here.

http://xenharmonic.ning.com/forum/topics/ning-is-phasing-out-free

Ning will be wanting money soon and we have not found a path forward yet.

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>

>
> > You do know Ning is going away?
>
> No! What's the scoop?
>

thanks! (and Carl too)

In the meantime. And I can't seem to give away web space....

If xenharmonic goes down you can open an account on www.notonlymusic.com and
we can host your music.
(which you control totally) and post links here or where ever you need.

It is a forum but much more advanced than the nonoctave forum

You can post music - even with a simple [mp3]url[/mp3] command have it play
online if you wish.
We can embed youtube video, vimeo video, etc. etc.

If I get enough microtonalists we will open a microtonal only forum. As of
now we have it mixed.

And here are stats through the 26th of May - so you can see you'd have a
audience.

Reported period Month May 2010
First visit 01 May 2010 - 00:00
Last visit 26 May 2010 - 21:25

Unique visitors Number of visits Pages Hits Bandwidth
1194 2750 31383 143084 3.87 GB
(2.3 visits/visitor)
(11.41 Pages/Visit)
(52.03 Hits/Visit)
(1475.48 KB/Visit)

Month Unique visitors Number of visits Pages Hits
Bandwidth

Jan 2010 440 1290 12484
36648 675.09 MB
Feb 2010 432 1434 17231
45774 747.89 MB
Mar 2010 738 1962 20785
46675 1.20 GB
Apr 2010 764 2201 26374
65916 1.48 GB
May 2010 1194 2750 31383
143084 3.87 GB

On average 1 to 2 or 3 visitors walk away with an mp3 based on 1.475
megabytes per visitor.

Chris

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Carlo <carlo@...> wrote:

>
>
> LMSO > http://www.nonoctave.com/tuning/LilMissScaleOven/
>
> and the nonoctave.com forum http://www.nonoctave.com/forum/
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > And what is LMSO?
>
>
>

One immediate way that comes to mind to to go to his spectra / consonance
java demonstration program and record the timbre with a program that records
system sounds.
A bit of a kludge but would work.

Chris

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Speaking of dicking around...
>
>
> From this list, I heard about Bill Sethares and was impressed with much of
> what he was doing.
>
> Is there any (fairly easy) way to dabble with non-harmonic (enharmonic?
> xenophobic?) spectra?
>
> That is, is there software that runs on Mac, or anything else, that will
> allow you to try this kind of synthesis?
>
> please don't hurt me, nice people, I'm Just Asking Questions...
>
> Caleb
>
>

One has to buy the most costly package to still have music plays etc.

I believe it is more expensive than that.

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "Carl Lumma"
> <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > > You do know Ning is going away?
> >
> > No! What's the scoop?
>
> $3/month? I'll pay it. Or are we pissed about the bait
> and switch?
>
> http://about.ning.com/announcement/
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

That is $50 per month.

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> One has to buy the most costly package to still have music plays etc.
>
> I believe it is more expensive than that.
>
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "Carl Lumma"
>> <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> > > You do know Ning is going away?
>> >
>> > No! What's the scoop?
>>
>> $3/month? I'll pay it. Or are we pissed about the bait
>> and switch?
>>
>> http://about.ning.com/announcement/
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

> I wouldn't. We now have this list, MMM, the Ning, various
> other yahoo offshoots too numerous to mention, the LMSO
> forums, the Tribe.net tribe frequented by the LMSO contingent,
> several groups on Facebook, and probably some stuff I'm
> forgetting. If you can't get the job done with all that,
> I don't think another group is likely to help.

LMSO, with its heavy emphasis on nonoctave tuning, is hardly the place to go to sell xenharmony to the masses. The Ning is presumably going to disappear shortly. This group or MMM seem like the best bets.

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> > One has to buy the most costly package to still have music
> > plays etc.
>
> That is $50 per month.

Lame! Sorry for not reading that more closely. -C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> If xenharmonic goes down you can open an account on www.notonlymusic.com and
> we can host your music.
> (which you control totally) and post links here or where ever you need.

What are you willing to put up with? For example, I need a good place for linkable jpg files for articles on the xenwiki.

As long as you own the copyright, have permission or the image is public
domain you are welcome.
(and of course no p0rn etc. but that should be understood. my host's terms
of service are here http://www.hostgator.com/tos/tos.php )

I'd suggest opening one thread and adding replies and posting the pictures
as needed.

I see about that microtonal forum.

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 9:06 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > If xenharmonic goes down you can open an account on www.notonlymusic.comand
> > we can host your music.
> > (which you control totally) and post links here or where ever you need.
>
> What are you willing to put up with? For example, I need a good place for
> linkable jpg files for articles on the xenwiki.
>
>
>

Did it occur to both of you that *anyone* who shares *anything*
*positive* about microtonal music in any way, shape or form
contributes to making it more popular than it was yesterday?

Chris

> > No, but the disclaimer for the group says "for anyone interested in micro-tonallity" and not "for advanced micro-tonal academic work". If it is really that much about strict academics and nothing else, it's a contradiction of its own mission statement.
> >
>

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:29 PM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> > I usually am not a big believer in bragging about things unless I think I have something rather unique and at least somewhat useful...that is, unless someone forces me into a corner and blindly accuses me. Thanks for the apology but, to be real, isn't going on-and-on accusing someone of not doing anything off list without even taking at least a second to ask "what have you done off-list?" a pretty ridiculous thing to do?
> >
>
> To be fair, I DID ask, and I also told you that *from what I've seen*, it didn't look like you'd done much. I still maintain that compared to the people I've listed, you haven't done all that much (and neither have I, to be fai).
>

On 30 May 2010 03:14, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> From this list, I heard about Bill Sethares and was impressed with much of what he was doing.
> Is there any (fairly easy) way to dabble with non-harmonic (enharmonic? xenophobic?) spectra?
> That is, is there software that runs on Mac, or anything else, that will allow you to try this kind of synthesis?

Mac is specifically what his software runs on. There's this:

http://www.dynamictonality.com/spectools.htm

which is Max/MSP code, and so may require Max/MSP. I think there's
something else out there and somebody surely knows about it. I
believe it's set up to use harmonic timbres, but bend them to be more
in tune.

If you want really inharmonic spectra, you'll need some kind of
additive synthesis. When all else fails there's always Csound.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> As long as you own the copyright, have permission or the image is public
> domain you are welcome.
> (and of course no p0rn etc. but that should be understood. my host's terms

People do get awfully turned on by lattice diagrams, but I'll take the the risk. Trouble is, I can't figure out how to upload something.

Carl,

Actually, some of the musicians of the Renaissance did spend a lot of time discussing theoretical issues. Some of the great composers of the Romantic period--including Berlioz, Schumann, Wagner, and Liszt, wrote voluminous amounts of correspondence in addition to their extensive music criticism and essays on aesthetics.  This tradition continued into the 20th century with composer/theorist/essayists such as Schoenberg, Hindemith,  Partch, Stockhausen,  Boulez, Babbitt, et alia. 

best

Franklin

--- On Sat, 5/29/10, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Do I (or others) really secretly hate microtonality...
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, May 29, 2010, 11:08 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

>

> Obviously this list is not doing the job for the popularization of

> microtonal music crowd considering their constant complaints of

> academic bias and lack of applicability of the information and

> people on this list to their quest.

People who want to dick around with microtonal tunings hardly

need to talk about it. What sort of talk would be helpful?

Did musicians of prior eras engage in lengthy letter-writing

with one another? There's the technical aspects of how to

get synths to behave, which are pretty well addressed by

the MMM list I think.

The people complaining about this list are usually the ones

who aren't making music either.

> You do know Ning is going away?

No! What's the scoop?

> And what is LMSO? And Tribe.net?

Little Miss Scale Oven. Tribe.net is a URL.

-Carl

Franklin wrote:

> Actually, some of the musicians of the Renaissance did spend a
> lot of time discussing theoretical issues.

It was the non-theoretical stuff I was referring to, since
theory is (once again) under attack.

> Some of the great composers of the Romantic period--including
> Berlioz, Schumann, Wagner, and Liszt, wrote voluminous amounts
> of correspondence in addition to their extensive music criticism
> and essays on aesthetics.

Essays on aesthetics would be more in line with what I was
challenging the need for.

-Carl

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

> LMSO, with its heavy emphasis on nonoctave tuning, is hardly the place to go to sell xenharmony to the masses. The Ning is presumably going to disappear shortly. This group or MMM seem like the best bets.
>

LMSO can retune just about ANYTHING, hardware or software, to any tuning, octaves or no, without requiring really ANY understanding of what you're doing. I think that's pretty darn significant. And XJ Scott, despite being very "biased" toward non-octave tunings himself, has never been anything but supportive of my endeavors into octave-based tunings. I'm sure he'd love it if I joined the non-octave crusade, but I've never heard a discouraging word from that man about any approach to microtonality, unless it's an exclusive "my way is the only way" approach. I wish I was as open and supportive as he was. I wish we all were.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> It was the non-theoretical stuff I was referring to, since
> theory is (once again) under attack.

Who's attacking theory? Neither I nor Michael are against theorizing, academic approaches, microtonal research, etc. I myself am not against anything on this list, I think it's perfectly great for a whole lot of purposes. One thing it's NOT great for is inducting uneducated musicians into the microtonal world. I don't see that as something against this list, I simply see it as an area of microtonality that has received precious little attention. And...I'm not even going to go so far as to tell people what to write or how to write as far as theory goes; I'm going to invite people to write some truly accessible stuff, and I'm going to try to write some accessible stuff myself, but for "Bob"'s sake I'm not going to tell people to stop writing what they're writing if it's not accessible. This is how science works: the real educated scientists write papers that turn up in academic journals, and the half-educated (or sometimes fully-educated) scientists turn around and distill those writings into a form that can be digested by the layman. We've got plenty of brilliant researchers here, but not a lot of people making an effort to "distill" this research. I'm stepping up to it as best I can, and inviting others to do the same. That's ALL.

Thanks!

On May 30, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Graham Breed wrote:

> On 30 May 2010 03:14, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> > From this list, I heard about Bill Sethares and was impressed with much of what he was doing.
> > Is there any (fairly easy) way to dabble with non-harmonic (enharmonic? xenophobic?) spectra?
> > That is, is there software that runs on Mac, or anything else, that will allow you to try this kind of synthesis?
>
> Mac is specifically what his software runs on. There's this:
>
> http://www.dynamictonality.com/spectools.htm
>
> which is Max/MSP code, and so may require Max/MSP. I think there's
> something else out there and somebody surely knows about it. I
> believe it's set up to use harmonic timbres, but bend them to be more
> in tune.
>
> If you want really inharmonic spectra, you'll need some kind of
> additive synthesis. When all else fails there's always Csound.
>
> Graham
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> I wouldn't. We now have this list, MMM, the Ning, various
> other yahoo offshoots too numerous to mention, the LMSO
> forums, the Tribe.net tribe frequented by the LMSO contingent,
> several groups on Facebook, and probably some stuff I'm
> forgetting. If you can't get the job done with all that,
> I don't think another group is likely to help.
>
> -Carl
>

If I do start a new group, it's going to be oriented toward the creation and maintenance of a "Micro 101" website. I agree, we definitely don't need another "open" discussion forum. I'd like to see ONE site of well-organized, distilled, and simplified information on all the various approaches to microtonality, giving equal time and enthusiasm to all possible approaches. And by well-organized, I don't mean "easy to find information if you know what you're looking for", I mean "easy to find information if you DON'T know what you're looking for". There is currently no such site, but if I can get enough support (and sustain my own efforts), I hope to see one get born by 2012. This may require the creation of a new "list" somewhere, but most likely it's going to take a lot of personal correspondence. That almost NEVER fails to be helpful and productive.

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

>One thing it's NOT great for is inducting uneducated musicians
>into the microtonal world. I don't see that as something
>against this list,

Come off it, you're over on ning pontificating on the evils of
this list left and right.

>I simply see it as an area of microtonality that has received
>precious little attention.

Really? Because I've seen dozens of uneducated whatevers join
here and be treated to 1:1 attention from experts in nearly
every conceivably related niche, from a trickle to a firehouse
as desired. Many of them have even gone on to record music.
The last I have from you is a length theory article which you
asserted would, despite your friendly requests, be picked apart
relentlessly by anal retentive theory jocks.

>And...I'm not even going to go so far as to tell people what
>to write or how to write as far as theory goes;

Mercy no, because that happens here so often.

-Carl

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

> If I do start a new group, it's going to be oriented toward the
> creation and maintenance of a "Micro 101" website. I agree, we
> definitely don't need another "open" discussion forum. I'd like
> to see ONE site of well-organized, distilled, and simplified
> information on all the various approaches to microtonality,
> giving equal time and enthusiasm to all possible approaches.
> And by well-organized, I don't mean "easy to find information if
> you know what you're looking for", I mean "easy to find
> information if you DON'T know what you're looking for". There
> is currently no such site, but if I can get enough support (and
> sustain my own efforts), I hope to see one get born by 2012.
> This may require the creation of a new "list" somewhere, but
> most likely it's going to take a lot of personal correspondence.
> That almost NEVER fails to be helpful and productive.

I certainly agree there's a need for better static materials
(reference and introductory). This is a discussion list, which
is by nature ephemeral. They're different things.

I got started with Doty's JI Primer, which is JI-centric but I
think still pretty good (how do you like it, Chris?). I wish
it were freely available on the web.

I also read Darreg's Xenharmonic bulletins early on, which were
EDO-centric but definitely inspiring.

Then there's the "middle path", where Paul Erlich's papers do
an excellent job:
http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

And then there's the xenharmonic wiki, entries on wikipedia,
the tonalsoft encyclopedia, and so on.

So of course it could be improved, but it's not nothing either.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
>
> > LMSO, with its heavy emphasis on nonoctave tuning, is hardly the place to go to sell xenharmony to the masses. The Ning is presumably going to disappear shortly. This group or MMM seem like the best bets.

> LMSO can retune just about ANYTHING, hardware or software, to any tuning, octaves or no, without requiring really ANY understanding of what you're doing.

If you happen to own a Mac, that is.

> I think that's pretty darn significant. And XJ Scott, despite being very "biased" toward non-octave tunings himself, has never been anything but supportive of my endeavors into octave-based tunings.

Neither of you is of the school of thought which places much emphasis on accurate tunings and the kind of near-just harmony I like from what I've seen. While near-just harmony might not sell to the masses, it seems to me eccentric approaches are even less likely to. I'm in favor of everyone doing their own thing, so I have no complaints, but the question was what was going to sell.

On 30 May 2010 15:20, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
>> LMSO can retune just about ANYTHING, hardware or software, to any tuning, octaves or no, without requiring really ANY understanding of what you're doing.
>
> If you happen to own a Mac, that is.

MIDI software does tend to be platform-specific. I don't think the
situation's as bad as when I was working with it, but still, there you
go. For Windows, this maybe used to be the thing to go with:

http://rainwarrior.thenoos.net/intun/index.html

It's supposed to be like MIDI Relay, which didn't require much
understanding, but without the bugs. But as it's old it may have
succumbed to bit rot. I really don't know.

There's also Scala. I think Scala can tune anything to any tuning as
well. Maybe it assumes a bit more understanding. At least, Manuel
deserves a lot of credit for all the work he puts in.

http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/

Graham

Unless a domestic disaster occurs I will make a short tutorial for you
today and email it.

I just tested it - I was able to embed a picture hosted on Not Only
Music in Xenharmonic wiki (which was then deleted)

Chris

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 2:06 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > As long as you own the copyright, have permission or the image is public
> > domain you are welcome.
> > (and of course no p0rn etc. but that should be understood. my host's terms
>
> People do get awfully turned on by lattice diagrams, but I'll take the the risk. Trouble is, I can't figure out how to upload something.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> Neither of you is of the school of thought which places much emphasis on accurate tunings and the kind of near-just harmony I like from what I've seen. While near-just harmony might not sell to the masses, it seems to me eccentric approaches are even less likely to. I'm in favor of everyone doing their own thing, so I have no complaints, but the question was what was going to sell.
>

Well, I think what's going to sell is the concept of "choice in tuning", which is a bit different from Michael's idea.

Gene, would you be interested in putting together a layman-level primer on the kind of near-just harmony you like? Something which assumes the reader has **no** theoretical background (i.e. they took piano lessons as a kid and now they play keyboard in a garage band), and goes step-by-step to introduce all of (what you see as) the most important concepts regarding how to actually work with linear temperaments/middle path tunings? Something which also includes a bit of a "sales pitch" on why you find them superior to both equal temperaments AND JI?

