Microtonal Serialism

I'm not the biggest fan of serialism in general, but there is one
example that I really liked, and it's from knowsur's album:

http://split-notes.com/spnt004.php

Track 2, Hikaru, is a serialist composition that's written in 7-tet.
So instead of everything sounding really chromatic and atonal and
dissonant, it sounds pandiatonic and very tonal.

One might wonder what would happen if serialism were used on rank-2
temperaments rather than only on equal ones; for example, something
serialist in blackwood[10] would probably be pretty cool.

-Mike

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

> One might wonder what would happen if serialism were used on rank-2
> temperaments rather than only on equal ones; for example, something
> serialist in blackwood[10] would probably be pretty cool.

What I've found is that you can tweak the tuning of a serial piece to the 11 or 13 limit, and make it sound much more consonant and tonal.

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 2:57 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > One might wonder what would happen if serialism were used on rank-2
> > temperaments rather than only on equal ones; for example, something
> > serialist in blackwood[10] would probably be pretty cool.
>
> What I've found is that you can tweak the tuning of a serial piece to the 11 or 13 limit, and make it sound much more consonant and tonal.

What would happen, I wonder, if you extended the concept of serialism
to incorporate permutations of triads and tetrads and such? Say the
goal was to cover every possible permutation of 3/4 notes in a scale
without repeating, rather than just covering every possible note in a
scale without repeating? You could probably come up with a way to
permute the eikosany based entirely on serialism or something like
that.

-Mike

Mike wrote :

> I'm not the biggest fan of serialism in general, but there is one
> example that I really liked, and it's from knowsur's album:
>
> http://split-notes.com/spnt004.php
>
> Track 2, Hikaru, is a serialist composition that's written in 7-tet.
> So instead of everything sounding really chromatic and atonal and
> dissonant, it sounds pandiatonic and very tonal.

Too bad it's so tonal actually for a serialist composition (?), but quite an enjoyable electro-microtonal piece ! Sounds also like senza "weaving" patterns - and very much like some of my optical sequencers actually...

> One might wonder what would happen if serialism were used on rank-2
> temperaments rather than only on equal ones; for example, something
> serialist in blackwood[10] would probably be pretty cool.

Exactly. One suggestion for Caleb's 10-note "perfect" series, based on mod 11.
And many other 10 notes MOS ... (Miracle, Pajara, Beatles, Lemba...)

- - - - - - -
Jacques

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:
>
> Mike wrote :
>
> > I'm not the biggest fan of serialism in general, but there is one
> > example that I really liked, and it's from knowsur's album:
> >
> > http://split-notes.com/spnt004.php
> >
> > Track 2, Hikaru, is a serialist composition that's written in 7-tet.
> > So instead of everything sounding really chromatic and atonal and
> > dissonant, it sounds pandiatonic and very tonal.
>
> Too bad it's so tonal actually for a serialist composition (?),

Sorry, I meant "so modal" (same tonic all along the piece),
but I like the tonal quality of course.
The track 4, Yomu, has more tonic variations. What this musician does is intriguing.

> quite an enjoyable electro-microtonal piece ! Sounds also like
> senza "weaving" patterns

> - - - - - - -
> Jacques

Could the scale I'm posting below be improved somehow with some tempering or some removals and additions?

Goals: 46-note framework. Inconsistent fingering ok. Has important JI intervals with 1/1. Has 12EDO embedded.

Process: Using LMSO, made JI tonality diamond, removed some pitches, then added 12EDO and removed a few more.

I like it, but I'm not sure anyone else will.

