Carlos Alpha WIP

I just felt like throwing something I'm working on out into the intertubes today.

It is a Carlos Alpha progression as played by Fender Mustang via retuned on fly by Fractal Tune Smithy.

We are in the process of moving so there has been little time for music but I've been playing with this for a couple days.

download it at

http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=537

online play at

http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=391&start=0

My intent is to keep working at this one. We'll see.

Chris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I just felt like throwing something I'm working on out into the intertubes today.
>
> It is a Carlos Alpha progression as played by Fender Mustang via retuned on fly by Fractal Tune Smithy.

Why do you prefer Carlos Alpha to valentine temperament?

> We are in the process of moving so there has been little time for music but I've been playing with this for a couple days.

I've been wondering what happened to you.

> download it at
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=537

Will do.

I hope you enjoy your listen.

I am puzzled though by how you can say I prefer Alpha over valentine when I
didn't know valentine existed. Seems to me some assumption somewhere was
made.

Chris

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:12 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "christopherv"
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I just felt like throwing something I'm working on out into the
> intertubes today.
> >
> > It is a Carlos Alpha progression as played by Fender Mustang via retuned
> on fly by Fractal Tune Smithy.
>
> Why do you prefer Carlos Alpha to valentine temperament?
>
>
> > We are in the process of moving so there has been little time for music
> but I've been playing with this for a couple days.
>
> I've been wondering what happened to you.
>
>
> > download it at
> >
> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=537
>
> Will do.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I hope you enjoy your listen.
>
> I am puzzled though by how you can say I prefer Alpha over valentine when I
> didn't know valentine existed. Seems to me some assumption somewhere was
> made.

Everyone who works with Carlos Alpha should know valentine exists, and should know why they are using Alpha and not valentine. I wouldn't say that about Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier, for example, but I do say it here, and include Wendy, who should have noticed that she had discovered anj important rank two temperament instead of focusing on the much less interesting nonoctave rank one.

Here's something on valentine:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Starling+temperaments

My point is, the good features Carlos cites for Alpha in terms of both harmony and melody are true of valentine, and I don't see much of a downside, unless for some reason you don't like octaves. How many notes did you use, BTW?

I also think anyone considering 88cet should know about octacot, and decide only after comparing them, but the case for valentine is even stronger, since the generator size is even smaller and you go a longer way before bumping into the question of whether this is a MOS or a nonoctave scale.

"Everyone who works with Carlos Alpha should know valentine exists, and
should know why they are using Alpha and not valentine."

I'm afraid that question was not on my microtonal composition license
application :-)

Honestly - your reply is a bit bizarre - and I have less reason now to
follow up on bohpier since its just an octave friendly version of BP.

"How many notes did you use, BTW?" My answer => As many as I needed.

You know - I'm sure you are pointing out important things here. But I for
one am not going to study study study before I attempt to make music. Quite
frankly I want to leave the tuning smithing to the experts in the same way I
am not going to learn the skills of a luthier before I play guitar. If you
are telling me Valentine is a lot like Carlos Alpha - great, thank you. If
you are telling me I *need* to know this to use Carlos Alpha I am puzzled as
to how this is productive advice.

Chris

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I hope you enjoy your listen.
> >
> > I am puzzled though by how you can say I prefer Alpha over valentine when
> I
> > didn't know valentine existed. Seems to me some assumption somewhere was
> > made.
>
> Everyone who works with Carlos Alpha should know valentine exists, and
> should know why they are using Alpha and not valentine. I wouldn't say that
> about Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier, for example, but I do say it here, and
> include Wendy, who should have noticed that she had discovered anj important
> rank two temperament instead of focusing on the much less interesting
> nonoctave rank one.
>
> Here's something on valentine:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Starling+temperaments
>
> My point is, the good features Carlos cites for Alpha in terms of both
> harmony and melody are true of valentine, and I don't see much of a
> downside, unless for some reason you don't like octaves. How many notes did
> you use, BTW?
>
> I also think anyone considering 88cet should know about octacot, and decide
> only after comparing them, but the case for valentine is even stronger,
> since the generator size is even smaller and you go a longer way before
> bumping into the question of whether this is a MOS or a nonoctave scale.
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
If
> you are telling me I *need* to know this to use Carlos Alpha I am puzzled as
> to how this is productive advice.