Look, I know *I* have something of a bias against middle-path tunings and JI, but I'm not interested in exporting that bias to the world at large. I know my opinion is just my opinion, and has no special validity because of that, and if you (and the other Middle Path folks) want to be included in the "effort" to popularize microtonality, you are more than welcome to--provided you are willing to distill your theories into a "lesson plan" that the layman can access. Sort of a "Middle-Path Tunings for Dummies" if you will. I will confess my own ignorance on the subject--even after reading Paul Erlich's "Middle Path" paper, Graham's entire website, and spending a long time poring through the Tonalsoft encyclopedia, I have to admit that there's a lot I still don't "get" about what you guys are on about with these tunings. Math is my weakest subject and there seems to be a LOT of math involved.

I think it is excellent and well worth the money I paid for it.

Chris

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

I certainly agree there's a need for better static materials
(reference and introductory). This is a discussion list, which
is by nature ephemeral. They're different things.

I got started with Doty's JI Primer, which is JI-centric but I
think still pretty good (how do you like it, Chris?). I wish
it were freely available on the web.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> Come off it, you're over on ning pontificating on the evils of
> this list left and right.

Oh, I didn't say I don't think this list has "evils"; I just don't think that its academic centrism is one of them. Like just about every forum I've ever been a part of, this list is subject to massive informational entropy and ego-clashing.

> Really? Because I've seen dozens of uneducated whatevers join
> here and be treated to 1:1 attention from experts in nearly
> every conceivably related niche, from a trickle to a firehouse
> as desired. Many of them have even gone on to record music.

Indeed, I'm one of them! ;-> Yes, the people on this list are very friendly off-list (and sometimes even on-list), and I got a lot of one-on-one help from Paul Erlich in particular when I was starting out. But for every ONE neophyte who's come a long with an "I'm new at this, plz halp" post and gotten some good feedback and turned into a productive microtonalist, there's got be a good 2 or 3 whose first post unwittingly unleashed a flame-war, and that person is never seen or heard from again!

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

> I certainly agree there's a need for better static materials
> (reference and introductory). This is a discussion list, which
> is by nature ephemeral. They're different things.

Exactly. Is someone suggesting that this list be re-purposed?

> I got started with Doty's JI Primer, which is JI-centric but I
> think still pretty good (how do you like it, Chris?). I wish
> it were freely available on the web.

I swear there was another JI Primer somewhere that had sound examples rendered in a synth-brass sound, covering some new chords that 12-tET doesn't approximate. But I can't find it anymore. Anyone?

> I also read Darreg's Xenharmonic bulletins early on, which were
> EDO-centric but definitely inspiring.

Not just EDO-centric but centered on maybe three or four EDOs at best. He gave much more time to 19-EDO and 22-EDO than any others. But his writing was still fabulous for me when I was starting out.

> Then there's the "middle path", where Paul Erlich's papers do
> an excellent job:
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

His 22-EDO paper rules (though a lot of it was still a bit obtuse to me on last reading), and his "Middle Path" paper is good but left me with a lot of unanswered questions (I should probably read it again, it's been a few years). I have to hand it Paul, he's really made a lot of effort to make this stuff accessible...but I still wouldn't consider his writings to be truly "layman-level", just because of the volume of new terminology that he introduces in a very short span.

> And then there's the xenharmonic wiki, entries on wikipedia,
> the tonalsoft encyclopedia, and so on.
>
> So of course it could be improved, but it's not nothing either.

Well OBVIOUSLY. A lot of the information is out there, it just needs to be distilled and consolidated, and made freely accessible. I imagine I'll be asking for your help quite a bit in the not-too-distant future, Carl, to point me toward the resources which are already existent but I just don't know about them.

-Igs

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

>But for every ONE neophyte who's come a long with an "I'm new at
>this, plz halp" post and gotten some good feedback and turned into
>a productive microtonalist, there's got be a good 2 or 3 whose
>first post unwittingly unleashed a flame-war, and that person is
>never seen or heard from again!

I don't know if the ratio is that bad, but this certainly has been
a problem here. -Carl

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

> > Then there's the "middle path", where Paul Erlich's papers do
> > an excellent job:
> > http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
> His 22-EDO paper rules (though a lot of it was still a bit
> obtuse to me on last reading), and his "Middle Path" paper is
> good but left me with a lot of unanswered questions (I should
> probably read it again, it's been a few years). I have to
> hand it Paul, he's really made a lot of effort to make this
> stuff accessible...but I still wouldn't consider his writings
> to be truly "layman-level", just because of the volume of new
> terminology that he introduces in a very short span.

His introductory paper is the Forms of Tonality.
Also good are his "Friendly Guide To What We're Talking About"
post (on my Erlich page) and the gentle intro to periodicity
blocks posts (hosted at Tonalsoft).

Middle Path was supposed to be part 1 of a multi-part paper,
so it's no wonder it leaves questions unanswered.

-Carl

Chris>"Did it occur to both of you that *anyone* who shares *anything*
*positive* about microtonal music in any way, shape or form
contributes to making it more popular than it was yesterday?"
 
I don't know about Igs...but to me it doesn't even come close to guaranteeing anything.  The three top complaints I've heard from actual professional musicicians about micro-tonality are
1) It sounds a-tonal and just way too disonant and/or "wait, what's the difference?".
2) 12TET theory is hard enough.
3) Where on earth can I buy instruments to play it with and/or also instruments so my other band members can play with me in the same tuning?  And/or is that going to be ridiculously expensive to do?
 
     And most people I've seen randomly give up on micro-tonal music EVEN after hearing great things about it online are the same people who say #1...most often those who experience their first micro-tonal listening experience as something dissonant or sounding almost indistinguishable from 12TET.
    So IMVHO we can say all we want about how great micro-tonal music is...but as long as we don't have those top 3 covered we end up getting someone interested enough to "try the product" and then have them feel "cheated by the false advertising"...putting us right back at square one or worse.
 
    Far as a good group to actually work on discussion (and not just general info about) promoting the popularity of micro-tonal music (particularly among non-academics)...I have yet to find a good site.  We seem to have a TON of options for academic micro-tonallity but very few for "casual micro-tonality".  If any of you know of an active site with active discussions about popularizing micro-tonal music...I'd love to hear about it. :-)  Right now the closest thing I've found by far as an attempt is Sean/Sevish's Split-Notes...but very few people seem to ask or answer in discussions on those pages, sadly.

What Dan said. Really.

Hi Caleb and Graham,

The TransFormSynth (TFS) can run with either the max/msp playe (free) or the full max/msp (not free).

The TFS does additive resynthesis -- it starts with a sound and then moves the overtones around, so you can get some very harmonic or some very inharmonic sounds, depending on what you are looking for. There's a paper that appeared in the computer music journal (see below) that describes how the synthesis and control interfaces work and a paper from the journal of math and music that describes the math behind it.

It runs OK on both Macs and PCs, thanks to max/msp running on both.

-- Bill Sethares

Here are the papers:

W. A. Sethares, A. Milne, S. Tiedje , A. Prechtl and J. Plamondon, "Spectral tools for dynamic tonality and audio morphing" Computer Music Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, Pages 71-84, Summer 2009.
[The Spectral Toolbox is a suite of analysis-resynthesis programs that locate relevant partials of a sound and allow them to be resynthesized at any specified frequencies,. Applications include spectral mappings, spectral morphing, and dynamic tonality.]

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/paperspdf/SpectralTools.pdf

A. Milne, W. A. Sethares, and J. Plamondon, "Tuning continua and keyboard layouts" J. Math and Music Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2008. [The general principles underlying layouts that are invariant in both transposition and tuning.]

http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/paperspdf/tuningcontinua.pdf

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 30 May 2010 03:14, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> > From this list, I heard about Bill Sethares and was impressed with much of what he was doing.
> > Is there any (fairly easy) way to dabble with non-harmonic (enharmonic? xenophobic?) spectra?
> > That is, is there software that runs on Mac, or anything else, that will allow you to try this kind of synthesis?
>
> Mac is specifically what his software runs on. There's this:
>
> http://www.dynamictonality.com/spectools.htm
>
> which is Max/MSP code, and so may require Max/MSP. I think there's
> something else out there and somebody surely knows about it. I
> believe it's set up to use harmonic timbres, but bend them to be more
> in tune.
>
> If you want really inharmonic spectra, you'll need some kind of
> additive synthesis. When all else fails there's always Csound.
>
>
> Graham
>

>     Far as a good group to actually work on discussion (and not just general info about) promoting the popularity of micro-tonal music (particularly among non-academics)...I have yet to find a good site.  We seem to have a TON of options for academic micro-tonallity but very few for "casual micro-tonality".  If any of you know of an active site with active discussions about popularizing micro-tonal music...I'd love to hear about it. :-)

Your best bet is to have discussions directly with people who are likeminded to you. There's no need for a site. Cut out the middleman and just try and talk to the people - I tend to use email a lot.

> Right now the closest thing I've found by far as an attempt is Sean/Sevish's Split-Notes...but very few people seem to ask or answer in discussions on those pages, sadly.

Split Notes is not a discussion site. I do have forum software installed there but I don't advertise it to anybody. That's probably why you're finding very little discussion on the site! :)

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

> Gene, would you be interested in putting together a layman-level primer on the kind of near-just harmony you like? Something which assumes the reader has **no** theoretical background (i.e. they took piano lessons as a kid and now they play keyboard in a garage band), and goes step-by-step to introduce all of (what you see as) the most important concepts regarding how to actually work with linear temperaments/middle path tunings? Something which also includes a bit of a "sales pitch" on why you find them superior to both equal temperaments AND JI?

An intersting idea, but one trouble with it is that I am not an instrumentalist. I use Scala and Tminidity to cook up music, and not in real time.

> Look, I know *I* have something of a bias against middle-path tunings and JI, but I'm not interested in exporting that bias to the world at large. I know my opinion is just my opinion, and has no special validity because of that, and if you (and the other Middle Path folks) want to be included in the "effort" to popularize microtonality, you are more than welcome to--provided you are willing to distill your theories into a "lesson plan" that the layman can access. Sort of a "Middle-Path Tunings for Dummies" if you will.

Is this an idea for dummies:

(1) Take a 5-limit scale

(2) Temper it in 240 et

(3) Make music with it

If not, what needs to be added?

Michael wrote:
> Chris>"Did it occur to both of you that *anyone* who shares
> *anything* *positive* about microtonal music in any way, shape or
> form contributes to making it more popular than it was yesterday?"
> > I don't know about Igs...but to me it doesn't even come close to
> guaranteeing anything. The three top complaints I've heard from
> actual professional musicicians about micro-tonality are 1) It sounds
> a-tonal and just way too disonant and/or "wait, what's the
> difference?". 2) 12TET theory is hard enough. 3) Where on earth can I
> buy instruments to play it with and/or also instruments so my other
> band members can play with me in the same tuning? And/or is that
> going to be ridiculously expensive to do?

Well, to an extent they're right. 1) Microtonality is great for atonal music, and it opens up a whole new level of dissonance beyond the relatively mild 12-ET. But what's wrong with that? (It also extends the boundaries of tonal music and allows for better consonance.) 2) Yeah, the theory is harder. 12-ET has the benefit of a long tradition (basically meantone with some extra bonuses tacked on), so you can more easily learn by example without needing the theory. But with effort, the only theory you really need is "trust your ears". Theory can save a load of trial and error, but you still need your ears and your musical intuition to make good music with what you get from it. 3) Fretless instruments, trombones, voice, even theremin if you're good at it. It would be nice if retunable keyboards were more common (I learned quite a bit playing around with my DX7II), but these days we've got MIDI software to help with that.

But none of what I've said here is anything new. Would it be great if more musicians were paying more attention to tuning? Of course it would, but the important thing is to use whatever resources you have to make the kind of music you're inspired to write. Tuning is just one of the resources that happens to interest me the most.

> And most people I've seen randomly give up on micro-tonal music EVEN
> after hearing great things about it online are the same people who
> say #1...most often those who experience their first micro-tonal
> listening experience as something dissonant or sounding almost
> indistinguishable from 12TET. So IMVHO we can say all we want about
> how great micro-tonal music is...but as long as we don't have those
> top 3 covered we end up getting someone interested enough to "try the
> product" and then have them feel "cheated by the false
> advertising"...putting us right back at square one or worse.

The thing is, there isn't a single unified idea of "microtonal music" that you can generalize about from one or two examples. I mean, it can be anything from Harry Partch's 43-tone chromelodeons and diamond marimbas to traditional Scandinavian music with overtone flutes. Often microtonal music can be strange in other ways beyond just the tuning. And tunings that sound indistinguishable from 12-ET to a casual listener may have more subtle influences on the mood or style of music.

> Far as a good group to actually work on discussion (and not just
> general info about) promoting the popularity of micro-tonal music
> (particularly among non-academics)...I have yet to find a good site.
> We seem to have a TON of options for academic micro-tonallity but
> very few for "casual micro-tonality". If any of you know of an
> active site with active discussions about popularizing micro-tonal
> music...I'd love to hear about it. :-) Right now the closest thing
> I've found by far as an attempt is Sean/Sevish's Split-Notes...but
> very few people seem to ask or answer in discussions on those pages,
> sadly.

I don't think there's anything wrong with "casual" discussion of microtonality here as long as it's about tuning. There's certainly a need for more accessible and clear introductions to tuning topics in many areas. Promoting the popularity would be a nice bonus, if it gets more people writing the kind of music we like to hear, but I think it's safe to say that's not why most of us are here.

genewardsmith wrote:

> Is this an idea for dummies:
> > (1) Take a 5-limit scale
> > (2) Temper it in 240 et
> > (3) Make music with it
> > If not, what needs to be added?

Most probably won't see the point of using 240-ET (assuming that you've made it clear what a 5-limit scale is and why tempering can be beneficial). You might start with a less intimidating example like 72-ET and work your way from there. You can demonstrate how 72-ET is a reasonably good 11-limit approximation while being much simpler to work with.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> Most probably won't see the point of using 240-ET (assuming that you've
> made it clear what a 5-limit scale is and why tempering can be
> beneficial).

Would an explanation for dummies help? Do I assume people even know what a 7/4 interval is and why you might want to approximate it?

> You might start with a less intimidating example like 72-ET
> and work your way from there. You can demonstrate how 72-ET is a
> reasonably good 11-limit approximation while being much simpler to work
> with.

Your 72-et example is actually quite similar to mine, except its harder, not easier, and hence less suitable for beginners. By that I mean deliberately targeting 11-limit music with 72 is more difficult than deliberately targeting 7-limit music using 240, because there's a lot more targets and the relationships are more complex. Of course, if you are just strumming on the old virtual banjo by ear, its all the same thing.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns" <daniel_anthony_stearns@...> wrote:
>
> I not so sure it's worth promoting as a "cause" anymore than say odd time signatures or some such other compartmentalized thing. Because the truth is that microtonality or tuning----in and of itself----is simply one component of one's music. Yes, your method of interface is very important and can even shape idiomatic entities. But in this sense I always thought a movement like EMI was much more on the ball as far as shaking things up goes. Popularity.....I dunno, but it usually isn't a pretty way to go in my experience.
>

Yeah, Michael and I definitely diverge in our expectations for popularization of microtonality, but I sure as heck think making microtonal theory accessible is a worthwhile endeavor, just to "clear the path" for those who stumble upon it.

There is a difference I've not often heard voiced.

Do you want to clear the way for:

1 playing microtonal music

2 creating microtonal tunings

Frankly #1, after you acquire some technique or instrument (s) is not
that difficult. Certainly the learning curve is not as steep as when
one picks up an instrument for the first time and tries to learn 12
tet because many concepts and playing techniques DO transfer. As far
as music theory (i.e. chord progressions is really all this is) some
transfers from 12 tet - but one also has new chords to learn to put
into progressions - which is the point of the exercise. So #1 really
isn't a big mystery and is I think what one wants to bring to the
world regardless of what particular tuning systems are talked about.

2 is where all of the math is - provide arrows for more information
but this is probably what really blows minds.