! incomplete 46-n JI with 12EDO added
46notes JI/12EDO
46
!
100.0
111.73129
128.29824
138.57266
150.63706
165.00423
182.40371
203.91000
231.17409
266.87091
289.20972
300.0
315.64129
359.47234
386.31371
400.0
435.08410
454.21395
498.04500
551.31794
563.38234
582.51219
600.0
617.48781
648.68206
663.04923
701.95500
745.78605
764.91590
800.0
813.68629
840.52766
852.59206
884.35871
900.0
933.12909
968.82591
996.09000
1017.59629
1034.99577
1049.36294
1061.42734
1080.55719
1088.2687
1100.00
1200.00000

On Dec 26, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Jacques Dudon wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mike wrote :
> >
> > > I'm not the biggest fan of serialism in general, but there is one
> > > example that I really liked, and it's from knowsur's album:
> > >
> > > http://split-notes.com/spnt004.php
> > >
> > > Track 2, Hikaru, is a serialist composition that's written in 7-tet.
> > > So instead of everything sounding really chromatic and atonal and
> > > dissonant, it sounds pandiatonic and very tonal.
> >
> > Too bad it's so tonal actually for a serialist composition (?),
>
> Sorry, I meant "so modal" (same tonic all along the piece),
> but I like the tonal quality of course.
> The track 4, Yomu, has more tonic variations. What this musician does is intriguing.
>
> > quite an enjoyable electro-microtonal piece ! Sounds also like
> > senza "weaving" patterns
>
> > - - - - - - -
> > Jacques
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
>
> Could the scale I'm posting below be improved somehow with some tempering or some removals and additions?
>
> Goals: 46-note framework. Inconsistent fingering ok. Has important JI intervals with 1/1. Has 12EDO embedded.

With 48 notes you could use Compton[48].

Well, I'm confused.

Erlich's page gives the period of Compton as 100.05 and the generator as 15.13.

To get 48 tones, would you add 0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922 at 0, 100.05, 200.1, 300.15 all the way up to 1100+ cents?

in other words,

0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922
then
100.05. 115.18, 130.31 184.972,
etc.?

While I'm considering new scales, what are some good 11-limit scales that approximate 12-EDO pretty well, with 46 tones or less per octave?

That is, 41,42,43,44,45 or 46 tones?

What are some resources to look at that would give me a clue?

Caleb

On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:49 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Could the scale I'm posting below be improved somehow with some tempering or some removals and additions?
> >
> > Goals: 46-note framework. Inconsistent fingering ok. Has important JI intervals with 1/1. Has 12EDO embedded.
>
> With 48 notes you could use Compton[48].
>
>

Hi Caleb!

> Well, I'm confused.
> Erlich's page gives the period of Compton as 100.05 and the
> generator as 15.13.
> To get 48 tones, would you add 0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922 at
> 0, 100.05, 200.1, 300.15 all the way up to 1100+ cents?

Why are you confused? You got it right.

> While I'm considering new scales, what are some good 11-limit
> scales that approximate 12-EDO pretty well, with 46 tones or
> less per octave?
> That is, 41,42,43,44,45 or 46 tones?
> What are some resources to look at that would give me a clue?

Graham's site as usual. Go to
http://x31eq.com/temper/net.html
and enter in the first box 12 [space] [some other number < 47]
and in the second box, the number 11.
You can play around with this all day.

I'll talk about rank 1 for a bit. The four best 11-limit
rank 1 temperaments < 100-ET are: 31, 72, 22, 12.

So 12 is the 4th best system (in terms of error * number
of notes), and it approximates 12 perfectly!
The val <12 19 28 34 42| gives a weighted error of 7.6 cents.

Going up multiples of 12, the val <24 38 56 68 83| gives
a weighted error of 6.1 cents.

The val <36 57 84 101 125| gives weighted error 3.6 cents.
That's twice the error of the best val in 31.

-Carl

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

> I'll talk about rank 1 for a bit. The four best 11-limit
> rank 1 temperaments < 100-ET are: 31, 72, 22, 12.

There's no one unique badness score. In terms of logflat wedgie badness, the four best >=12 and <= 100 are, in order, 72, 31, 12, and 41. Other badness measures give different results.

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm confused.
>
> Erlich's page gives the period of Compton as 100.05 and the generator as 15.13.

Where is this page?

> To get 48 tones, would you add 0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922 at 0, 100.05, 200.1, 300.15 all the way up to 1100+ cents?
> in other words,
> 0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922
> then
> 100.05. 115.18, 130.31 184.972,
> etc.?