But you still can't answer my question. :)
> >
> >
>

What question is that?

Are you trying to do to me what Cameron and Michael S. did?

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> If
> > you are telling me I *need* to know this to use Carlos Alpha I am puzzled
> as
> > to how this is productive advice.
>
> But you still can't answer my question. :)
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

I'll just guess

If you mean "how many notes did I use"

I don't know. It isn't important by any measure I can see. I never count the
number of notes I use in 12 so why would I count them here?
I'm sure if I were to make the piece more chromatic I'd use more. I'm sure
if I were to make the piece more pseudo diatonic common practice I'd use
less.

This is a senseless question as far as I'm concerned. As a composer all the
notes are at my disposal.

And just to be clear I am not interested in proving or disproving anything
with Carlos Alpha. All I did was make a tune in the tuning and it seems to
be a political event.

Geesh.

Chris

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> If
> > you are telling me I *need* to know this to use Carlos Alpha I am puzzled
> as
> > to how this is productive advice.
>
> But you still can't answer my question. :)
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

Interesting thing about Carlos Alpha: it's practically "every other note" of 31-EDO, except stretched out a little bit to give a perfect fifth instead of a tempered one. Just like how Beta is practically 19-EDO and Gamma is practically 34-EDO. But Alpha, as you've shown, provides the nicest-sounding harmonies for the fewest number of notes. Truly a fascinating scale, in that it provides very pure and utterly familiar triads while eliminating all familiar melodic intervals (instead of approximating 16/15 and 9/8, there's an approximate 24/23, 12/11, and 8/7). So one step is a small semitone, two is a neutral second, and three is a septimal major second. I'd like to hear you do more with this tuning, especially something where you try soloing or putting a melody over a chord progression to bring out the more bizarre melodic aspects.

I'll have to look into Valentine temperament....

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "christopherv" <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> I just felt like throwing something I'm working on out into the intertubes today.
>
> It is a Carlos Alpha progression as played by Fender Mustang via retuned on fly by Fractal Tune Smithy.
>
> We are in the process of moving so there has been little time for music but I've been playing with this for a couple days.
>
> download it at
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=537
>
> online play at
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=391&start=0
>
> My intent is to keep working at this one. We'll see.
>
> Chris
>

Hi Igs,

I agree with what you said about my piece. What I want to work on mostly is
creating a "real" progression as I hear the beginnings of such. And yes I
found the awkwardness of trying to do a melody - but I've not thrown in the
towel. Perhaps if a melody could be sufficiently supported by harmony it
might be easier. I dunno. Just my thoughts on it so far.

Thanks for the listen and comment.

Chris

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:04 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>wrote:

>
>
> Interesting thing about Carlos Alpha: it's practically "every other note"
> of 31-EDO, except stretched out a little bit to give a perfect fifth instead
> of a tempered one. Just like how Beta is practically 19-EDO and Gamma is
> practically 34-EDO. But Alpha, as you've shown, provides the nicest-sounding
> harmonies for the fewest number of notes. Truly a fascinating scale, in that
> it provides very pure and utterly familiar triads while eliminating all
> familiar melodic intervals (instead of approximating 16/15 and 9/8, there's
> an approximate 24/23, 12/11, and 8/7). So one step is a small semitone, two
> is a neutral second, and three is a septimal major second. I'd like to hear
> you do more with this tuning, especially something where you try soloing or
> putting a melody over a chord progression to bring out the more bizarre
> melodic aspects.
>
> I'll have to look into Valentine temperament....
>
> -Igs
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "christopherv"
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > I just felt like throwing something I'm working on out into the
> intertubes today.
> >
> > It is a Carlos Alpha progression as played by Fender Mustang via retuned
> on fly by Fractal Tune Smithy.
> >
> > We are in the process of moving so there has been little time for music
> but I've been playing with this for a couple days.
> >
> > download it at
> >
> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=537
> >
> > online play at
> >
> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=391&start=0
> >
> > My intent is to keep working at this one. We'll see.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
>
>