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:05 AM, cityoftheasleep
<igliashon@...> wrote:

> >
>
> Yeah, Michael and I definitely diverge in our expectations for popularization of microtonality, but I sure as heck think making microtonal theory accessible is a worthwhile endeavor, just to "clear the path" for those who stumble upon it.
>

On 30 May 2010 23:28, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

>> Then there's the "middle path", where Paul Erlich's papers do
>> an excellent job:
>> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
> His 22-EDO paper rules (though a lot of it was still a bit
> obtuse to me on last reading), and his "Middle Path" paper
> is good but left me with a lot of unanswered questions
> (I should probably read it again, it's been a few years).  I
> have to hand it Paul, he's really made a lot of effort to make
> this stuff accessible...but I still wouldn't consider his writings
> to be truly "layman-level", just because of the volume of
> new terminology that he introduces in a very short span.

It's really a Pajara paper, not a 22-EDO paper. But the name didn't
exist back then. You have to remember it was one of the first things
Paul wrote, when he knew little more than the professors.

I don't think the Middle Path paper is the best possible introduction
to the middle path. It may still be the best we have. But, like with
The Forms of Tonality, it's aimed at a higher mathematical level than
you need to write music. I tried to correct that with The Regular
Mapping Paradigm:

http://x31eq.com/paradigm.html

Which you've read because you say you've read the whole website. But
that's still only a first step.

Anyway, I would write more, but I'm also overdue delivering a grammar exam.

Graham

Daniel,
I couldn't accept this conclusion. 
Although I'm always skeptical about attempts to scientize art forms, I continue to value Karl Popper's insights into science as a meaningful human endeavor. In his view, if you can't be wrong, then being "right" is fairly meaningless. If your experiment simply reproduces what is already known, then it isn't an experiment, but rather an exercise or a demonstration.  
I would transfer this insight into the issues of performance of microtonality as follows: if performance on an instrument can't be wrong (i.e., if it is computer realization, which is always "right"), then its value as a performance is fairly low.  If your instrument cannot be wrong in realizing microtonal pitches, then its potential musical value is probably fairly low.In my view, the real challenge of microtonality--i.e., its value as a substantial human endeavors--lies in realizing it in the real world, with real performers performing on acoustic instruments, which tend to produce far more complex and humanly meaningful results than electronic instruments.  

Of course a performance by a human should be quite accurate, and an instrument should be fairly reliable in realizing microtonal pitches.  But the gap between "good," "excellent," "outstanding," etc., and "perfect" is the gap either between humans and machines or humans and God (most likely the former).
I realize that not everyone on this list may share this viewpoint, but nevertheless I'm throwing in my two cents.
best
Franklin

--- On Mon, 5/31/10, daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...> wrote:

From: daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Do I (or others) really secretly hate microtonality...
To: tuning@...m
Date: Monday, May 31, 2010, 4:20 AM

maybe we should just throw out acoustic instruments all together given their global tuning irregularities and imperfection ?

That's one view, and i can accept it well enough( albeit, given some astounding music/art are at its sails), but on the whole, it really couldn't be any more foreign from my own outlook

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

>

>

>

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@> wrote:

>

> > Most probably won't see the point of using 240-ET (assuming that you've

> > made it clear what a 5-limit scale is and why tempering can be

> > beneficial).

>

> Would an explanation for dummies help? Do I assume people even know what a 7/4 interval is and why you might want to approximate it?

>

> > You might start with a less intimidating example like 72-ET

> > and work your way from there. You can demonstrate how 72-ET is a

> > reasonably good 11-limit approximation while being much simpler to work

> > with.

>

> Your 72-et example is actually quite similar to mine, except its harder, not easier, and hence less suitable for beginners. By that I mean deliberately targeting 11-limit music with 72 is more difficult than deliberately targeting 7-limit music using 240, because there's a lot more targets and the relationships are more complex. Of course, if you are just strumming on the old virtual banjo by ear, its all the same thing.

>

Chris Vaisvil wrote:
> There is a difference I've not often heard voiced.
> > Do you want to clear the way for:
> > 1 playing microtonal music
> > 2 creating microtonal tunings
> > Frankly #1, after you acquire some technique or instrument (s) is not
> that difficult. Certainly the learning curve is not as steep as when
> one picks up an instrument for the first time and tries to learn 12
> tet because many concepts and playing techniques DO transfer. As far
> as music theory (i.e. chord progressions is really all this is) some
> transfers from 12 tet - but one also has new chords to learn to put
> into progressions - which is the point of the exercise. So #1 really
> isn't a big mystery and is I think what one wants to bring to the
> world regardless of what particular tuning systems are talked about.
> > 2 is where all of the math is - provide arrows for more information
> but this is probably what really blows minds.

I think #1 is already getting there -- just listen to the Kronos Quartet or anything by Johnny Reinhard (who shows that even woodwinds can do microtonal music). #2 is also pretty well understood -- between equal temperaments, historical keyboard tunings, ragas, maqams, Fokker periodicity blocks, golden horograms, tonality diamonds, and the horde of regular temperaments from the tuning-math group, we've already got more than enough scales for whatever kind of music we want to write.

What's missing is an easy guide for how to use all these tunings in music. We know what chords and harmonic progressions work in traditional music, how to prepare and resolve dissonances, and so on, but finding the equivalent in a non-traditional scale or tuning can be a matter of endless trial and error or just plain luck.

I don't think it is luck. All you need to do is use your ears.

I do grant you some tunings work better than others. I certainly found
that out quickly in my scala tuning survey. And not all tunings will
have equivalents to all 12 tet harmonic / melodic techniques.

We know what chords and harmonic progressions work in traditional
> music, how to prepare and resolve dissonances, and so on, but finding
> the equivalent in a non-traditional scale or tuning can be a matter of
> endless trial and error or just plain luck.
>

Having a what would be essentially a music theory guide to common
tunings sounds like a worthy idea to me.
The key here in my opinion would be to illuminate the common harmonic
/ melodic aspects of a group of tunings in order to reduce the
appearance of complexity.
A group of edos - like what it seems Igs is working on - would be an
obvious first target for this approach. I suspect a number of middle
eastern tunings could be analyzed as a group as well.

Though I suspect this endeavor could be smacked down by some as
"academic" and possibly even "elitist" since it would involve music
theory.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> There is a difference I've not often heard voiced.
>
> Do you want to clear the way for:
>
> 1 playing microtonal music
>
> 2 creating microtonal tunings
>
Sort of both and neither; what I want to clear the way for is *understanding* microtonal music in a way that gives musicians the ability to make an informed choice of metatuning. You don't "really" need to have an understanding of microtonality to do either of the things you listed; I had a friend in high school who stumbled upon a mysterious "pitch slope" parameter on his Korg Triton, and banged out a couple of poly-microtonal songs (I think in 15-EDO and 24-EDO, i.e. a pitch-slope of .8 and .5) without having any idea what he was doing. And of course I sort of "created" a few EDOs (before I knew that an EDO can't really be created) by just thinking "what if there were more than 12 notes in an octave". I'm sure if I played a fretless instrument back then, I could have "created" several micro-tunings just by say, playing a major scale with the thirds shifted a bit sharp or flat.

But having an understanding of different tonal systems and how they compare with each other in various dimensions can be helpful, so that you're not just stumbling around blindly through the infinite pitch continuum but can actually choose according to your aesthetic intentions.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>I had a friend in high school who stumbled upon a mysterious "pitch slope" parameter on his Korg Triton, and banged out a couple of poly-microtonal songs (I think in 15-EDO and 24-EDO, i.e. a pitch-slope of .8 and .5) without having any idea what he was doing.

I suppose it would be too much to ask of these characters that they multiply their "pitch slope" by 100 so as to bring it into line with standard notation. I'm impressed they included it at all, however.

Well, then why put the effort into a guide when you think people don't need
information?

You are contradicting yourself within this post actually.

"You don't "really" need to have an understanding of microtonality to do
either of the things you listed"

contradicts

"But having an understanding of different tonal systems and how they compare
with each other in various dimensions can be helpful"

I don't know about you but where I come from you are either pregnant or not.
Theory is theory no matter what the name you choose to call it.
Writing about theory *clearly* for a *broad* audience is the challenge I
would think you are taking on.

Chris

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:15 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > There is a difference I've not often heard voiced.
> >
> > Do you want to clear the way for:
> >
> > 1 playing microtonal music
> >
> > 2 creating microtonal tunings
> >
> Sort of both and neither; what I want to clear the way for is
> *understanding* microtonal music in a way that gives musicians the ability
> to make an informed choice of metatuning. You don't "really" need to have an
> understanding of microtonality to do either of the things you listed; I had
> a friend in high school who stumbled upon a mysterious "pitch slope"
> parameter on his Korg Triton, and banged out a couple of poly-microtonal
> songs (I think in 15-EDO and 24-EDO, i.e. a pitch-slope of .8 and .5)
> without having any idea what he was doing. And of course I sort of "created"
> a few EDOs (before I knew that an EDO can't really be created) by just
> thinking "what if there were more than 12 notes in an octave". I'm sure if I
> played a fretless instrument back then, I could have "created" several
> micro-tunings just by say, playing a major scale with the thirds shifted a
> bit sharp or flat.
>
> But having an understanding of different tonal systems and how they compare
> with each other in various dimensions can be helpful, so that you're not
> just stumbling around blindly through the infinite pitch continuum but can
> actually choose according to your aesthetic intentions.
>
>
>

Igs>"Who's attacking theory? Neither I nor Michael are against theorizing, academic approaches, microtonal research, etc."
Thank you and agreed! :-) If I've ever said anything "negative" against theory...it's that I'm open to the idea that theory may not be the only answer.

>"One thing it (intense theory)'s NOT great for is inducting uneducated musicians into the microtonal world."
Exactly...overly detailed theory often scares people off...quickly...no matter how valid or well thought out. It's like trying to get a 3rd grade student into math by showing them very well done calculus...you'll most likely just scare/intimidate them away from math.

>"We've got plenty of brilliant researchers here, but not a lot of people
making an effort to "distill" this research. I'm stepping up to it as
best I can, and inviting others to do the same. That's ALL."
Right...so on one hand, "good show" to anyone doing research but, on the other hand, realize very few people are actually going to become interested in your work, no matter how brilliant, unless we can manage to get at least a few people working actively on translating everything in a form laymen musicians can understand. I figure we can get at least get a few people to take time off their intense theories to help "distill micro-tonality" for the general public...and do so without telling anyone doing more advanced work to "stop doing what they are doing".

Igs> "I think that's pretty darn significant. And XJ Scott, despite
being very "biased" toward non-octave tunings himself, has never been
anything but supportive of my endeavors into octave-based tunings. "
Gene>"Neither of you is of the school of thought which places much emphasis
on accurate tunings and the kind of near-just harmony I like from what
I've seen. While near-just harmony might not sell to the masses, it
seems to me eccentric approaches are even less likely to."

I agree that near-just scales have good mass-appeal on the average. Yet of also seen fairly near-just scales be extracted from things like scales under "odd" tunings like 15TET...so to some extent any tuning can become a great scale.
A side question becomes what under JI counts as good and how far away error-wise from JI ratios comes across as decent? For example, is 18/11, 22/15 or even 50/33 generally good despite being high limit?...and would scales with such fractions be "likely to sell" IE convince 12TET musicians to start composing micro-tonally?

I think the real danger is if you don't find at least a few places to allow slack from only the lowest IE 5-7 odd limit fractions to estimate for your scales...you often end up right smack in the center of 12TET-like scales and the public accepts them but then asks "it's basically the same thing, so why switch?"

>"Well, I think what's going to sell is the concept of "choice in tuning", which is a bit different from Michael's idea."

I agree here my idea is difference. But the only difference, is I'm focusing on what I believe is the first step toward popularizing micro-tonality...I don't disagree with Igs's idea, I just think of mine as a bit of a necessary introduction that likely needs to become before it.

I consider that step as getting people interested in a scale that sounds all four of as consonant as 12TET, easily recognizable as different than 12TET, as flexible as 12TET, and dead easy to play on the first try IE with virtually no learning curve (bringing the focus almost purely on musical emotion and not on theory). It would be like introducing a young child to music by giving him/her a pentatonic scale instead of a diatonic one to give a sense of "instant accomplishment".

The next step I believe, is an "intermediate choice in tuning" approach (kind of like giving the now practiced child a diatonic scale to use) where the audience is already opened up to the idea from step one and has more patience. Such a step would involve many not-too-hard-to-learn different theories and scales, such as those Igliashon is planning to write tutorials on.

The third and final step IMVHO, would be an "absolute choice in tuning" learning process which would involve advanced tunings including some of the huge ones posted here that take a lot of theory (or a great ear) to really play well. That would be like asking the child-turned-trained-young-adult to start modulating in 12TET like a jazz musician...obviously much much harder than playing well-balanced consonance/dissonance in a pentatonic scale.
These tunings would be tricky to play in well enough to sound like more than just a musician who hasn't quite learned to balance stably between consonance and dissonance and/or play good chords yet. That's where the "laymen" will eventually meet the true academics here, IMVHO...when they get to the point they can quickly learn to separate "the wheat from the chaff" in even the most difficult scales.

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

> A side question becomes what under JI counts as good and how far away error-wise from JI ratios comes across as decent? For example, is 18/11, 22/15 or even 50/33 generally good despite being high limit?...and would scales with such fractions be "likely to sell" IE convince 12TET musicians to start composing micro-tonally?

In my experience, and despite the evidence of barbershop quartet tuning, nonmicrotonalists are likely to feel 7-limit music makes sense but is out of tune somehow, despite the clearly perceptable fact that the harmony blends better and sounds less harsh than the alternatives they are used to. As for the 11-limit, that's just plain weird, dude.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> "You don't "really" need to have an understanding of microtonality to do
> either of the things you listed"
>
> contradicts
>
> "But having an understanding of different tonal systems and how they compare
> with each other in various dimensions can be helpful"

*Clearly*, you were not a philosophy major ;->.

Let's break my two statements down to basic predicate logic premises.

Statement 1: It is possible to make microtonal music without knowing microtonal theory.
Statement 2: It is possible that knowing microtonal theory is helpful to make microtonal music.

The converse of Statement 1 would be:
Statement 1b
%: It is impossible to make microtonal music without knowing microtonal theory.

Unless the relationship of "being necessary for" means the same thing as "being helpful to", Statement 2 is not logically identical to Statement 1b
%. Since (as far as I know) "being helpful to" means something other than "being necessary for", Statement 2 does not contradict Statement 1.

If I asserted Statement 1b
%, I would have contradicted myself. But I didn't. So there's no contradiction. Sorry to have confused you.

Hope that helps! If not, we can reduce these statements to symbolic form for further illustration.

Igs,

Even retuning a keyboard requires a degree of understanding of microtonal
theory.
I don't think you can escape that fact.

The only way you could get past that fact is to, for example, sell thumb
pianos in 17 edo without telling anyone the tuning system.

Take this simple example - my Korg has a few built in alternate tunings like
Pythagorean, "pure major", "pure minor" and wreckmiester (sp?). Just by
seeing those as alternates to 12 equal starts the ball rolling and indicates
there is some theory behind it. I mean, for instance, why is there a "pure
major"? That suggests that "standard tuning" isn't pure. And there you go =>
that is a very tiny bit of microtonal theory but theory nonetheless.

The unfortunate part is that the included alternate tunings don't sound
different enough to really make the case for micro.

And no, I was a music major, and then a chemistry major (degrees in both).

Chris

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > "You don't "really" need to have an understanding of microtonality to do
> > either of the things you listed"
> >
> > contradicts
> >
> > "But having an understanding of different tonal systems and how they
> compare
> > with each other in various dimensions can be helpful"
>
> *Clearly*, you were not a philosophy major ;->.
>
> Let's break my two statements down to basic predicate logic premises.
>
> Statement 1: It is possible to make microtonal music without knowing
> microtonal theory.
> Statement 2: It is possible that knowing microtonal theory is helpful to
> make microtonal music.
>
> The converse of Statement 1 would be:
> Statement 1b
%: It is impossible to make microtonal music without
> knowing microtonal theory.
>
> Unless the relationship of "being necessary for" means the same thing as
> "being helpful to", Statement 2 is not logically identical to Statement
> 1b
%. Since (as far as I know) "being helpful to" means something other
> than "being necessary for", Statement 2 does not contradict Statement 1.
>
> If I asserted Statement 1b
%, I would have contradicted myself. But I
> didn't. So there's no contradiction. Sorry to have confused you.
>
> Hope that helps! If not, we can reduce these statements to symbolic form
> for further illustration.
>
>
>

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> It was the non-theoretical stuff I was referring to, since
> theory is (once again) under attack.