Something like that. The generators are, loosely speaking, a comma and
a semitone. You're going to want at least one comma going up and one
comma going down, so you can get a just 6/5 and a just 5/4 over each
12-tet root. That gives you Compton[36].

If you want to start getting 7-limit stuff involved, then
crossbreeding this with marvel temperament is a good way to go. So
this means that you can go two commas down from a 12-tet minor 7th to
get 7/4, and two commas up from a 12-tet major 6th to get 12/7. So if
you want a 4:5:6:7 on the 12-tet roots, you'd go 1 comma up and 2
down, so 0, 15.13, 69.792, 84.922. If you want a 1/(4:5:6:7) on the
12-tet roots, you're going to want to go two commas up and 1 down, so
0, 15.13, 30.26, 84.922.

> While I'm considering new scales, what are some good 11-limit scales that approximate 12-EDO pretty well, with 46 tones or less per octave?
> That is, 41,42,43,44,45 or 46 tones?

What do you mean that approximate 12-EDO pretty well...? You still
want sharp major thirds, sharp 7/4's, etc?

-Mike

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

> There's no one unique badness score. In terms of logflat wedgie badness, the four best >=12 and <= 100 are, in order, 72, 31, 12, and 41. Other badness measures give different results.

Actually, I didn't need the lower cutoff; but if it is left off, the next to appear on the list is 2, followed by 22.

For another example of a badness measure, consider Graham's Cangwu badness, with the parameter chosen so that 31 and 72 are a tie. Then in order you get 31=72, 41, 58, 22, 46. This isn't logflat; it won't keep cranking out low badness systems for you as the size of the division increases. Nor is it much interested in small sizes; it focuses in on things like 31 and 72, and tells you if you find them about equally interesting maybe 41 would be worth looking at.

Erlich's page:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Catalog+of+five-limit+rank+two+temperaments

What do you mean that approximate 12-EDO pretty well...? You still
want sharp major thirds, sharp 7/4's, etc?

Nah, I had this idea that I would write a partly serially-generated piece,
partly not, and that the tuning would shift seamlessly back and forth between
12EDO and something like JI. The scale I posted today might fit the bill.

The other thing is that I want to keep thinking in terms of a 46-note per octave
layout -- because that's the scale I've been practicing on and off, and I want
to keep getting better at it. So I don't necessarily want to move on right now.

But I've noticed that I'm not sure I'm happy with the minor third in 46EDO, and
that tuning the row I'm using for this piece in 46EDO just doesn't sound quite
right to me.

Here's an example of a 12-tone "chorale" or array in which every vertical
sonority is already in the series:

C..A..F..Ab.Eb.D..B..G..E..Bb.F#.C#.
Bb.F#.C#.C..A..F..Ab.Eb.D..B..G..E..
E..C..F#.Eb.B..Ab.G..D..F..C#.Bb.A..
C#.Bb.A..E..C..F#.Eb.B..Ab.G..D..F..

This is a sort of abstract double cannon. Each vertical is an 0,2,3,6, or 0148
-- which are found in the series (F,Eb,D,B) & (Eb,D,B,G)
-- and the top two lines are retrograde inversions down a major third of the
original series. It would be a very slow background, with foreground
elaboration. Slow to give it a lot of time to sound. Too fast and it would be
too dissonant in effect.

Anyway, there are lots of minor thirds and triad structures and suggestions of
octatonic chords.

I figured I would go by ear, and worse case, if I couldn't get something to
sound right, I could fall back on 12EDO.

So the tuning/scale I posted today would accomplish that.

It would allow moving between 12EDO and overtone chords sharing the 1/1.

If I need to move to a different tonality than one based on 1/1, I can use pitch
bend to put the whole 46-note scale on a different tuning-base.

I'm thinking this way because, to my surprise, I couldn't get the following
chord to sound right in 46 EDO:

in 12EDO terms:

Db0,Bb2,A3,E4. It's not too dissonant. Maybe call it Bb maj7 #11 over Db.

or 6/5,1/1,15/8, 45/32 or something.

I tried this in a bunch of EDOs, and nothing sounded quite right to me.

