Re: [tuning] Close to the heart

Does it involve tall chords man? I mean that is what Micheal has been
talking about for years now. Tall chords. Come on man you ought know this!

Just wanna know.

Chris

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:02 AM, cameron <misterbobro@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> This tuning list has been going for very long time. So there's a good
> chance that what I'm about to say has already been said, and more than once.
> But here goes... because it's close to the heart.
>
> That which can be said ABOUT music, which cannot be said IN music, is of
> little to no value. That which can be said ABOUT music, and can be said IN
> music, wordlessly, is of great value- some of the greatest value there is to
> human understanding and being.
>
> I believe this deeply, and I think it would be hard to find a musician who
> doesn't.
>
> My challenge to Carl, to take our argument about "field of attraction" into
> sound and music itself, still stands. :-)
>
> peace and luv, gotta train to catch and a live show to improvise, yikes,
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>

Chris>"Does it involve tall chords man? I mean that is what Micheal has been
talking about for years now. Tall chords. Come on man you ought know this!"

Oh man...you know what...I always have and still do. Some of the theories I
have I've dropped to an extent (such as the PHI Section, 16th harmonic based,
and Silver Section scales)...but I've always believed in tall chords and still
do: every scale I've made is designed for maximizing the number of tall chords
available per tone in scale. Often I've done this by NOT trying for low-limit
triads (which limits the number of near-just dyads) and instead focusing on
either low-limit dyads OR higher limit dyads with no obvious mathematical
explanation but simply, in my opinion, a good musical mood (such as 12/11, 11/6,
and 22/15).

All that mumbo-jumbo about critical band dissonance, having less than 8
cents error from JI, recurrent sequences, using irregular temperaments...holding
for all dyads in my entire scale are built to maximize the available number of
tall chords. No matter how mathematically "baseless" this may seem...I think
compositions in such scales by myself, Chris, and a few others seem to prove the
value of my scales' focus on tall chords in keeping an audience interested and
enabling towering harmonic structures.

Cameron>"That which can be said ABOUT music, which cannot be said IN music, is
of little to no value. "
Indeed! Which makes me want to rip my hair out when I post an idea with a
sound/music sample and people say it means nothing without being able to post a
sound/music counter-example. Same goes when someone asks me to believe in an
equation (especially stuff having to do with virtual frequencies) and I try the
equation in a sound sample, my ears don't like it and a few people who I show it
to don't like it, I post that they don't like it, and I get called a liar or
"having a baseless opinion not proven by equations/psychoacoustics/etc."

In summary...why not just stop this academic supremacy march (what is this,
the Imperial Forces?) :-D and sit down with some sound/music samples of
theories.in action and "dish things out" that way?
BTW, far as the whole Cameron vs. Carl
tuning-theory-meets-musical-implementation challenge...I'm still eager to hear
it happen! :-)
.

I have the utmost respect for Michael's musical quest, which is not actually "tall chords", but what we could call "wind-chime tunings", the name suggested by a comment Herman Miller made once.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Does it involve tall chords man? I mean that is what Micheal has been
> talking about for years now. Tall chords. Come on man you ought know this!
>
> Just wanna know.
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:02 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > This tuning list has been going for very long time. So there's a good
> > chance that what I'm about to say has already been said, and more than once.
> > But here goes... because it's close to the heart.
> >
> > That which can be said ABOUT music, which cannot be said IN music, is of
> > little to no value. That which can be said ABOUT music, and can be said IN
> > music, wordlessly, is of great value- some of the greatest value there is to
> > human understanding and being.
> >
> > I believe this deeply, and I think it would be hard to find a musician who
> > doesn't.
> >
> > My challenge to Carl, to take our argument about "field of attraction" into
> > sound and music itself, still stands. :-)
> >
> > peace and luv, gotta train to catch and a live show to improvise, yikes,
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
> >
> >
>

Cameron>"I have the utmost respect for Michael's musical quest, which is not
actually "tall chords", but what we could call "wind-chime tunings", the name
suggested by a comment Herman Miller made once."
Interesting...so what defines a "wind chime tuning"? :-D

This makes an incredible amount of sense.

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 4:31 AM, cameron <misterbobro@...> wrote:

I have the utmost respect for Michael's musical quest, which is not
actually "tall chords", but what we could call "wind-chime tunings",
the name suggested by a comment Herman Miller made once.