At music school, there were the people who love theory and think it's
a great tool to learn more about the music they're playing, and then
there were the people who absolutely hate it and just want to play
some music. Taken to extremes, you have the "over-intellectual theory
nerds" who couldn't play an emotional note if their lives depended on
it, and then you also have the "I'm still rebelling against that one
math teacher from the third grade who gave me a C that one time" group
that hates anything that even partially resembles homework.

The main argument that the "I hate theory" folks usually had was that
the theory being taught was often irrelevant and based in somewhat
arbitrary musical "rules" that limited expression rather than pointing
at the moon; they were proscriptive rather than descriptive.

Hate on the list all you want, but can anyone really throw that
criticism around here with a straight face?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> Even retuning a keyboard requires a degree of understanding of microtonal
> theory.
> I don't think you can escape that fact.
>
> The only way you could get past that fact is to, for example, sell thumb
> pianos in 17 edo without telling anyone the tuning system.

Or to give them fretless instruments, or sing in a barbershop quartet, or play in a gamelan ensemble, or have them play a saz, or a musical saw, a glass armonica, one of Partch's diamond marimbas, or just switch the tuning on their keyboard without them knowing (or even being aware of the tuning parameter).

You don't realize how completely you are conceding to me with this example. If it's possible on a thumb piano, it's possible on anything; if your keyboard can teach you a trivial amount of microtonal theory via its tuning presets, that's a contingent fact about your keyboard, not proof that it's logically impossible to play music without understanding theory. What you seem to be saying is that you can't throw a baseball without understanding momentum and aerodynamics. Even being aware that a theory exists is not the same as understanding that theory, but I maintain one can play microtonal music without even being aware that microtonal theory exists...and in fact, people all over the world have been doing it FOR MILLENIA.

Great

Once you get pop musicians in the West to ditch their instruments in 12
equal for a capella barber shop quartets or gamelan ensembles instead of
guitars on the Disney channel please look me up and I will concede.

And while you are at it please find me a guitarist who doesn't, at the very
least, learn "shapes" for finger placement on the fret board. Or keyboardist
for that matter - or even a didgeridoo who doesn't know what mouth shapes to
make.

You seem to be diving off the same cliff Michael does into the oblivion of
absurdity in order not to appear to have a single wrong idea.

Chris

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:12 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...t>wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> > Even retuning a keyboard requires a degree of understanding of microtonal
> > theory.
> > I don't think you can escape that fact.
> >
> > The only way you could get past that fact is to, for example, sell thumb
> > pianos in 17 edo without telling anyone the tuning system.
>
> Or to give them fretless instruments, or sing in a barbershop quartet, or
> play in a gamelan ensemble, or have them play a saz, or a musical saw, a
> glass armonica, one of Partch's diamond marimbas, or just switch the tuning
> on their keyboard without them knowing (or even being aware of the tuning
> parameter).
>
> You don't realize how completely you are conceding to me with this example.
> If it's possible on a thumb piano, it's possible on anything; if your
> keyboard can teach you a trivial amount of microtonal theory via its tuning
> presets, that's a contingent fact about your keyboard, not proof that it's
> logically impossible to play music without understanding theory. What you
> seem to be saying is that you can't throw a baseball without understanding
> momentum and aerodynamics. Even being aware that a theory exists is not the
> same as understanding that theory, but I maintain one can play microtonal
> music without even being aware that microtonal theory exists...and in fact,
> people all over the world have been doing it FOR MILLENIA.
>
>
>

Chris>"Even retuning a keyboard requires a degree of understanding of microtonal theory.
I don't think you can escape that fact."
Doubt it...all you need to know to make a micro-tonal scale is to know how to de-tune just one tone from 12TET...because "all" the word micro-tonal alone means is using different step sizes than those of 12TET. Hence when people talk about what makes a "real microtonalist" I often get very skeptical very quickly. I don't think there is any real microtonality, just a very broad field with many possible goals.

I see three main obvious possible goals with microtonality; one of which involves making scales with the point of sounding consonant, the second of making scales for the sake of sounding different than 12TET, and yet a third which involves studying micro-tonality and how it works in the brain to figure out how/why music has become what is is throughout history.
And of course, there may be others...but microtonal need not have a goal or even a decent theory to simply qualify as microtonal.

>"The unfortunate part is that the included alternate tunings don't sound different enough to really make the case for micro."

Right, such scale would fit into a set of scales that don't meet goal #2 above (but may meet goal #3 above). To me there is a huge difference in my mind simply between scale that qualify as microtonal and microtonal scales that actually meet unique goals...and naturally different musicians will want to meet different goals and thus gravitate toward scales that meet such goals.

MikeB>"The main argument that the "I hate theory" folks usually had was that the theory being taught was often irrelevant and based in somewhat arbitrary musical "rules" that limited expression rather than pointing at the moon; they were proscriptive rather than descriptive."

Agreed...I'd never go that far or say anything that anti-theory with a straight face (or recommend anyone else do so).

I actually agree with both sides...there are many rules in music that do seem quite "proscriptive rather than descriptive" or based more on opinion or staying true to an old theory than actually being pleasing to the human ear/mind. Yet I agree other rules simply seem to follow psychoacoustics and point to how the ear and brain work together for most people who listen to music (IE greatly help improve conveying of emotion in, say, a guesstimate of 95% of cases).
I summary...I think many rules in music are quite justified, but not so much so that they alone ensure emotional quality in music and/or are the only ways through which to work with toward getting emotional quality in music. Microtonality is a game of options...where there is neither an absolute wrong nor right...but there are certain rules that work more often and even certain rules that break those rules that can also work quite often. The trick becomes to pick the rules that fit what you want to accomplish...not following blindly but certainly taking rules seriously and smartly choosing which ones (especially when one rule works in the opposite direction as another) mean more to you as a composer.

MikeB>"The main argument that the "I hate theory" folks usually had was that the theory being taught was often irrelevant and based in somewhat arbitrary musical "rules" that limited expression rather than pointing at the moon; they were proscriptive rather than descriptive."

Agreed...I'd never go that far or say anything that anti-theory with a straight face (or recommend anyone else do so).

I actually agree with both sides...there are many rules in music that do seem quite "proscriptive rather than descriptive" or based more on opinion or staying true to an old theory than actually being pleasing to the human ear/mind. Yet I agree other rules simply seem to follow psychoacoustics and point to how the ear and brain work together for most people who listen to music (IE greatly help improve conveying of emotion in, say, a guesstimate of 95% of cases).
I summary...I think many rules in music are quite justified, but not so much so that they alone ensure emotional quality in music and/or are the only ways through which to work with toward getting emotional quality in music. Microtonality is a game of options...where there is neither an absolute wrong nor right...but there are certain rules that work more often and even certain rules that break those rules that can also work quite often. The trick becomes to pick the rules that fit what you want to accomplish...not following blindly but certainly taking rules seriously and smartly choosing which ones (especially when one rule works in the opposite direction as another) mean more to you as a composer.

Chris>"And while you are at it please find me a guitarist who doesn't, at the
very least, learn "shapes" for finger placement on the fret board. Or
keyboardist for that matter - or even a didgeridoo who doesn't know
what mouth shapes to make."
Even here...I'd say a lot of this is not "theory" but general skill. It's like telling an aggressive rollerblader (read: knows how to balance on ramps/ do flips/etc.) who doesn't know how to bicycle ride that you're afraid he won't be able to learn to ride a bicycle easily (even though he lacks the exact counter-balance skill, he has many other types of balance skills through which to help him learn that).

A musical example: say you know the fingering "only" for 12TET guitars, but also judge chords by things like tensity from which strings aren't played open, phrasing, technique (pinch harmonic vs. tapping vs. hammer-ons etc.), and a general sense of how far down the fretboard = how much (relative) change in pitch there is. The guitarist (like the rollerblader) may very well have 90% of the skills already figured out...and be very likely to be able to figure out much of the remaining 10% using that 90% as a guide...even without theory.

>"You seem to be diving off the same cliff Michael does into the
oblivion of absurdity in order not to appear to have a single wrong
idea."
And you're going to prove I'm driving off into oblivion through what specific examples? Almost every time you've tried to blame me, you'll keep switching the topic while I'll keep giving specific examples. Give specific counter examples and I might start seeing what you mean...but as of now you seem to be trying to counter-prove me without any proof.

My latest development in the "Infinity" scale series.

An irrational-generator-based MOS tuning using the intervals of
Small = 1.0958 (about 80/73)
Large = 1.1154 (about 29/26)
...in the pattern of >>>> sLsLsLs(octave) <<<<<<<<<

The scale (in decimal format) is
1
1.0958
1.2223
1.33935
1.4939
1.63702
1.82594
2.0

----------------------
A few unique characteristics of the scale:

A) Every possible dyadic interval formed within this scale is within 7.8 cents of a pure 11-limit-or-less interval (that is, from every possible root up to an octave above that root). Also, a majority of possible dyads are within 7.8 cents of a 7-or-less odd limit intervals.

B) The smallest and largest interval sizes are within about a syntonic comma of the 7TET semi-tone...and thus the scale feels very much like 7TET melodically and retains many TET-like characteristics.

C) The smallest tone is within about 7 cents of a 11/10 neutral second, thus allowing many new types of clustered chords.

D) Every single 5th except one in the scale is within about 7 cents of perfect.

E) Mirrored about the octave/root...note that the pattern is sLsL... regardless of the scale direction's either going up to OR down from the octave.

Me>"D) Every single 5th except one in the scale is within about 7 cents of perfect."
Correction...there are two non-perfect 5ths in the scale of almost exactly 22/15.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> My latest development in the "Infinity" scale series.
>
> An irrational-generator-based MOS tuning using the intervals of
> Small = 1.0958 (about 80/73)
> Large = 1.1154 (about 29/26)
> ...in the pattern of >>>> sLsLsLs(octave) <<<<<<<<<
>
> The scale (in decimal format) is
> 1
> 1.0958
> 1.2223
> 1.33935
> 1.4939
> 1.63702
> 1.82594
> 2.0

You've discovered Mohajira[7], the 7-note MOS of mohajira. Your generator is 11/9 near as makes no matter, and you are essentially in 38edo. You might want to play around with injera also, which has a half-octave period instead of dividing the generator in half, also in 38.

> ----------------------
> A few unique characteristics of the scale:
>
> A) Every possible dyadic interval formed within this scale is within 7.8 cents of a pure 11-limit-or-less interval (that is, from every possible root up to an octave above that root). Also, a majority of possible dyads are within 7.8 cents of a 7-or-less odd limit intervals.
>
> B) The smallest and largest interval sizes are within about a syntonic comma of the 7TET semi-tone...and thus the scale feels very much like 7TET melodically and retains many TET-like characteristics.
>
> C) The smallest tone is within about 7 cents of a 11/10 neutral second, thus allowing many new types of clustered chords.
>
> D) Every single 5th except one in the scale is within about 7 cents of perfect.
>
> E) Mirrored about the octave/root...note that the pattern is sLsL... regardless of the scale direction's either going up to OR down from the octave.
>

Michael,

that's a trivial definition of the term "microtonal".  By your measure, the pianos in the practice rooms at our school are tuned microtonally.  They aren't; they are simply out of tune.  For the term "microtonality" to have any substantial content, one needs to be talking about a performance tradition or a historic tuning system or a proposed tuning system.

Plenty of performers play out of tune, but they are not playing microtonally on purpose, and they probably can't reproduce any specific results from one performance to the next. There are other performers who are accused of playing out of tune, but who in fact are intentionally using a non-ET approach that they can reproduce with great accuracy.

There are of course grey areas, but there is no point in making the term "microtonal" one big grey area.

Franklin

--- On Wed, 6/2/10, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Do I (or others) really secretly hate microtonality...
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2010, 2:47 AM

Chris>"Even retuning a keyboard requires a degree of understanding of microtonal theory.
I don't think you can escape that fact."
   Doubt it...all you need to know to make a micro-tonal scale is to know how to de-tune just one tone from 12TET...because "all" the word micro-tonal alone means is using different step sizes than those of 12TET.  Hence when people talk about what makes a "real microtonalist" I often get very skeptical very quickly.  I don't think there is any real microtonality, just a very broad field with many possible goals.

  I see three main obvious possible goals with microtonality; one of which involves making scales with the point of sounding consonant, the second of making scales for the sake of sounding different than
12TET, and yet a third which involves studying micro-tonality and how it works in the brain to figure out how/why music has become what is is throughout history.
  And of course, there may be others...but microtonal need not have a goal or even a decent theory to simply qualify as microtonal.

>"The unfortunate part is that the included alternate tunings don't sound different enough to really make the case for micro."

  Right, such scale would fit into a set of scales that don't meet goal #2 above (but may meet goal #3 above).  To me there is a huge difference in my mind simply between scale that qualify as microtonal and microtonal scales that actually meet unique goals...and naturally different musicians will want to meet different goals and thus gravitate toward scales that meet such goals.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Great
>
> Once you get pop musicians in the West to ditch their instruments in 12
> equal for a capella barber shop quartets or gamelan ensembles instead of
> guitars on the Disney channel please look me up and I will concede.

Wait, what? What does this statement have to do with ANYTHING? Have we been talking about two different things this whole time? Surely you wouldn't reply with a total non-sequitur, so there is clearly a miscommunication occurring.

> And while you are at it please find me a guitarist who doesn't, at the very
> least, learn "shapes" for finger placement on the fret board. Or keyboardist
> for that matter - or even a didgeridoo who doesn't know what mouth shapes to
> make.

Okay, I think I finally see the problem...maybe? You're asserting that ANY observed pattern or regularity in music-making *constitutes* music theory. Perhaps you are also asserting that ANY form of music theory that exceeds the boundaries of 12-tET is "microtonal theory". Okay. I can buy that. So "music theory" can technically be something as simple as "I put my fingers on these three keys and it makes a nice sound" or "count to three, hit the round thing, then repeat". Fair enough.

I should have been more careful to differentiate between theory in general and *specific* music theories, such as those discussed on this list or in a music school. In other words, yes, I agree, you can't play music without having *some* theory--even if it's a rudimentary theory completely of your own design, it's still *theory*. But you can play music without understanding a *specific given theory*, though many specific theories are quite helpful.

I should have said it thus: "there is no currently-established theory of microtonal music, the knowledge of which is necessary for the performance of microtonal music" (grammar?). It's trivially true that you need *some form* of *music theory in general* to play ANY music on anything, but it's also trivially true that there is no ONE theory that EVERYONE has to learn before they can play any form of microtonal music. I assumed that most readers would credit me with more sense than to deny a trivial truth, and would therefore interpret my writing in a more charitable/meaningful way. I guess I forgot that this is the Tuning List, and charity of interpretation is not to be depended upon!

> You seem to be diving off the same cliff Michael does into the oblivion of
> absurdity in order not to appear to have a single wrong idea.

Whenever I see someone appearing to spout an "absurdity", I assume first that there's been a misunderstanding. If all efforts to rectify that misunderstanding are failures, I must presume that either I lack the sufficient faculty to understand, or the other lacks a sufficient faculty to express. I try not to let misunderstandings develop into judgments about another person's cognitive faculties or character. Elsewise, I would have dismissed YOU as a crazy troll on the basis of this most recent difficult exchange between us, since (because of the misunderstanding) you looked to me like you were spouting absurdities yourself! But then I understood, and my charity was justified. Though whether the time it took us to realize that we were not actually in disagreement was justified, that is another question. So please, Chris, try to give me a little more credit in the future?

-Igs

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:12 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> > <chrisvaisvil@> wrote:
> > > Even retuning a keyboard requires a degree of understanding of microtonal
> > > theory.
> > > I don't think you can escape that fact.
> > >
> > > The only way you could get past that fact is to, for example, sell thumb
> > > pianos in 17 edo without telling anyone the tuning system.
> >
> > Or to give them fretless instruments, or sing in a barbershop quartet, or
> > play in a gamelan ensemble, or have them play a saz, or a musical saw, a
> > glass armonica, one of Partch's diamond marimbas, or just switch the tuning
> > on their keyboard without them knowing (or even being aware of the tuning
> > parameter).
> >
> > You don't realize how completely you are conceding to me with this example.
> > If it's possible on a thumb piano, it's possible on anything; if your
> > keyboard can teach you a trivial amount of microtonal theory via its tuning
> > presets, that's a contingent fact about your keyboard, not proof that it's
> > logically impossible to play music without understanding theory. What you
> > seem to be saying is that you can't throw a baseball without understanding
> > momentum and aerodynamics. Even being aware that a theory exists is not the
> > same as understanding that theory, but I maintain one can play microtonal
> > music without even being aware that microtonal theory exists...and in fact,
> > people all over the world have been doing it FOR MILLENIA.
> >
> >
> >
>

>"You've discovered Mohajira[7], the 7-note MOS of mohajira. Your
generator is 11/9 near as makes no matter, and you are essentially in
38edo."