That's what I was thinking, among other things.

====================================================

Moderaters, be forewarned. Remove this portion.

Minor rant follows directed at Jon Szanto.

He may think he's funny, but I detest his posts.

"Walking the walk."

"You know in your heart, blah, blah."

"Two wrongs don't make a right."\

**** you.

I hate discouraging words. I hate arguments.

I say these things, with some trepidation, because I tend to be depressed and
discouraged, and I don't want anyone here telling me I'm stupid or misguided.

What people who aren't composers themselves don't seem to understand is how easy
it is to make a composer (at least me) feel worthless and awful.

I'm trying to find some slender reason to live, and these devices are necessary
crutches to save me from drowning, not some elitist affectations like Mr. Jon
Szanto or whatever his name is (or his ilk), seems to think.

Any piece I write, to be worthwhile, will take me months and months, and will
certainly accomplish nothing besides keeping me alive, that is, keep me from
complete despair.

If I work really hard on something for a long, long time and put everything I
know into it, I might come up with something *good*, not great, not immortal.
Just adequate.

There's no money, no career, no commmunity. Nothing.

So I don't want to hear any witty crap about "two wrongs don't make a right".
**** that.

Compose something yourself, you who think you can criticize so easily, and if
you like, I can comment on how I really feel about *YOUR* music. You probably
wouldn't enjoy it.

So, I'm not interested in arguing.

Only exchanges of technical solutions.

That is, "If you want this...then that."

Not meta-criticism or philosophy, etc.

I hear what I hear, understand what I understand. I'm doing the ****ing best I
can.

Caleb

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 3:43:25 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Microtonal Serialism -- a dual-purpose scale?
Improvements?

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:57 PM, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm confused.
>
> Erlich's page gives the period of Compton as 100.05 and the generator as
15.13.

Where is this page?

> To get 48 tones, would you add 0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922 at 0, 100.05, 200.1,
>300.15 all the way up to 1100+ cents?
> in other words,
> 0., 15.13, 30.26, 84.922
> then
> 100.05. 115.18, 130.31 184.972,
> etc.?

Something like that. The generators are, loosely speaking, a comma and
a semitone. You're going to want at least one comma going up and one
comma going down, so you can get a just 6/5 and a just 5/4 over each
12-tet root. That gives you Compton[36].

If you want to start getting 7-limit stuff involved, then
crossbreeding this with marvel temperament is a good way to go. So
this means that you can go two commas down from a 12-tet minor 7th to
get 7/4, and two commas up from a 12-tet major 6th to get 12/7. So if
you want a 4:5:6:7 on the 12-tet roots, you'd go 1 comma up and 2
down, so 0, 15.13, 69.792, 84.922. If you want a 1/(4:5:6:7) on the
12-tet roots, you're going to want to go two commas up and 1 down, so
0, 15.13, 30.26, 84.922.

> While I'm considering new scales, what are some good 11-limit scales that
>approximate 12-EDO pretty well, with 46 tones or less per octave?
> That is, 41,42,43,44,45 or 46 tones?

What do you mean that approximate 12-EDO pretty well...? You still
want sharp major thirds, sharp 7/4's, etc?

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> But I've noticed that I'm not sure I'm happy with the minor third in 46EDO

There doesn't seem to be much to complain over with respect to the minor third (meaning the 6/5 one) in 46. What's wrong with it?

I keep wanting to have one right at 300 cents as well.
Nothing wrong with the ones in 46, but I want 300 also.

________________________________
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 5:46:47 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Microtonal Serialism -- a dual-purpose scale?
Improvements?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> But I've noticed that I'm not sure I'm happy with the minor third in 46EDO

There doesn't seem to be much to complain over with respect to the minor third
(meaning the 6/5 one) in 46. What's wrong with it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> > I'll talk about rank 1 for a bit. The four best 11-limit
> > rank 1 temperaments < 100-ET are: 31, 72, 22, 12.
>
> There's no one unique badness score.

I didn't say there was. For people who care about such
things, I used logflat badness with notes/octave as the
complexity term and TOP damage as the error term.