genewardsmith wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> wrote:
>> I hope you enjoy your listen.
>> >> I am puzzled though by how you can say I prefer Alpha over
>> valentine when I didn't know valentine existed. Seems to me some
>> assumption somewhere was made.
> > Everyone who works with Carlos Alpha should know valentine exists,
> and should know why they are using Alpha and not valentine. I
> wouldn't say that about Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier, for example, but I
> do say it here, and include Wendy, who should have noticed that she
> had discovered anj important rank two temperament instead of focusing
> on the much less interesting nonoctave rank one.

I think if you go back to the source, you'll see the distinction isn't as clear as that.

Excerpt from http://www.wendycarlos.com/resources/pitch.html :

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

"Since each of the redundant interval pairs is symmetric with respect to the octave, the result is a kind of "over-representation" of this interval. But the octave is a ratio most common to the "strategies" of many instruments, including newer synthesizer architectures. Look at their 16', 8', 4' octaving borrowed from the pipe organ. Most timbres/instrument voices include a similar designation of transpositions up or down by octaves. We have octave possibilities all over the place.

So why not, as an experiment, investigate divisions which are not integer based, but allow fractional parts? That will lose all octave symmetry, but if we handle the octaving later, we might be able to find some really interesting equal-step specimens."

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

So, the idea that you can't use octaves with the Carlos Alpha, Beta, and Gamma scales isn't quite accurate. If you use octaves with Alpha, you get valentine. Beta with octaves is a less familiar temperament, sycamore.

> Here's something on valentine:
> > http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Starling+temperaments
> > My point is, the good features Carlos cites for Alpha in terms of
> both harmony and melody are true of valentine, and I don't see much
> of a downside, unless for some reason you don't like octaves. How
> many notes did you use, BTW?
> > I also think anyone considering 88cet should know about octacot, and
> decide only after comparing them, but the case for valentine is even
> stronger, since the generator size is even smaller and you go a
> longer way before bumping into the question of whether this is a MOS
> or a nonoctave scale.

Of course, if you don't need or want the octaves, or you just like the challenge of working with a scale that doesn't have them, you'll save quite a few notes on your keyboard or fretboard by leaving them out. Any of those is reason enough to use something like Alpha without octaves.

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

> Of course, if you don't need or want the octaves, or you just like the
> challenge of working with a scale that doesn't have them, you'll save
> quite a few notes on your keyboard or fretboard by leaving them out. Any
> of those is reason enough to use something like Alpha without octaves.

Indeed it is, and I don't object to the idea. What I do object to is presenting something like Alpha or 88cet and never even mentioning valentine or octacot, giving a completely distorted idea of the actual situation and available options. Did Morrison and Carlos simply not notice that they could stick in octaves? Rank two temperaments and MOS were not exactly hit items at the time, but Carlos, at least, seems to hold that option in mind but she doesn't do anything with it. I think it is too bad the question was ducked rather than pursued; the whole rank two/MOS business could have used the impetus, and we've left people with the highly dubious belief that Alpha and 88cet are the main event here, not a curiosities arising as an offshoots of valentine and octacot.

genewardsmith wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> >> Of course, if you don't need or want the octaves, or you just like the >> challenge of working with a scale that doesn't have them, you'll save >> quite a few notes on your keyboard or fretboard by leaving them out. Any >> of those is reason enough to use something like Alpha without octaves.
> > Indeed it is, and I don't object to the idea. What I do object to is
> presenting something like Alpha or 88cet and never even mentioning
> valentine or octacot, giving a completely distorted idea of the
> actual situation and available options. Did Morrison and Carlos
> simply not notice that they could stick in octaves? Rank two
> temperaments and MOS were not exactly hit items at the time, but
> Carlos, at least, seems to hold that option in mind but she doesn't
> do anything with it. I think it is too bad the question was ducked
> rather than pursued; the whole rank two/MOS business could have used
> the impetus, and we've left people with the highly dubious belief
> that Alpha and 88cet are the main event here, not a curiosities
> arising as an offshoots of valentine and octacot.