Hmm... I tried taking 11/9^x / 2^y....but got

1.22222222222
1.49387 (1.222222222*1.22222222222)
1.8257 (1.49387*1.222222222)
1.11157 ("")
...so far so good up to this point: the scale I came across DOES appear perfectly generated by 11/9's.

But then using 11/9 as the generator further than that point I get:
1.3637031 (1.11157 * 1.2222222.....InfinityMOS uses 1.3393)
1.66748 (1.3637 * 1.2222222......InfinityMOS uses 1.637)
...neither of which appear to be in the "InfinityMOS" scale I ran across.

Gene (or others?), could you please quickly show me how you use 11/9 to generate the exact same notes as in "my" scale and/or why my scale is perhaps just a weird "mode" of that Mohajira scale?

Chris> "You seem to be diving off the same cliff Michael does into the oblivion of

absurdity in order not to appear to have a single wrong idea."

Igs>"I try not to let misunderstandings develop into
judgments about another person's cognitive faculties or character.
Elsewise, I would have dismissed YOU as a crazy troll on the basis of
this most recent difficult exchange between us"
Sad thing...that sort of thing has been typical on this list...someone will do something which appears very much like trolling me...and then turn around and blame me for being the irrelevant troll. I've seen it happen to Marcel, Rick, and countless others as well.

Igs>"But then I understood, and my charity was justified. Though
whether the time it took us to realize that we were not actually in
disagreement was justified"
Well I'll agree with what it seems you both agree on so far as music theory. That is...that people need to learn some sort of regular pattern, IE fingering on a guitar fretboard, to make music.

>"I agree, you can't play music without having *some* theory--even if
it's a rudimentary theory completely of your own design, it's still
*theory*. But you can play music without understanding a *specific
given theory*, though many specific theories are quite helpful."
Exactly...there has to be some sort of pattern you repeatedly follow and have learned.

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

> Gene (or others?), could you please quickly show me how you use 11/9 to generate the exact same notes as in "my" scale and/or why my scale is perhaps just a weird "mode" of that Mohajira scale?

Compare it to this, where an exact 11/9 generator runs from -3 to +3 generator steps:

! moh.scl
Rational mohajira, 11/9 generator
7
!
1458/1331
11/9
162/121
121/81
18/11
1331/729
2

below

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:14 AM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>

> > And while you are at it please find me a guitarist who doesn't, at the very
> > least, learn "shapes" for finger placement on the fret board. Or keyboardist
> > for that matter - or even a didgeridoo who doesn't know what mouth shapes to
> > make.

igs => Okay, I think I finally see the problem...maybe? You're
asserting that ANY observed pattern or regularity in music-making
*constitutes* music theory. Perhaps you are also asserting that ANY
form of music theory that exceeds the boundaries of 12-tET is
"microtonal theory". Okay. I can buy that. So "music theory" can
technically be something as simple as "I put my fingers on these three
keys and it makes a nice sound" or "count to three, hit the round
thing, then repeat". Fair enough.

Yes you have it. If not there where else would you draw the line of
"theory" or "non-theory"?

>
----------------
igs => I should have said it thus: "there is no currently-established
theory of microtonal music, the knowledge of which is necessary for
the performance of microtonal music" (grammar?).

I disagree it is trivial - part of my argument was any method of
re-tuning from 12 required a degree of theoretical knowledge. This
could be different fingerings on a clarinet or a pre-set on a keyboard
- that is shared by the body of people who perform that instrument.

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

igs => It's trivially true that you need *some form* of *music theory
in general* to play ANY music on anything, but it's also trivially
true that there is no ONE theory that EVERYONE has to learn before
they can play any form of microtonal music.

In our present culture anything non-12 equal qualifies and that is not
trivial. If the knowledge to tune non-12 equal were trivial then you
would have no reason to be writing the tutorial for microtonal music
you are working on.

igs => I assumed that most readers would credit me with more sense
than to deny a trivial truth, and would therefore interpret my writing
in a more charitable/meaningful way. I guess I forgot that this is the
Tuning List, and charity of interpretation is not to be depended upon!

The chasm of absurdities opens wide.

Chris

>"Compare it to this, where an exact 11/9 generator runs from -3 to +3 generator steps:
! moh.scl
Rational mohajira, 11/9 generator
1458/1331
11/9
162/121
121/81
18/11
1331/729
"
Yes...that scale is essentially the same scale. Yet I still don't understand how you generated it from "just" 11/9. What does "runs from -3 to +3 generator steps" mean?

>"! moh.scl
Rational mohajira, 11/9 generator"
Another thing...I couldn't find moh.scl in the SCALA and when I did a scale match SCALA said these matched:
"approximate subset of Neutral Dorian (31) size: 7, diff. 3.6855 cents
approximate subset of Breed 10-tone (31) size: 10, diff. 3.6855 cents
Scales with any size:
closest average absolute: ptolemy.scl diff. 29.3969 cents
closest root mean square: ptolemy.scl diff. 33.5882 cents
closest highest absolute: ptolemy.scl diff. 46.0449 cents
"

I am interested what has been done with "Rational Mohajira" far as actual compositions made with it...and also in the history of neutral dorian and Breed (as in Graham Breed I'm guessing?) 10-tone as well. I also wonder...what exactly is neutral dorian a dorian mode of?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Yes...that scale is essentially the same scale. Yet I still don't understand how you generated it from "just" 11/9. What does "runs from -3 to +3 generator steps" mean?

This means that in the formula g^x/2^y, let g take the value 11/9 and let x take values -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3. I think you were already doing that in an earlier post.

Your two step sizes are close to being 5 steps and 6 steps (respectively) of 38-EDO; their product is close to 11 steps of 38-EDO which is in turn close to 11/9. Hence Gene found two MOS scales very close to yours.

BTW I think that your scale is not exactly a MOS scale; it is necessary for a MOS scale to have only two sizes of step, but not sufficient. You have found two step sizes s and L, with 4s+3L=octave, but they do not come from a single generator and period AFAIK.

HTH, Steve M.

>"This means that in the formula g^x/2^y"
Right, I had that part.
>"let x take values -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3. I think you were already doing that in an earlier post."
Well that was my mistake...I assumed x could only be positive and, as such, took x = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 for the g^x/2^y formula.
Now that I know to use the -3 to 0 range values as well, I can see how you can arrive at the above scale.

>"BTW I think that your scale is not exactly a MOS scale...you have found two step sizes s and L, with 4s+3L=octave, but they do
not come from a single generator and period AFAIK. "
Oddly enough, when I make the scale the "single period" appears to be the octave and not a smaller period, since the pattern is sLsLsLs(octave)sLsL (etc.) Plus, when I use your method of using both negative and positive values for x, 11/9 appears to work as a single generator. So why would it not qualify as a MOS scale?

As a side question, can you combine parts of Mohajira and Injera into a single scale that repeats on the octave?

It has occurred to me that 31TET
A) Gives a very good estimate of the 7-tone JI diatonic scale...IMVHO a better one than 12TET does. Good for those who need an instrument to easily play 12TET-style songs along with more exotic scale based ones.

B) Gives a "Mohajira MOS" scale using x = -3 to 3 and 11/9 as the generator to create (11/9)^x / 2^y. This opens a whole other dimension of exotic intervals such as neutral seconds, a new 11/6 "7th", a new 22/15 "alternative 5th" and much more...yet sounds, to my ear at least, just as consonant as 12TET.
I see this as a relatively easy-to-learn way to add variety without causing the lost sense of resolved-ness that often keeps people from exploring exotic scales.

C) It also seems to give a pretty good BP-like scale for odd-harmonic instruments of approximately
1
11/11 (1.09090909)
11/9 (1.22222222)
15/11 (1.3636363)
5/3 (1.66666666)

21/11 (1.9090909)
15/7 (2.14286)
27/11 (2.454545)
3

Do any of you see any reason why 31TET can't be used as an all around scale system for both people trying to improve the consonance of existing music and music with exotic, yet still resolved enough sounding to be marketable, tuning elements in it?

And/or has there been any work already done to popularize the use of 31-TET as a tuning?

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Do any of you see any reason why 31TET can't be used as an all around scale system for both people trying to improve the consonance of existing music and music with exotic, yet still resolved enough sounding to be marketable, tuning elements in it?

Its fifths suck. I hate them. Major 9 chords sound dirty and awful.
Power chords are a pain in the ass. I don't have a 31-tone electric,
but if I did, I imagine that power chords + distortion + meantone
fifths would sound terrible.

But no, anything is marketable. 7-tet could be marketable. If someone
came up with some sweet music in 7-tet, and it sounded good, then
people would be jumping on it as a "simple" alternative to "western
music" or whatever. If Radiohead were to make an album of 31-tet
music, people would be jumping on that too.

But yes, it serves as an excellent 7-limit extension of meantone. To a
lesser extent, it has decent approximations of 11-limit harmony as
well, although the flat 11/8 drives me nuts most of the time, and it
doesn't distinguish between 9/7 and 14/11 (and consequently its 9/7 is
pretty sharp). If you're really adventurous you can hit some sketches
of 13-limit intervals as well. Furthermore, despite its having 31
notes, every note has a clear 11-limit purpose (or a few purposes),
except for the 12 step interval (and its reciprocal) which is best
thought of as 13/10 and 20/13.

So for what it's worth, that means it's alright with me. Although I
think the popularity of many of these tunings will depend on the
instrument they're going to be used on. It would probably be easy to
set 72-tet up on a trumpet, for example, just by adding a few extra
valves. This would make it pretty intuitive to play. The same might
apply to a sax or flute (don't know enough about the acoustics to tell
you). But on a keyboard or guitar... not so much.

Some sort of nonoctave 31 might be nice too.

> And/or has there been any work already done to popularize the use of 31-TET as a tuning?

Yes. A lot. The wikipedia page has some good stuff on it.

-Mike

>"Its fifths suck. I hate them...power chords are a pain in the ass"
Hmm....It's fifths are 1.49552...about 5 cents off. Can't see why that would be a problem. When you say power chords are a pain...do you mean in how they sound or what you have to do (so far as fingering on a guitar) to play them?

>"If Radiohead were to make an album of 31-tet music, people would be jumping on that too."
Good call...I think Radiohead would be one of the most likely groups to try it considering their highly independent style of both producing music and marketing. Well, that and many other scales.

>"To a lesser extent, it has decent approximations of 11-limit harmony as well, although the flat 11/8 drives me nuts most of the time, and it
doesn't distinguish between 9/7 and 14/11 (and consequently its 9/7 is pretty sharp)."
Heh, I don't use 11/8 or 14/11 much anyhow as the "harmonizing" note an octave above the root forms rather sour intervals in both cases IE (2/1) / (9/7) = 14/9 (a very sour interval). But I could see how someone who did would have problems.

>"And/or has there been any work already done to popularize the use
of 31-TET as a tuning?"
>Yes. A lot. The wikipedia page has some good stuff on it.
Any references beside what's listed on wiki? The links I found in wiki, including http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/rap31.html, seem to imply that 31TET's forte is simply to be used like 12TET, but with more possibility differentiation between tempered tones in 12TET IE cases where "one note acts as two enharmonic tones" in 12TET. It seems to say virtually nothing about 31TET used for much else.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"Its fifths suck. I hate them...power chords are a pain in the ass"
>    Hmm....It's fifths are 1.49552...about 5 cents off.  Can't see why that would be a problem.  When you say power chords are a pain...do you mean in how they sound or what you have to do (so far as fingering on a guitar) to play them?

I mean how they sound. I don't have a 31-tet guitar... yet. Isolated
fifths aren't that bad, but major ninths are. This seems to be
somewhat subjective: I hate them, being a fan of 12-tet's near-pure
fifths. A lot of people actually prefer them, I guess because it's a
nice change from 12-equal. Paul Erlich doesn't like the flat fifths,
but likes the sharp fourths.

> >"To a lesser extent, it has decent approximations of 11-limit harmony as well, although the flat 11/8 drives me nuts most of the time, and it
> doesn't distinguish between 9/7 and 14/11 (and consequently its 9/7 is pretty sharp)."
>    Heh, I don't use 11/8 or 14/11 much anyhow as the "harmonizing" note an octave above the root forms rather sour intervals in both cases IE (2/1) / (9/7) = 14/9 (a very sour interval).  But I could see how someone who did would have problems.

That was an error on my part actually, I meant that the 9/7 is flat
(about 10 cents so). I get this feeling that 14/9 is amazing if you do
it right though, although I haven't yet figured it out.

>
> >"And/or has there been any work already done to popularize the use of 31-TET as a tuning?"
> >Yes. A lot. The wikipedia page has some good stuff on it.
>    Any references beside what's listed on wiki?  The links I found in wiki, including http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/rap31.html, seem to imply that 31TET's forte is simply to be used like 12TET, but with more possibility differentiation between tempered tones in 12TET IE cases where "one note acts as two enharmonic tones" in 12TET.  It seems to say virtually nothing about 31TET used for much else.

Graham has a page on it here: http://x31eq.com/31eq.htm

It's one of the oldest equal temperaments studied, and it's nearly the
same thing as 1/4-comma meantone. So in that sense, its use predates
even 12-equal. As far as 31-equal specifically, theorists have been
studying it for centuries. The wiki article says that it was first
proposed in 1666, although you should take that with a grain of salt
(was there even a year 1666?)

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> The wiki article says that it was first
> proposed in 1666,

Which wiki? It was 1661.

> although you should take that with a grain of salt
> (was there even a year 1666?)

Huh?

-Carl

>"Graham has a page on it here: http://x31eq.com/31eq.htm
It's one of the oldest equal temperaments studied, and it's nearly the
same thing as 1/4-comma meantone."

Side question for those wanting to use 31TET to do standard 12TET chromatic-style "things"...beside the fact 12TET was fewer keys was there any other huge pull to use 12TET instead of 1/4 comma mean-tone under 31TET?
It seems to me, minus slight aesthetic preferences about things like up to around 8 cents sharp-flatness of certain notes relative to Just...that 31TET in many ways can be considered a more pure version of 12TET (especially when it is used to estimate, say, JI diatonic).

>"So in that sense, its use predates even 12-equal."
Makes sense...I already knew 1/4 comma-mean-tone came long before 12TET...and can also swear it's more harmonically pure in most cases due to the smaller (1/4 comma) maximum dyadic error, is that correct?

>"As far as 31-equal specifically, theorists have been
studying it for centuries. The wiki article says that it was first
proposed in 1666"
Then again, that's the tuning, not all the possible "good" scales within it. For example my odd "BP-imitation" scale of
1
11/11 (1.09090909)
11/9 (1.22222222)
15/11 (1.3636363)
5/3 (1.66666666)
21/11
(1.9090909)
15/7 (2.14286)
27/11 (2.454545)
3
...seems to round pretty well to 31TET...and I developed it far before I began messing with 31TET (just recently). Actually, Ptolemy's Homalon scales, which I ran into by creating a scale that turned out to be such Ptolemy's scale, fits near perfectly within 31TET as well.
In fact, it seems almost every scale I've 'created' (or discovered someone else's scale I had never heard of) independently actually fits very well as a subset of 31TET...and I haven't worked with 12TET-like scale for ages, only exotic ones. Minus a few Aesthetic preferences, it seems a whole lot of psycho-acoustics, not to mention history, points toward 31TET as an excellent general solution.

>"although you should take that with a grain of salt (was there even a year 1666?)"
The year of the devil...oh wait, that'd probably be year 666. :-D

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

> > The wiki article says that it was first
> > proposed in 1666,
>
> Which wiki? It was 1661.

Unless you count Vicentino, about 100 years earlier. -C.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > The wiki article says that it was first
> > proposed in 1666,
>
> Which wiki? It was 1661.

Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/31_equal_temperament

It says that a 31-tone keyboard was first proposed in 1555, but in
1666 31-equal was first proposed.

> > although you should take that with a grain of salt
> > (was there even a year 1666?)
>
> Huh?