> In terms of logflat wedgie badness,

What's that?

-Carl

Caleb - this snippet of your piece looks very interesting. If you don't have
it rendered somewhere would you mind if I rendered it to hear it - and if
doing that can I post it here with all rights given to you? (as it should
be)

Thanks,

Chris

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>

> Here's an example of a 12-tone "chorale" or array in which every vertical
sonority is already in the series:
> C..A..F..Ab.Eb.D..B..G..E..Bb.F#.C#.
> Bb.F#.C#.C..A..F..Ab.Eb.D..B..G..E..
> E..C..F#.Eb.B..Ab.G..D..F..C#.Bb.A..
> C#.Bb.A..E..C..F#.Eb.B..Ab.G..D..F..
> This is a sort of abstract double cannon. Each vertical is an 0,2,3,6, or
0148 -- which are found in the series (F,Eb,D,B) & (Eb,D,B,G)
> -- and the top two lines are retrograde inversions down a major third of
the original series. It would be a very slow background, with foreground
elaboration. Slow to give it a lot of time to sound. Too fast and it would
be too dissonant in effect.

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

> > In terms of logflat wedgie badness,
>
> What's that?

TE complexity, ie wedgie complexity, (proportional to the weighted Euclidean norm of the wedge product of vals defining the temperament) as the complexity term. In the case of one val, as here, that just means using the rms average of the weighted val as the norm, and that's pretty much the same as using the number of notes to the octave as a complexity measure. Instead of TOP damage, TE damage. The error is wedgie/TE error, that is, what Graham calls simple badness, which I also call relative error, divided by complexity.

The result should not be too different from what you got.

Gene wrote:

> > > In terms of logflat wedgie badness,
> >
> > What's that?
>
> TE complexity, ie wedgie complexity, (proportional to the
> weighted Euclidean norm of the wedge product of vals defining
> the temperament) as the complexity term.
> In the case of one val, as here, that just means using the
> rms average of the weighted val as the norm, and that's
> pretty much the same as using the number of notes to the
> octave as a complexity measure. Instead of TOP damage,
> TE damage. The error is wedgie/TE error, that is, what
> Graham calls simple badness, which I also call relative error,
> divided by complexity.

While I generally recoil in the face of prescriptive
language, I would like to pause for a moment and consider
the terminology clusterf* that has occurred. There ought
to be a glossary page on the wiki with voting to establish
canon.

> The result should not be too different from what you got.

As you can see, only 31 and 72 have changed places.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

>
> So I don't want to hear any witty crap about "two wrongs don't make a right".
> **** that.

Why, he was only joking ...
Jon Szanto is perhaps right actually, 24 edo might not be the best card to pick up for serial music, since 25 is not a prime ;)
Don't you think 22 would be better ?
- - -
Jak

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacques Dudon" <fotosonix@...> wrote:

> Jon Szanto is perhaps right actually, 24 edo might not be the best card to pick up for serial music, since 25 is not a prime ;)
> Don't you think 22 would be better ?

24, like 12, has a very rich collection of permutation groups. It's also, like 12, one more than a prime, which gives you some of these groups right there.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> Minor rant follows directed at Jon Szanto.

I feel so special right now.

> He may think he's funny, but I detest his posts.

I'm sorry about that, my friend. We're all different, and there are a lot of things that have passed this way since I joined the list in 96 or 97 that irritated me, but you know what: I learned to deal with it, and I'm still here.

As for what set you off:

> "Two wrongs don't make a right."

You apparently have no clue that John Chalmers and I are friends, and that we live in the same town and even occasionally see each other. He knows my sense of humor, and I'm sure he understood it was just a light-hearted laugh. Do I hate serialism? No, though it is far from my favorite methodology for composing music; I understand what brought it into being, and acknowledge that. Do I dislike 24-tet? No, not really, I just think it is a fairly pathetic tuning, mostly suitable for people to take the easy way out.

> **** you.

Well, how nice of you.

> What people who aren't composers themselves don't seem to understand is how easy
> it is to make a composer (at least me) feel worthless and awful.