Listen to Carlos' "Beauty in the Beast", it's got octaves all over the place (even the melody has perfect fourths, which would be impossible without octaves in these temperaments). You might not notice the slightly mistuned octaves with Gamma or Beta (you might even prefer that effect), but the octaves in Alpha are not even close to pure. So it looks like the use of Alpha without octaves is a secondary development (possibly influenced by other non-octave systems like Bohlen-Pierce and 88-cet).

On the other hand, 88-cet was a non-octave tuning from the beginning. In retrospect we can look back at it and see that it's octacot without octaves, but it was an independent development. So, unless someone discovers examples from before 1995 of what we're now calling octacot, I don't know how you can accurately describe 88cet as an offshoot of octacot.

But I don't know why it is that when someone wants to try writing music in Carlos Alpha it gets so many comments like this not about the music, but about the choice of scale used. When I tried writing something in Alpha, I got complaints that I was using octave doublings (not even in the same instrument part). So you can't win. I say you should use whatever tuning you like that gives you the sound you want for your music.

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

> Listen to Carlos' "Beauty in the Beast", it's got octaves all over the
> place (even the melody has perfect fourths, which would be impossible
> without octaves in these temperaments).

Then the piece is in a rank two temperament, the one we've been calling valentine, though maybe we should call it wendy. And the whole Carlos Alpha thing where people try to avoid octaves is a misconception deriving, I presume, from the incorrect characterization of this as rank one.

> On the other hand, 88-cet was a non-octave tuning from the beginning. In
> retrospect we can look back at it and see that it's octacot without
> octaves, but it was an independent development. So, unless someone
> discovers examples from before 1995 of what we're now calling octacot, I
> don't know how you can accurately describe 88cet as an offshoot of octacot.

Because I take a tuning like 88cet to be inherently the sidekick and not the protagonist by obvious musical logic.

> I say you should use
> whatever tuning you like that gives you the sound you want for your music.

I agree. But I do not agree that Alpha or 88cet should be presented and discussed without reference to the associated rank two temperament. That's a distorted picture, and if someone is doing it to promote nonoctave systems, propagandistic special pleading. I wish Wendy had been more clear about this, as it seems she's been misunderstood.

But of course if you adopt my point of view the next question to ask is "why focus only on small generators?" and you are off and running. Why focus on valentine and ignore myna and sensi? Why, indeedi. History is part of it, I presume.

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

> Then the piece is in a rank two temperament, the one we've
> been calling valentine, though maybe we should call it wendy.
> And the whole Carlos Alpha thing where people try to avoid
> octaves is a misconception deriving, I presume, from the
> incorrect characterization of this as rank one.

There is a rank 1 temperament called Alpha and it's
substantially different from the rank 2 temperament valentine.
I have no idea why you keep saying otherwise.

-Carl

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

> There is a rank 1 temperament called Alpha and it's
> substantially different from the rank 2 temperament valentine.
> I have no idea why you keep saying otherwise.

Because Herman is telling us is that Carlos did not use Carlos Alpha, but rhather valentine, I suggested we should have called valentine wendy. How you deduce from that a claim the rank one temperament doesn
't exist, or that I have ever claimed otherwise, I can't imagine.

genewardsmith wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >> There is a rank 1 temperament called Alpha and it's
>> substantially different from the rank 2 temperament valentine.
>> I have no idea why you keep saying otherwise.
> > Because Herman is telling us is that Carlos did not use Carlos Alpha, but rhather valentine, I suggested we should have called valentine wendy. How you deduce from that a claim the rank one temperament doesn
> 't exist, or that I have ever claimed otherwise, I can't imagine.