I thought I remembered reading something about how the Catholic church
skipped the year 1666. Or maybe it was 666. I can never remember.
Maybe it's broscience.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Which wiki? It was 1661.
>
> Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/31_equal_temperament
>
> It says that a 31-tone keyboard was first proposed in 1555, but in
> 1666 31-equal was first proposed.

1661. Never trust wikipedia.

> > > although you should take that with a grain of salt
> > > (was there even a year 1666?)
> >
> > Huh?
>
> I thought I remembered reading something about how the
> Catholic church skipped the year 1666. Or maybe it was 666.
> I can never remember. Maybe it's broscience.

They couldn't have done in 1666. 666, maybe.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "martinsj013" <martinsj@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@> wrote:

> BTW I think that your scale is not exactly a MOS scale; it is necessary for a MOS scale to have only two sizes of step, but not sufficient. You have found two step sizes s and L, with 4s+3L=octave, but they do not come from a single generator and period AFAIK.

You've just finished demonstrating that they do: generator is 11/9, or 11/38 octave, and period is an octave.

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

> Oddly enough, when I make the scale the "single period" appears to be the octave and not a smaller period, since the pattern is sLsLsLs(octave)sLsL (etc.) Plus, when I use your method of using both negative and positive values for x, 11/9 appears to work as a single generator. So why would it not qualify as a MOS scale?

It is a MOS scale.

> As a side question, can you combine parts of Mohajira and Injera into a single scale that repeats on the octave?
>

38edo does that, so it clearly is possible. Presumably you mean does some subset make sense, for which you need a defintion of "makes sense".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> Yes you have it. If not there where else would you draw the line of
> "theory" or "non-theory"?

I tend to regard "theory" as "that which exists in books", i.e. that which is endorsed by some institution, but from a purely philosophical standpoint, I agree with your usage.

> I disagree it is trivial - part of my argument was any method of
> re-tuning from 12 required a degree of theoretical knowledge. This
> could be different fingerings on a clarinet or a pre-set on a keyboard
> - that is shared by the body of people who perform that instrument.

Just to clarify, when I say "trivially true", I mean that it's practically a tautology; i.e. that the truth of a statement is so obvious that it's considered self-evident.

Re-tuning deliberately into another system, sure...but the level of theory which is strictly necessary for this is much less than I'm talking about WRITING about. As you said, some small amount of theory is necessarily imparted/required in selecting an alternative tuning, i.e. you have to know that these other tunings exist and that there is some theory governing their use/creation. But to use the "pure major"/"pure minor" settings on your keyboard, you don't actually need to understand what Just Intonation is, which frequency ratios represent "pure major" or "pure minor" triads, how those intervals deviate from 12-tET. So compared to the amount of theory that EXISTS pertaining to JI, this amount of theory required/imparted to switch tunings on a synth IS "trivial" (by the common use of the word "trivial").

> In our present culture anything non-12 equal qualifies and that is not
> trivial. If the knowledge to tune non-12 equal were trivial then you
> would have no reason to be writing the tutorial for microtonal music
> you are working on.

Let's be clear: the amount of theory required to to get someone to explore non-12-tunings IS trivial *in comparison to* the amount of theory that has been written about these tunings. All you need to know, theoretically-speaking, is that alternatives exist, and maybe some idea of what those alternatives *are*, coupled with an instrument capable of deviating systematically from 12-tET. It's sufficient to say "here are some alternatives to 12-tET, here's an instrument that can play them, now go explore!" You don't need to know in detail how they *work*, but it sure is *helpful* to know that!

However, as there are a variety of non-12-tunings out there, some of which being more common-place than others, accessing some tunings will require more theory than others. I can go out and buy a sitar, or join a gamelan ensemble at a university (and in fact I *was* in a gamelan ensemble well before getting into microtonality...and I learned very little theory there, I can tell you that!), but I can't just go "find" something in Orwell temperament or 17-EDO anywhere...I have to be shown what they are, and taught how to access them.

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

> Any references beside what's listed on wiki? The links I found in wiki, including http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/rap31.html, seem to imply that 31TET's forte is simply to be used like 12TET, but with more possibility differentiation between tempered tones in 12TET IE cases where "one note acts as two enharmonic tones" in 12TET. It seems to say virtually nothing about 31TET used for much else.
>

To start with, 31et supports meantone, miracle, orwell, myna, valentine, mothra, squares, mohajira, wuerschmidt, hemiwuerschmit/hemithirds, tritonic, nusecond, and slender. And when you go beyond just MOS scales, the thing really explodes--hundreds of strictly proper 7-note scales, for instance.

Me> Oddly enough, when I make the scale the "single period" appears
to be the octave and not a smaller period, since the pattern is
sLsLsLs(octave)sLsL (etc.) Plus, when I use your method of using both
negative and positive values for x, 11/9 appears to work as a single
generator. So why would it not qualify as a MOS scale?

Gene>It is a MOS scale.
I kind of figured...I was arguing with Steve, who thought it wasn't. :-D

Me>>"As a side question, can you combine parts of Mohajira and Injera
into a single scale that repeats on the octave?"
Gene>"38edo does that, so it clearly is possible. Presumably you mean does
some subset make sense, for which you need a defintion of "makes sense"."

Well, I like the 7-tone Mohajira MOS scale as virtually every dyad possible (minus the two apx. 22/15 "altered fifths") is within 8 cents or so of an 11-limit fraction and very often less (IE often within 8 cents of a 3, 5, or 7-limit fraction.
To me "makes sense" means that all (or at least most) possible dyads in the combined scale would form within around 8 cents of pure 11-limit or less fractions...thus continuing the sense of balance and resolve set by the Mohajira MOS scale. Something like a 9-note scale IMVHO would be ideal...not too many notes to track it gets hard to handle but enough so there's an obvious advantage in flexibility over the usual 7 notes.

>"but I can't just go "find" something in Orwell temperament or 17-EDO
anywhere...I have to be shown what they are, and taught how to access
them."
Ironically, I ran into the Ptolemy Homalon scales, the 7-tone Mohajira MOS scale, a few of Gene's "custom-made" 7-tone scales under 31TET for a recent research project he wrote virtually all without written theory. The only thing far as strict "theory" I did use as a guide was the idea of 11-limit-or-less dyads and trying to get as many of those as possible.
Sure I didn't know their historical names and what not...but I managed to find them by and large without reading the "official guide" far as how to find them.

However, I believe it can be argued I would have found those scales quicker had I simply read a book about them. The problem is...with thousands of scales and so many books dedicated to each it's hard to know where you want to start. And scales often aren't categorized by, say, their emotional properties or how many dyads they have that you like...so I figure, often it's quicker to find out things for your self...starting with your sense of art and drilling deeper until you hit/come upon a theory or technique.

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

> >    Hmm....It's fifths are 1.49552...about 5 cents off.  Can't see why that would be a problem.  When you say power chords are a pain...do you mean in how they sound or what you have to do (so far as fingering on a guitar) to play them?
>
> I mean how they sound. I don't have a 31-tet guitar... yet. Isolated
> fifths aren't that bad, but major ninths are. This seems to be
> somewhat subjective: I hate them, being a fan of 12-tet's near-pure
> fifths. A lot of people actually prefer them, I guess because it's a
> nice change from 12-equal. Paul Erlich doesn't like the flat fifths,
> but likes the sharp fourths.

Some people like the fifth, finding it mellow. Other people have other preferences--Margo was just telling us that she prefers a sharp fifth of about the size 46et has. Charles Lucy thinks you should tune the fifths 6.5 cents flat, and everything else is just wrong. But if you can stand to listen to the thirds of 12 equal, you shouldn't complain about 31.

Of course, if you are rather precisely a fan of the 12et fifth, and like them about two cents flat, 72 springs to mind. Or 84. But that's a lot more notes.

Gene>"(31 TET supports) hundreds of strictly proper 7-note scales, for instance."
Amazing...anywhere I can find a good list of them?

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

> Side question for those wanting to use 31TET to do standard 12TET chromatic-style "things"...beside the fact 12TET was fewer keys was there any other huge pull to use 12TET instead of 1/4 comma mean-tone under 31TET?

No, but it's a hell of a lot of notes. If people could have gone with what they preferred during the Baroque and Classical eras, 43 or 55 might have won out over it though, because of better fifths (even though it makes thirds worse.)

> In fact, it seems almost every scale I've 'created' (or discovered someone else's scale I had never heard of) independently actually fits very well as a subset of 31TET...and I haven't worked with 12TET-like scale for ages, only exotic ones. Minus a few Aesthetic preferences, it seems a whole lot of psycho-acoustics, not to mention history, points toward 31TET as an excellent general solution.

Absolutely. 31 rulez for the kind of thing you are doing.

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

> To me "makes sense" means that all (or at least most) possible dyads in the combined scale would form within around 8 cents of pure 11-limit or less fractions...thus continuing the sense of balance and resolve set by the Mohajira MOS scale. Something like a 9-note scale IMVHO would be ideal...not too many notes to track it gets hard to handle but enough so there's an obvious advantage in flexibility over the usual 7 notes.
>

Mohajira has a generator half that on injera, and injera has a period half that of mohajira. So you can fit them together readily enough, the question is will you like the result. One possibility would be to start with the 7 note mohajira MOS, and tack on some notes 600 cents away.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Gene>"(31 TET supports) hundreds of strictly proper 7-note scales, for instance."
> Amazing...anywhere I can find a good list of them?
>

Some can be found here:

/tuning-math/files/proper/

31-TET was the first non-12 tuning I ever tried. The "sales pitch" for 31 was very convincing, but I was disappointed with it. For starters, there are few "simple" (10 notes or fewer) MOS scales that yield more than a couple of otonal 7-limit tetrads. Bringing the flavor of 7-limit harmony into a diatonic structure requires chromaticism, which is confusing (on a guitar). The fifths were definitely NOT a significant problem, on an electric guitar being used to play metal...though tuning using harmonics became impossible.

What I wanted from 31 I just didn't get: an alternative tonal structure nearly as simple as the diatonic scale which supplies similarly-resolved but significantly-different harmonies, with a ratio of "consonant triads to notes in the scale" comparable to the diatonic scale. Of course, I was focused on 7-limit harmonies at the time and didn't discover the Mohajira-ish scale until I had abandoned 31...I might have gotten more mileage out of it if I had...but even Mohajira only gives 5 consonant triads out of 7 notes in the scale. If you don't mind using more than 10 notes in a scale, 31's great; you can use it for all those temperaments that Gene listed, giving it a lot of "bang" for the buck. But from a marketing standpoint, this might be overwhelming for a new-comer. I was certainly overwhelmed.

The web resources on 31-tET cover precious little of the non-diatonic possibilities of 31-tET. However, Ron Sword has written an exhaustive "Tricesimoprimal Scales for Guitar" book that I would have KILLED FOR when I was starting out.

Oddly, chords weren't a problem on the 31-tone guitar. Even some barre chords were do-able. The biggest challenge was just keeping track of which fret I was supposed to be on when playing a non-diatonic scale (the diatonic scale itself was a total breeze).

Bottom line: I see 31-tET as definitely "marketable", but not a "do-it-all" tuning. I mean, *I* got sold on it at the very beginning, so clearly something's working for!

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >
> > Do any of you see any reason why 31TET can't be used as an all around scale system for both people trying to improve the consonance of existing music and music with exotic, yet still resolved enough sounding to be marketable, tuning elements in it?
>
> Its fifths suck. I hate them. Major 9 chords sound dirty and awful.
> Power chords are a pain in the ass. I don't have a 31-tone electric,
> but if I did, I imagine that power chords + distortion + meantone
> fifths would sound terrible.
>
> But no, anything is marketable. 7-tet could be marketable. If someone
> came up with some sweet music in 7-tet, and it sounded good, then
> people would be jumping on it as a "simple" alternative to "western
> music" or whatever. If Radiohead were to make an album of 31-tet
> music, people would be jumping on that too.
>
> But yes, it serves as an excellent 7-limit extension of meantone. To a
> lesser extent, it has decent approximations of 11-limit harmony as
> well, although the flat 11/8 drives me nuts most of the time, and it
> doesn't distinguish between 9/7 and 14/11 (and consequently its 9/7 is
> pretty sharp). If you're really adventurous you can hit some sketches
> of 13-limit intervals as well. Furthermore, despite its having 31
> notes, every note has a clear 11-limit purpose (or a few purposes),
> except for the 12 step interval (and its reciprocal) which is best
> thought of as 13/10 and 20/13.
>
> So for what it's worth, that means it's alright with me. Although I
> think the popularity of many of these tunings will depend on the
> instrument they're going to be used on. It would probably be easy to
> set 72-tet up on a trumpet, for example, just by adding a few extra
> valves. This would make it pretty intuitive to play. The same might
> apply to a sax or flute (don't know enough about the acoustics to tell
> you). But on a keyboard or guitar... not so much.
>
> Some sort of nonoctave 31 might be nice too.
>
> > And/or has there been any work already done to popularize the use of 31-TET as a tuning?
>
> Yes. A lot. The wikipedia page has some good stuff on it.
>
> -Mike
>

between the lines

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:54 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes you have it. If not there where else would you draw the line of
> > "theory" or "non-theory"?
>
> I tend to regard "theory" as "that which exists in books", i.e. that which is endorsed by some institution, but from a purely philosophical standpoint, I agree with your usage.

That knowledge didn't always exist in books and institutions. And in
some cultures still is not. And someone discovered it first before it
was put in a book. And that true to this day in every endeavor,
scientific or not.

>
> > In our present culture anything non-12 equal qualifies and that is not
> > trivial. If the knowledge to tune non-12 equal were trivial then you
> > would have no reason to be writing the tutorial for microtonal music
> > you are working on.
>
> Let's be clear: the amount of theory required to to get someone to explore non-12-tunings IS trivial *in comparison to* the amount of theory that has been written about these tunings.

Of course, you don't need to be an astrophysicist to agree that an
encounter with a black hole might go badly for you....

>

> However, as there are a variety of non-12-tunings out there, some of which being more common-place than others, accessing some tunings will require more theory than others. I can go out and buy a sitar, or join a gamelan ensemble at a university (and in fact I *was* in a gamelan ensemble well before getting into microtonality...and I learned very little theory there, I can tell you that!),

You didn't learn which bars to hit with the mallet (or whatever the
equivalent names are)?

but I can't just go "find" something in Orwell temperament or 17-EDO
anywhere...I have to be shown what they are, and taught how to access
them.
>

You and Michael started out bashing this list as being too academic
and theoretical and both of you disparaged music and / or tuning
theory. You have now come round to the point of view where you now
agree that simply playing an instrument increases your knowledge and
that knowledge is in fact music (and possibly tuning) theory
regardless of if it is written in a book or not or named or not.

I'm all for making tuning / music theory more accessible. It was damn
confusing trying to figure out what the alternate tunings on my
keyboard meant and in fact one of my first posts here was an ugly
multi-page copy and paste from the Korg MS2000 manual. Perhaps a good
place to start would be to get some rough idea what alternate tuning
systems are out there in most keyboards and give a brief general idea
as to what it means with URLs for more information for those who wish
to follow up. I'll be glad to give you the specifics on my Korg
keyboard - and even my vsti's if that would be useful.

Chris

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

> 31-TET was the first non-12 tuning I ever tried. The "sales
> pitch" for 31 was very convincing, but I was disappointed with
> it. For starters, there are few "simple" (10 notes or fewer)
> MOS scales that yield more than a couple of otonal 7-limit
> tetrads. Bringing the flavor of 7-limit harmony into a diatonic
> structure requires chromaticism, which is confusing (on a guitar).

This is a valid critcism, though I can't comment on whether
chromaticism is confusing on guitar. Did you try different
open string tunings?

What are you playing now? I presume you know that the decatonic
scales in 22 should meet your requirements.

-Carl

Igs>"but even Mohajira only gives 5 consonant triads out of 7 notes in the
scale."
Funny I didn't notice that. Unless that is...you assume the only way to have a consonant triad is to use a virtually perfect 5th. The 22/15-ish "alternative 5th" that appears twice in the scale sounds fine to me.

>"But from a marketing standpoint, this might be overwhelming for a
new-comer. I was certainly overwhelmed."