My gods, man, when has *anyone* around here done anything like that?

> I'm trying to find some slender reason to live, and these devices are necessary
> crutches to save me from drowning, not some elitist affectations like Mr. Jon
> Szanto or whatever his name is (or his ilk), seems to think.

So I guess it is ok to vilify me, curse me, say I have "elitist affectations" and whatnot, and the only one allowed a dollop of butthurt is *you*? Sorry. I had no idea what a special snowflake you were.

Here's the deal: it's an open forum. We're all free to offer up our opinions, with as much respect as one can reasonably muster. Caleb, it absolutely all honesty that I can proffer, I had NO IDEA that my posts bothered you this way. I can't really remember if and when I've directed anything specifically at you, but I'll just refrain in the future. That doesn't mean that if you make statements that apply to others besides yourself, I won't comment, but I do - as I always do - wish you and all composers very well in your efforts.

My sincere wish? That you cool down and figure out that I'm just another guy on the end of a cable run, looking at the monitor and talking into the void with people of shared interests. I find the panorama of people, in the tuning world and elsewhere, fascinating and positive.

Two last points:

1. I spent 4 years assisting Harry Partch at the end of his life. Please understand that I have experience with, and compassion for, troubled composers. You have a long way to go before you'll have had to put up with what he put up with in his lifetime.

2. I started the MMM list with the specific intent to create an environment and forum for microtonal composers and performers to see there music come to life. If doing stuff like that makes me an asshole, so be it.

> So I don't want to hear any witty crap about "two wrongs don't make a right".
> **** that.

Just scroll past it, m'kay? I'm not asking you to change who you are, and being that this isn't your list to run, the vice is versa.

Good luck in you composition. I'm not the bad guy.

Regards,
Jon

Jacques,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jacques Dudon" <fotosonix@...> wrote:
> Why, he was only joking ...

Exactly. With my long-time friend, John Chalmers. Anything else was, unfortunately, collateral damage...

Regards,
Jon

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:19 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> > Minor rant follows directed at Jon Szanto.
>
> I feel so special right now.

I'm going to nip this in the bud. Caleb, I'm not sure exactly what specifically Jon did to make you so angry, and I don't think he realized you had something like this brewing for so long, but you can't just randomly drop a conversation bomb like that onto the list. To discuss the validity of serialist approaches is one thing, but there's no need to to get into if you think he's unfunny or not witty or something like that.

So let's move on. Caleb, If you feel the need to respond to Jon's post, I ask that you please send him a message offlist. To everyone else, let's please move past this and get back to tuning.

-Mike

To anyone it concerns.

I apologize for my outburst. I'm too embarrassed to read all the responses.
Clearly I have some issues with being frustrated, and I perceive slights and
obstacles where none may exist.

Chris, you're welcome to do whatever you like with the array I posted, and you
don't have to give credit. It's just a logical structure. It's just *there* in
some Platonic sense.
I might use it in my next piece as a kind of staggered, slow, background
chorale. The tones need time to sound.

I'm delighted to share my ideas, but I find the ordinary rough-and-tumble of
different personalities too fatiguing, especially toward the end of the day,
when I'm tired.

I get frustrated when I feel I'm wasting energy trying to explain myself. A
composer needs to know when to shut up, hole up, and just develop his/her own
ideas in isolation.

There is so much actual (real, not imaginary) cattiness and hyper-competition in
the Boston world of music that I've seen & heard, that it's hard for me to
distinguish between humor and put-downs. Even people with thin skins have real
enemies.

I'm a long way past being a student -- or young, hopeful, and bright-eyed and
bushy-tailed.

It's been very difficult for me, at this age, to find an equal -- someone with
some knowledge who is still trying to compose, but without a school or a steady
gig.

At times, this list has taught me a lot. One never knows whether one will learn
something truly impressive and useful, or just be dismissed.

Having an intellectual conscience -- trying to do what's most productive and
interesting and challenging and right for oneself as a composer -- is
surprisingly difficult. One
needs a social group to keep from being a castaway, but one mostly needs to
ignore what they say. One is always trying to read between the lines and find
guidance in little hints from people, but these people may or may not know what
is best in any given instance, despite being experts and possessing knowledge
far beyond what one has.