No, that's not what I'm saying. She obviously did use Carlos Alpha (that's where the name is from, after all) but she used it (among other things) in a way that we might describe as a rank 2 temperament (with octaves). In other words, maybe we should be calling valentine "alpha" (and sycamore "beta"). We can consider the rank 1 version of Carlos Alpha, without octaves, as a subset of the full rank 2 temperament.

Now with all the precision that we've introduced with our formalization of limits and ranks and so on, you could argue that it makes sense to reserve "alpha" for the name of the rank 1 temperament and continue calling the rank 2 temperament "valentine", to avoid confusion. But "alpha" is more like "quarter-comma meantone" or "88-cet": a specific tuning. It happens that we can identify it with a rank 1 or rank 2 temperament (depending on whether octaves are used), but really it's just a scale with intervals of 78.0 cents between each note.

So asking why not use valentine instead of Carlos Alpha is roughly like asking someone who's writing music in 1/4-comma meantone why they prefer that over meantone[31]. (Except that "valentine" is less familiar to begin with, and you can't just assume that someone knows about it.) Or perhaps a better example: if you're writing something in Wilson's Golden Horogram Scale #17, why do you prefer that over sentinel? Maybe you just picked the scale because of its harmonic or melodic properties, not how it could be categorized as a temperament. (And unless you were following the recent "squares" discussion you may not have even heard of "sentinel").

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

> In other words, maybe we should be calling valentine "alpha"
> (and sycamore "beta"). We can consider the rank 1 version of
> Carlos Alpha, without octaves, as a subset of the full rank 2
> temperament.

Yes, why not! Let's call 31-ET "meantone" while we're at it.

> you could argue that it makes sense to reserve "alpha" for the
> name of the rank 1 temperament and continue calling the rank 2
> temperament "valentine", to avoid confusion.

That certainly would avoid confusion since that's already what
they're called.

> So asking why not use valentine instead of Carlos Alpha is
> roughly like asking someone who's writing music in 1/4-comma
> meantone why they prefer that over meantone[31].

It's a lot like that, except it's also a lot different, since
mappings for alpha and valentine wouldn't be given over the
same primes and tend to result in radically different
arrangements of pitches on things called instruments.

> (Except that "valentine" is less familiar to
> begin with, and you can't just assume that someone knows
> about it.)

Gene didn't assume Chris knew about it, he was using Chris to
make his point that 'anyone who knows about alpha is a victim
of marketing if he can't explain why he's not using valentine'.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> genewardsmith wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> >> There is a rank 1 temperament called Alpha and it's
> >> substantially different from the rank 2 temperament valentine.
> >> I have no idea why you keep saying otherwise.
> >
> > Because Herman is telling us is that Carlos did not use Carlos Alpha, but rhather valentine, I suggested we should have called valentine wendy. How you deduce from that a claim the rank one temperament doesn
> > 't exist, or that I have ever claimed otherwise, I can't imagine.
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying. She obviously did use Carlos Alpha
> (that's where the name is from, after all) but she used it (among other
> things) in a way that we might describe as a rank 2 temperament (with
> octaves). In other words, maybe we should be calling valentine "alpha"
> (and sycamore "beta").

I can't win here. Carl insists that alpha is rank one, and when I go along with that, you insist it's whatever Wendy Carlos used, which happens to be rank two.

We can consider the rank 1 version of Carlos
> Alpha, without octaves, as a subset of the full rank 2 temperament.

And what are we to call it?

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

> Gene didn't assume Chris knew about it, he was using Chris to
> make his point that 'anyone who knows about alpha is a victim
> of marketing if he can't explain why he's not using valentine'.

Which was rude of me, and I apologize to Chris. In my defense, I thought just asking a question wasn't so bad.

Certainly accepted - I was quite confused honestly.

Chris

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:24 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > Gene didn't assume Chris knew about it, he was using Chris to
> > make his point that 'anyone who knows about alpha is a victim
> > of marketing if he can't explain why he's not using valentine'.
>
> Which was rude of me, and I apologize to Chris. In my defense, I thought just asking a question wasn't so bad.