(Assuming use of Mohajira)...were you mostly intimidated just by the triads or other things as well?
Personally I think the goal of virtually-perfect-fifth triads most often leads you either straight on the path to rather intimidatingly large (for most people) scales or variants on mean-tone which don't meet the "similarly-resolved but significantly-different harmonies" qualification that you brought up. I figure Pythagorus (or at least the Pythagoreans) may well be laughing in his/their grave...about just how many people still think the 5th is the "sole divine ratio" and so rarely dare to "disobey it".

>"For starters, there are few "simple" (10 notes or fewer) MOS scales that yield more than a couple of o-tonal 7-limit tetrads."
Agreed...the flip side is what's so evil about 11-limit (assuming, for example, some of the dyads that form the 11-limit chord are lower than 11-limit)?

>"The biggest challenge was just keeping track of which fret I was
supposed to be on when playing a non-diatonic scale (the diatonic scale
itself was a total breeze)."
I could definitely see that on a guitar. I keep picturing in my head a guitar with frets that slide along the strings (rather than but glued to the neck) and could lock in different positions. This way you could, say, adjust the fret positions the only use subsets of 31TET at once. Thus you could, say, adjust the frets for 7-tone Mohajira and only have 7 frets per octave. Or buy more fret "beads" to slide onto the string and make, say, 10-tone per octave scales.
Any reason why that sort of thing couldn't be done?

I guess you could say I see maybe 4 or so really good beginner scales in 31TET that have a bit of everything though (and I'd argue almost any TET has this problem) to meet virtually every need of every artist, you need several different tunings available. Thus I really think there's a huge need for a guitar with slide-able frets...and ones you can alter without visiting, say, a carpenter or a welder.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Some people like the fifth, finding it mellow. Other people have other preferences--Margo was just telling us that she prefers a sharp fifth of about the size 46et has. Charles Lucy thinks you should tune the fifths 6.5 cents flat, and everything else is just wrong. But if you can stand to listen to the thirds of 12 equal, you shouldn't complain about 31.

Part of it is that I'm an improvisational musician by nature, and my
playing style incorporates a lot of little "tricks" that sound best
when the fifths are pure. Fifth-equivalence MOS scales, for example (I
think they're called "Hyperlydian" somewhere on the internet), and
lots of stacked fifth stuff, and constantly shifting diatonic modes
which utilize drone fifths, and what not. Some of their magic is just
gone in 31-equal. But, it all sounds even better in 17-equal (34-equal
if I need 5-limit stuff). Something about the 17/34 fifth is just
magical.

> Of course, if you are rather precisely a fan of the 12et fifth, and like them about two cents flat, 72 springs to mind. Or 84. But that's a lot more notes.

72 is the most intuitive temperament for me to use. I haven't ever
explored 84 before, but it looks neat at a glance.

-Mike

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:15 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> What I wanted from 31 I just didn't get: an alternative tonal structure nearly as simple as the diatonic scale which supplies similarly-resolved but significantly-different harmonies, with a ratio of "consonant triads to notes in the scale" comparable to the diatonic scale. Of course, I was focused on 7-limit harmonies at the time and didn't discover the Mohajira-ish scale until I had abandoned 31...

That's pretty depressing. That's basically what I'm looking for. And
you say 22 was what eventually satisfied your search for this?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> That knowledge didn't always exist in books and institutions. And in
> some cultures still is not. And someone discovered it first before it
> was put in a book. And that true to this day in every endeavor,
> scientific or not.

Yes. Though FYI there is some debate in the philosophy of science community about whether an "uncodified" or "unformalized" theory is truly a theory. However, that debate need not concern us, since we're in agreement with each other about this.

> You didn't learn which bars to hit with the mallet (or whatever the
> equivalent names are)?

That's about ALL I learned, and I didn't learn the names of anything. The bars were given numbers from 1 to 5 (or 4), the instructor demonstrated the pattern for each instrument, and the students copied him.

> You and Michael started out bashing this list as being too academic
> and theoretical and both of you disparaged music and / or tuning
> theory. You have now come round to the point of view where you now
> agree that simply playing an instrument increases your knowledge and
> that knowledge is in fact music (and possibly tuning) theory
> regardless of if it is written in a book or not or named or not.

Okay, I never "bashed" theory. I questioned its necessity, but I (and I think Michael as well) was referring to "institutionalized" theory, i.e. "established academic theory", not the general concept of theory we've been discussing. I have NEVER held the belief that music can be made without any form of method at all. Music is by definition sound organized according to human method (even if that method is to make it sound as disorganized as possible), and method implies theory. Therefore, theory is necessary for music. My point of view has not changed, just your understanding of my point of view and/or my way of articulating my point of view or my way of defining certain terms (like "theory").

> I'm all for making tuning / music theory more accessible. It was damn
> confusing trying to figure out what the alternate tunings on my
> keyboard meant and in fact one of my first posts here was an ugly
> multi-page copy and paste from the Korg MS2000 manual. Perhaps a good
> place to start would be to get some rough idea what alternate tuning
> systems are out there in most keyboards and give a brief general idea
> as to what it means with URLs for more information for those who wish
> to follow up. I'll be glad to give you the specifics on my Korg
> keyboard - and even my vsti's if that would be useful.

Now THAT would be a project...I wonder what the most common tunings would be? My guess is some 5 limit JI as well as historical well-temperaments...not exactly my specialties.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "martinsj013" <martinsj@> wrote:
> > BTW I think that your scale is not exactly a MOS scale ...
>
> You've just finished demonstrating that they do: generator is 11/9, or 11/38 octave, and period is an octave.

OK, I knew that the 11/9 and the 2^(11/38) versions were MOS, but I thought that Michael's was just a bit out. But I guess that was just rounding error, sorry. BTW Michael how did you find your scale if not by using a generator?

S.

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

> What are you playing now? I presume you know that the decatonic
> scales in 22 should meet your requirements.

I played 22 for a while, eventually decided it wasn't "exotic" enough, since the septimal diatonic still sounds diatonic, and pajara is 12-tET compatible (from a structural standpoint), so even though the harmonies were new, the structures were familiar and that bothered me. I tried Porcupine--very different structure, but I didn't like it. Now I have guitars in 16, 17, 18, and 20. I like 16, particularly the Mavila-9 scale, even though and it's miserable in the 3-limit--it's very "spicy" and sounds as un-12-like as I've been able to find. I like 18, using 16:18:21-based triads that turn up in its version of Father temperament. I like 20-EDO because it just feels good to me. I like 17 as an alternative to 12, I like having at least one good 3-limit tuning at my disposal. I've got a new album featuring all of these guitars in the works.

-Igs

Chris>"You and Misael started out bashing this list as being too academic and theoretical and both of you disparaged music and / or tuning
theory."
Funny, I don't ever recall saying anything like that. I do remember saying something like that using strict theory as a guide often makes you arrive at very limited options. Had I stuck with "common knowledge" about theory such as optimizing triads, avoiding non-pure fifths and such...I would have very likely not run into less popular parts of micro-tonal theory such as Ptolemy's scales or Mohajira.

>"You have now come round to the point of view where you now agree that simply playing an instrument increases your knowledge and
that knowledge is in fact music (and possibly tuning) theory regardless of if it is written in a book or not or named or not."

I will agree on that this is true of the COMPOSITION side of music theory, but not of tuning. In fact, there are so many tuning theories that directly contradict each other that often times following one too closely limits your options severely. For example, if I would have insisted on low-limit chords like 4:5:6:7, fat chance I would have found scales like Ptolemy's Homalon scale and chords like 15:18:22.

Again (as has happened so many times on this list)...I am talking about tuning and you are talking about aspects composition that have nothing to do directly with tuning. Things like "theory of how to do fingering on a guitar" or "how phrasing effects music" and things like that...and, for example, obviously the fingering used can change due to how many strings you have, what the root tone of each string is, etc. Obviously, for example, things like motif theory can be used regardless of tuning, but so what?...it doesn't help us actually pick or improve tunings or scales...it's an independent issue.

>"Perhaps a good place to start would be to get some rough idea what alternate tuning systems are out there in most keyboards"

Sadly, I haven't seen many...or at least many that are more than just slightly tweaked versions of 12TET and/or ethnic scales not able to be used well with chords in many cases. My CS6x just has a few JI scales, Werkmeister (sp.), Indian, 24TET, and a couple of others...none of which are both particularly usable and particularly interesting IE different than 12TET. Many keyboards have even less.

Don't get me wrong, it can't hurt...I just don't think it would help that much. What I think really would help is for all of us on this list to agree on, say, 5 scales that could (likely) be easily pitched to the public that have a similar or better consonant-to-dissonant chord ratio than 12TET and don't require a bizarrely high/intimidating amount of keys to play. And then go out and document the heck out of them, in "layman's terms", so people can start playing them pretty well within the same day.

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

> But, it all sounds even better in 17-equal (34-equal
> if I need 5-limit stuff). Something about the 17/34 fifth is just
> magical.

Margo liked between 704 and 705 cents, and 46 fits right in there. It has the bright quality I think you like in the 17 fifth, but IMHO being closer to just improves it. I'm a fan. But I really like stuff like 58, 87, 99 or 111, which is a different game really, closer to just. I do for some reason prefer two cents sharp to two cents flat.

> > Of course, if you are rather precisely a fan of the 12et fifth, and like them about two cents flat, 72 springs to mind. Or 84. But that's a lot more notes.
>
> 72 is the most intuitive temperament for me to use. I haven't ever
> explored 84 before, but it looks neat at a glance.

It does a fine orwell, hence 19/84.
> -Mike
>

'Martin'>"OK, I knew that the 11/9 and the 2^(11/38) versions were MOS, but I
thought that Michael's was just a bit out. But I guess that was just
rounding error, sorry. BTW Michael how did you find your scale if not
by using a generator?"

I actually used alternating generators of about 22/15 and 3/2 in a computer program in several combinations that intersected near the octave.
For example 3/2 * 22/15 * 3/2 * 3/2 (over 2^x) and so on until I hit something within a few cents of the octave.

The program said which combinations hit the least areas near dyads I thought sounded sour (IE 1.21 and 1.55 were two of the sour areas). It also only showed me scales where the closest tones where about 12/11 apart...since by ear I had found about there is where critical band dissonance makes chords more tough to make sound resolved (IE a 10:11:12 chord doesn't sound too bad, but a 12:13:14 chord starts to really beat/'shake' to my ears).

This was an effort to make a 7-tone scale with all dyads sounding fairly consonant. I chose 22/15 because it sounded to me like the strongest interval near 3/2 that wasn't just an estimate of 3/2...and didn't use just 3/2 since I knew that would inevitably lead to a tuning with more tones needed than I wanted before it intersected the octave.

I then looked at the results and noticed there were roughly only two interval sizes, with the highest range for each being only a few cents different than the lowest range.
So I assumed this was a hint that the ideal version of the scale was an MOS scale. I then told my program to test combinations of interval sizes around, say, 1.093-1.096 and 1.112 to 1.118. The program told me which two intervals produced scales with dyads the furthest away from my list of sour dyads...and that result was essentially that 7-tone MOS Mohajira scale.

When I actually played the scale, I instantly recognized the gain in stability and resolved-ness over the Ptolemy Homalon scale system, my old favorite, which I had ditched much due to the nasty sounding (to me, at least) 1.55 and 1.454545 dyadic ratios in it.

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

> Don't get me wrong, it can't hurt...I just don't think it would help that much. What I think really would help is for all of us on this list to agree on, say, 5 scales that could (likely) be easily pitched to the public that have a similar or better consonant-to-dissonant chord ratio than 12TET and don't require a bizarrely high/intimidating amount of keys to play.

Meaning what, exactly? What's the size range?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> That's pretty depressing. That's basically what I'm looking for. And
> you say 22 was what eventually satisfied your search for this?
>
> -Mike
>

Sort of, but not really. 22 is very "twelvey" to my ears, even with the septimal diatonic scale. Frankly, I think my initial criteria were impossible to satisfy: you can't have good fifths, near-Just but "unusual" harmonies, and an un-12-like structure in an MOS scale with fewer than 10 notes, unless you resort to EDOs with more than 36 notes that provide better approximations to TOP temperaments. Given a choice of which parameter to sacrifice, I opted for "good fifths" and been satisfied with what I've found.

However, my initial experience with 31-EDO was at the beginning of my microtonal career, and I dismissed it before I had given up on "good fifths". 31-EDO actually has a lot of good "bad fifth" MOS scales, and it also has the Mohajira scale (which I didn't know about back then). I think you should still follow through with it, because it's probably as close as you can come to meeting all those goals.

Though if you don't mind sacrificing the purity of the 3- and 5-limit a bit, you can get better 7- and 11-limit in 26-EDO. The fifth is 10¢ flat, yes...but in my experience that's still perfectly within the range of acceptability. I'd suggest 26-EDO over 22-EDO at any rate. 22 prioritizes "familiar" intervals over the unfamiliar in terms of accuracy, but 26 gives the "unfamiliar" intervals precedence. From all I've experienced, it seems to be more important that the unfamiliar intervals be given precedence, or else the "familiar" ones will overshadow them.

-Igs

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

> Though if you don't mind sacrificing the purity of the 3- and 5-limit a bit, you can get better 7- and 11-limit in 26-EDO. The fifth is 10¢ flat, yes...but in my experience that's still perfectly within the range of acceptability.

So what your telling us is that 31 is maybe too flat, or at least you once thought so, but 26 is OK and 16 is downright nifty?

>I'd suggest 26-EDO over 22-EDO at any rate. 22 prioritizes "familiar" intervals over the unfamiliar in terms of accuracy, but 26 gives the "unfamiliar" intervals precedence. From all I've experienced, it seems to be more important that the unfamiliar intervals be given precedence, or else the "familiar" ones will overshadow them.

An interesting point. Meantone places the 7-limit above the 5-limit in complexity in a clearcut way, and for some other temperaments such as catakleismic the gap is more dramatic. But other temperaments work differently--miracle springs to mind as one possibility for the 7-limit, if the 7-limit counts. Unidec, superkleismic, and orwell could all be tried.

Between the lines

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:42 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>

>
> Yes. Though FYI there is some debate in the philosophy of science community about whether an "uncodified" or "unformalized" theory is truly a theory. However, that debate need not concern us, since we're in agreement with each other about this.

Gosh - this sounds like you are taking the idea of a "scientific
theory" and trying to say it is the same as "music theory". The way
you have been using music theory means "any formalized knowledge" and
in reality mean "any knowledge". A scientific theory

google this "define:scientific theory" and you'll see what I'm saying

>
> > You and Michael started out bashing this list as being too academic
> > and theoretical and both of you disparaged music and / or tuning
> > theory. You have now come round to the point of view where you now
> > agree that simply playing an instrument increases your knowledge and
> > that knowledge is in fact music (and possibly tuning) theory
> > regardless of if it is written in a book or not or named or not.
>
> Okay, I never "bashed" theory. I questioned its necessity, but I (and I think Michael as well) was referring to "institutionalized" theory, i.e. "established academic theory", not the general concept of theory we've been discussing. I have NEVER held the belief that music can be made without any form of method at all. Music is by definition sound organized according to human method (even if that method is to make it sound as disorganized as possible), and method implies theory. Therefore, theory is necessary for music. My point of view has not changed, just your understanding of my point of view and/or my way of articulating my point of view or my way of defining certain terms (like "theory").

I just reviewed most the the 86 (!!) messages in this thread and
indeed you didn't bash theory. I do think I influenced your view of
theory.

Igs => "Okay, I think I finally see the problem...maybe? You're
asserting that ANY observed pattern or regularity in music-making
*constitutes* music theory. Perhaps you are also asserting that ANY
form of music theory that exceeds the boundaries of 12-tET is
"microtonal theory". Okay. I can buy that. So "music theory" can
technically be something as simple as "I put my fingers on these three
keys and it makes a nice sound" or "count to three, hit the round
thing, then repeat". Fair enough. "

> Perhaps a good
> > place to start would be to get some rough idea what alternate tuning
> > systems are out there in most keyboards and give a brief general idea
> > as to what it means with URLs for more information for those who wish
> > to follow up.
>
> Now THAT would be a project...I wonder what the most common tunings would be? My guess is some 5 limit JI as well as historical well-temperaments...not exactly my specialties.
>
> -Igs

I think it could be valuable. And I'm sure there is a fair number of
keyboards in use by the members of this list / xenharmonic/ nonoctave,
etc.

Would I be right in assuming you've seen this site?

http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

This is just chock full of information - the suggestion I made would
be to explain in relatively non-technical; terms what each of the
tunings listed here mean in "musical" terms. To the uninitiated
"Pythagorean limma" means nothing.... ( example
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/scale_kirnberger.html )

Chris

I want to throw in here fractal tune smithy

I've had excellent results using it retune my Roland GR-20

http://robertinventor.com/software/tunesmithy/music.htm

Though it is hard to beat a real micro guitar this has to be close....
really close.

And I've had great support as well.

Chris

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> >
> >> LMSO can retune just about ANYTHING, hardware or software, to any tuning, octaves or no, without requiring really ANY understanding of what you're doing.
> >
> > If you happen to own a Mac, that is.
>
> MIDI software does tend to be platform-specific. I don't think the
> situation's as bad as when I was working with it, but still, there you
> go. For Windows, this maybe used to be the thing to go with:
>
> http://rainwarrior.thenoos.net/intun/index.html
>
> It's supposed to be like MIDI Relay, which didn't require much
> understanding, but without the bugs. But as it's old it may have
> succumbed to bit rot. I really don't know.
>
> There's also Scala. I think Scala can tune anything to any tuning as
> well. Maybe it assumes a bit more understanding. At least, Manuel
> deserves a lot of credit for all the work he puts in.
>
> http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/
>
> Graham

>"Meaning what, exactly? What's the size range?"

Judging by
A) What people actually like using within 12TET IE at least 7 and sometimes 8 note scales
B) George Miller's suggestion that (in common with other perceptual sets) that music should have 5 to 9 elements to be best tracked by the mind (taken from John Chalmers' "Division of the Tetra-chord")
C) Another quote I read (sadly I forget the author) which says anything under about 6 tones is too melodically uninteresting.

So I would say 7-9 tones is probably a safe bet on the average, with 7 being the conservative "just like traditional diatonic scales" end and 9 being the "challenging and flexible, but just small enough to keep from being too confusing and patience-testing for most people" end.

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

> So what your telling us is that 31 is maybe too flat, or at least you once thought so, but 26 is OK and 16 is downright nifty?
>

I once thought a lot of things. I once thought 22-EDO was too inaccurate and too "weird". If I met myself from five years ago, he and I would probably get in quite an argument about tuning. I can't imagine trying to talk my younger self into starting with 16 or 18-EDO instead of 31. It took me a loooong time and a lot of experimentation to realize I don't want or need pure fifths all the time. Blame Ron Sword for my hexadecaphonophilia.

Though FWIW I consider 18-EDO to be a bit more "palatable"...of all the alternatives to 4:5:6 I've tried, 16:18:21 is my favorite.

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

> Though FWIW I consider 18-EDO to be a bit more "palatable"...of all the alternatives to 4:5:6 I've tried, 16:18:21 is my favorite.
>

Perhaps you are responding to it as 11-limit JI:

! 18rat.scl
11-limit version of 18edo
18
!
80/77
27/25
55/49
7/6
40/33
63/50
55/42
49/36
99/70
72/49
55/36
100/63
33/20
12/7
98/55
50/27
77/40
2

cityoftheasleep wrote:
> 31-TET was the first non-12 tuning I ever tried. The "sales pitch"
> for 31 was very convincing, but I was disappointed with it. For
> starters, there are few "simple" (10 notes or fewer) MOS scales that
> yield more than a couple of otonal 7-limit tetrads. Bringing the
> flavor of 7-limit harmony into a diatonic structure requires
> chromaticism, which is confusing (on a guitar). The fifths were
> definitely NOT a significant problem, on an electric guitar being
> used to play metal...though tuning using harmonics became impossible.
> > > What I wanted from 31 I just didn't get: an alternative tonal
> structure nearly as simple as the diatonic scale which supplies
> similarly-resolved but significantly-different harmonies, with a
> ratio of "consonant triads to notes in the scale" comparable to the
> diatonic scale. Of course, I was focused on 7-limit harmonies at the
> time and didn't discover the Mohajira-ish scale until I had abandoned
> 31...I might have gotten more mileage out of it if I had...but even
> Mohajira only gives 5 consonant triads out of 7 notes in the scale.
> If you don't mind using more than 10 notes in a scale, 31's great;
> you can use it for all those temperaments that Gene listed, giving it
> a lot of "bang" for the buck. But from a marketing standpoint, this
> might be overwhelming for a new-comer. I was certainly overwhelmed.

If you're interested in 7-limit harmonies, you're pretty much stuck with scales having at least 10 notes (it seems that quite a few of the good 7-limit temperaments have a decatonic in them somewhere), but there's a handful of other options. You could get by with diminished[8] but you can do that in 12-ET. Semaphore has a 9-note MOS with a single 4:5:6:7 tetrad, which is a little better than meantone, and the 9-note MOS of negri has two of them.

Keemun is probably one of the best options as far as a temperament having relatively good accuracy while not requiring many notes in a chain for 7-limit tetrads (only 7!) Dave Keenan has a page about the 11-note chain of minor-thirds scale of this temperament (as described on http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm), and it works with Larry Hanson's keyboard (http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF). Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but it's at least worth a try.

One nice thing about regular temperament mappings is that you can easily tell how many notes in a chain you'll need if you want 7-limit tetrads (with simple arithmetic). Take negri as an example, with a generator mapping of <0, -4, 3, -2]. The most negative number in the mapping is -4 and the most positive number is 3; so you'll need 4 + 1 + 3 = 8 notes in a chain for a single 4:5:6:7 or 1/4:5:6:7 chord (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3). Every additional note in the chain gives you another pair of tetrads, so the 10-note MOS has 3 of each (otonal and utonal). With scales that repeat at a fraction of an octave, this gives you the number of notes in a period, so you'll have to multiply by the number of periods in an octave.

>"I can't imagine trying to talk my younger self into starting with 16 or
18-EDO instead of 31. It took me a loooong time and a lot of
experimentation to realize I don't want or need pure fifths all the
time. Blame Ron Sword for my hexadecaphonophilia."

Interestingly enough, I was just messing around with 16TET and have come to the conclusion that 16TET's alternative 5th of about 31/21 really isn't that bad.
It sounds weird when you first hear it, but when you say, make a "circle of alternative 5ths" out of it (and use one 17/11 "alternative 5th" for the last fifth) to form a scale it really doesn't sound too bad.
I've found the symmetry that occurs actually offsets that effect and makes it all surprisingly tolerable...yes it beats, but it beats in a fairly predictable, confident, in-sync fashion.
This is...even though I still feel 15TET sounds more stable than 16TET given good scales, and 31TET sounds more stable in most cases than just about anything I've tried so far...minus 22TET for certain things.

16TET does sound a tad grating far as beating, but at least sounds intelligent and, as a plus, sounds a fair bit more distinguished from 12TET diatonic scales than something like Mohajira does.

________________________________
From: cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 9:47:56 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: 31TET as as "do it all" (or at least most things) scale

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

> So what your telling us is that 31 is maybe too flat, or at least you once thought so, but 26 is OK and 16 is downright nifty?
>

I once thought a lot of things. I once thought 22-EDO was too inaccurate and too "weird". If I met myself from five years ago, he and I would probably get in quite an argument about tuning. I can't imagine trying to talk my younger self into starting with 16 or 18-EDO instead of 31. It took me a loooong time and a lot of experimentation to realize I don't want or need pure fifths all the time. Blame Ron Sword for my hexadecaphonophilia.

Though FWIW I consider 18-EDO to be a bit more "palatable"...of all the alternatives to 4:5:6 I've tried, 16:18:21 is my favorite.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Interestingly enough, I was just messing around with 16TET and have come to the conclusion that 16TET's alternative 5th of about 31/21 really isn't that bad.
> It sounds weird when you first hear it, but when you say, make a "circle of alternative 5ths" out of it (and use one 17/11 "alternative 5th" for the last fifth) to form a scale it really doesn't sound too bad.
>

Yeah, that 675¢ little monster actually plays somewhat nice when you give him the right playmates. I like playing a tetrad of stacked 225¢ intervals, approximating a string of 7:8's. Or playing an approximate otonal tetrad even...the niceness of the 4:5 and 4:7 almost seem to squeeze that little tyrant into a nice 4:6. It doesn't work as a power chord, but lots of other stuff does (like the near 4:7, or the near 6:11, or even the near 4:5).

> This is...even though I still feel 15TET sounds more stable than 16TET given good scales, and 31TET sounds more stable in most cases than just about anything I've tried so far...minus 22TET for certain things.
>

Y'know, I actually think 16 is a bit more stable than 15, provided you focus on 4:5:7 chords instead of 4:5:6. 16 out-performs 15 quite handily (and 12-tET quite significantly) at approximating the 5th and 7th harmonics. However, the instability of 15-EDO is more evenly-distributed across all the intervals, whereas in 16-EDO it all kinda piles up around the middle of the octave. I swear, though, there are things happening with combination tones in 16-EDO that are just craaaazy.

> 16TET does sound a tad grating far as beating, but at least sounds intelligent and, as a plus, sounds a fair bit more distinguished from 12TET diatonic scales than something like Mohajira does.
>

You can say THAT again!

-Igs

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

> 16TET does sound a tad grating far as beating, but at least sounds intelligent and, as a plus, sounds a fair bit more distinguished from 12TET diatonic scales than something like Mohajira does.

Kind of subjective; it sounds dumb as dirt to me.

Hi dear

Your music is like that u are working on segah dastgah of persian music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Here is an actual piece I'm working on in that tuning with the same chords.
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=268
>
> or online play
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=289&p=2016#p2016
>

Hi dear

As if i'm hearing to some musics based on Segah dastgah of persian music ....

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I have a question for the tuning group.
>
> does this sound xenharmonic?
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3
>
> When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to 12 et via scala.
>
> http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/zurna-compare.txt
>
>
> Please excuse the hesitations. I have been discovering chords all evening and have been working on putting them together into progressions.
>
> What prompted this request is that I indeed did use MOTU alternate tunings in my previous MOTU posts. And while I can saturate my ears and make almost anything sound good to me usually after a break I can clearly hear the microtonalism.
>

Thank you very much for the comment and compliment!

Persia - a great and ancient culture!

Chris

On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:16 AM, shaahin <acousticsoftombak@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi dear
>
> As if i'm hearing to some musics based on Segah dastgah of persian music
> ....
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "christopherv"
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I have a question for the tuning group.
> >
> > does this sound xenharmonic?
> >
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/motu-try4-zurna.mp3
> >
> > When you have listened please check out the MOTU tuning compared to 12 et
> via scala.
> >
> > http://micro.soonlabel.com/MOTU/zurna/zurna-compare.txt
> >
> >
> > Please excuse the hesitations. I have been discovering chords all evening
> and have been working on putting them together into progressions.
> >
> > What prompted this request is that I indeed did use MOTU alternate
> tunings in my previous MOTU posts. And while I can saturate my ears and make
> almost anything sound good to me usually after a break I can clearly hear
> the microtonalism.
> >
>
>
>

Hi Michael,

I have not been reading this list much lately, and i see
that there is a very long pile of responses to your post.
I'm responding without having read any of them, so i apologize
now if i'm repeating anything anyone else said.

When Dutch physicist and music-theorist Adriaan Fokker
discovered the writings of Christian Huygens (i think it
was around 1940 or so), he became very interested in 31edo
and began writing theory about it and composing in it.
This spawned a whole school of Dutch composers who worked
quite a bit in 31edo for a few decades, up until maybe
around 1990.

In 2001, it was discovered by members of this list that
31edo is one of the tunings belonging to the miracle family
of tunings. This was actually a rediscovery, as it was
found later that George Secor had written about the
generator for this family back in 1975. Other miracle EDOs
are 41 and 72. We named the 31edo version "Canasta".

But of course 31 is also a member of the meantone family,
which automatically makes it important for anyone who
cares about the standard Western musical repertoire and
theory.

And 31edo also belongs to many other families. You can find
out more about it from pages in my Encyclopedia ... in fact,
i just the other day made a nice addition to the page about
31edo (and i see that it messed up the formatting of the menu,
i'll fix that when i can):

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/number/31edo.aspx

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/m/meantone.aspx

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/number/1-4cmt.aspx

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/m/miracle.aspx

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/c/canasta.aspx

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> It has occurred to me that 31TET
> A) Gives a very good estimate of the 7-tone JI diatonic scale...IMVHO a better one than 12TET does. Good for those who need an instrument to easily play 12TET-style songs along with more exotic scale based ones.
>
> B) Gives a "Mohajira MOS" scale using x = -3 to 3 and 11/9 as the generator to create (11/9)^x / 2^y. This opens a whole other dimension of exotic intervals such as neutral seconds, a new 11/6 "7th", a new 22/15 "alternative 5th" and much more...yet sounds, to my ear at least, just as consonant as 12TET.
> I see this as a relatively easy-to-learn way to add variety without causing the lost sense of resolved-ness that often keeps people from exploring exotic scales.
>
> C) It also seems to give a pretty good BP-like scale for odd-harmonic instruments of approximately
> 1
> 11/11 (1.09090909)
> 11/9 (1.22222222)
> 15/11 (1.3636363)
> 5/3 (1.66666666)
>
> 21/11 (1.9090909)
> 15/7 (2.14286)
> 27/11 (2.454545)
> 3
>
>
> Do any of you see any reason why 31TET can't be used as an all around scale system for both people trying to improve the consonance of existing music and music with exotic, yet still resolved enough sounding to be marketable, tuning elements in it?
>
> And/or has there been any work already done to popularize the use of 31-TET as a tuning?
>

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

> In 2001, it was discovered by members of this list that
> 31edo is one of the tunings belonging to the miracle family
> of tunings. This was actually a rediscovery, as it was
> found later that George Secor had written about the
> generator for this family back in 1975. Other miracle EDOs
> are 41 and 72. We named the 31edo version "Canasta".

To pick a nit, miracle does have a 31-tone MOS but its step
sizes are pretty unequal. 31edo wouldn't be a great tuning.
Canasta is typically taken from 72edo.

-Carl

On 2 June 2010 21:54, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

> I tend to regard "theory" as "that which exists in books", i.e.
> that which is endorsed by some institution, but from a purely
> philosophical standpoint, I agree with your usage.

By your definition, then, there's almost no theory on this list
outside the Bach tuning threads. So a composer, who probably won't be
interested in historical circulating tunings, can mostly ignore
theory.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> By your definition, then, there's almost no theory on this list
> outside the Bach tuning threads. So a composer, who probably won't be
> interested in historical circulating tunings, can mostly ignore
> theory.

I'd say this list is about as much of an "institution" one can hope to find regarding microtonality. There's lots of theory that is referenced on this list, such as the theory of consonance and dissonance (Plomp and Levelt, Sethares, etc.), Fokker's work, etc.

Graham Breed> "By your definition, then, there's almost no theory on this list
> outside the Bach tuning threads. So a composer, who probably won't be
> interested in historical circulating tunings, can mostly ignore
> theory."

Igs>"I'd say this list is about as much of an "institution" one can hope to
find regarding microtonality. There's lots of theory that is referenced
on this list, such as the theory of consonance and dissonance (Plomp
and Levelt, Sethares, etc.), Fokker's work, etc."
Heh...and let's not forget the work of people like Harry Partch, Paul Erlich, and our "own" Jacques Dudon. One thing that's odd about microtonality is it has many strong theories...many of which contradict each other. And even weirder thing is that many strong new theories can come about from going against ones of the past.

To me there's nothing wrong with "institutionalized theory"...minus any sort of a assumption that a musician and/or theorist can't possibly do great things without it. "Igs", your quote of (paraphrased) "I figure things out by ear...and try to match them to theory after the fact" is a great example of that.
The things that make theory (be it institutionalized or self-taught) work to me are how it works for my ears, how consistent it is (IE that it doesn't contradict itself or basic psychoacoustics), and (perhaps as a bonus) what % of people who have actually heard the theory believe it.

I just made a dance song in 100% 12TET and then "randomly" swapped it to a slightly modified Ptolemic tuning (re-tuned to my liking via nothing but my own ears to fit the mood of the song). And note the Pythagorean-based tunings (mean-tone, 12TET, etc.) have always had somewhat of a monopoly of Ptolemy's tunings.
Yet when I showed it to the same DJ who approved the 12TET version actually claimed it sounded BETTER with the re-tuning. And this isn't a friend-to-friend sort of approval, he's going to play the thing live. And...note my "institutional copying" was limited to starting with Ptolemy's scale as the basis...the rest was raw tweaking to fit the emotion of the song.