The cheese stands alone.

So, I'm going to be quiet for a while and just lurk.

________________________________
From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 6:16:30 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Microtonal Serialism -- a dual-purpose scale?
Improvements?

Caleb - this snippet of your piece looks very interesting. If you don't have it
rendered somewhere would you mind if I rendered it to hear it - and if doing
that can I post it here with all rights given to you? (as it should be)

Thanks,

Chris

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>

> Here's an example of a 12-tone "chorale" or array in which every vertical
>sonority is already in the series:
> C..A..F..Ab.Eb.D..B..G..E..Bb.F#.C#.
> Bb.F#.C#.C..A..F..Ab.Eb.D..B..G..E..
> E..C..F#.Eb.B..Ab.G..D..F..C#.Bb.A..
> C#.Bb.A..E..C..F#.Eb.B..Ab.G..D..F..
> This is a sort of abstract double cannon. Each vertical is an 0,2,3,6, or 0148
>-- which are found in the series (F,Eb,D,B) & (Eb,D,B,G)
> -- and the top two lines are retrograde inversions down a major third of the
>original series. It would be a very slow background, with foreground
>elaboration. Slow to give it a lot of time to sound. Too fast and it would be
>too dissonant in effect.

Jon,

Hardly a day goes by (when there are posts) where I'm not impressed by
the microtonal internet community I'm able to participate in.

Michael S. - despite all of the "arguments / misunderstandings"
between us I am extremely grateful you pointed me in this direction
(the main tuning list)

Thank you everyone!

Chris

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:19 AM, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>

>
> 1. I spent 4 years assisting Harry Partch at the end of his life. Please understand that I have experience with, and compassion for, troubled composers. You have a long way to go before you'll have had to put up with what he put up with in his lifetime.
>

Gene wrote :

>> Jacques <fotosonix@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Jon Szanto is perhaps right actually, 24 edo might not be the >> best card to pick up for serial music, since 25 is not a prime ;)
>> > Don't you think 22 would be better ?
>
>
> 24, like 12, has a very rich collection of permutation groups. It's > also, like 12, one more than a prime, which gives you some of these > groups right there.

I believe 24-edo has some qualities other than the addition of two 12-edos, that can be appreciated at least in Egyptian contemporary music.
Also it can support a Mohajira 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 structure not as good as 31 edo but with correct 11/9 and 11/8 approximations.
If it is not too much bothering you, what would be "permutation groups" applied to musical scales ?
Permutations of intervals ?
And how "one more than a prime" woud confer special qualities too ?
Do we have some simple examples ?
- - - - - - - -
Jacques

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:

> If it is not too much bothering you, what would be "permutation
> groups" applied to musical scales ?

It's done all the time in serial music, where you can permute a tone row. Paul Hjelmstad has spent much effort pondering such things as the use of the spordic simple group M12 in 12edo. 24edo has the largest such group, M24, among other things.

> And how "one more than a prime" woud confer special qualities too ?
> Do we have some simple examples ?

Since 11 is a prime, L2(11) is a (fairly large) simple group contained in M12, which acts on the finite projective line. I won't continue with examples because there are so many and I am dubious about their musical utility.

I'm puzzled by the scales (sometimes, often?) produced by the temperament
finder.

When using LMSO, which simply generates upward and downward so many steps, using
a generator of 234.47, you get a very reasonable 5th. The resulting scale is one
of my favorites when extended to 46 tones.

(Also true if you hand-calculate; this *isn't* a quirk of LMSO.)

However, if you type 46 & 41 (or 46 and 87) into the temperament finder, with an
11 limit, you get something called Rodan.

Using 46 & 41, if you click on the 46-note generated scale at the bottom of the
page, you get a scale with a fifth at
718.309. This is too high to be a usable fifth with 1/1.

I used the temperament finder on perhaps 200 or 300 occasions this summer, and
many of the results were like this--the 5th was way too high, or there were
other strange results that didn't seem to follow. I would estimate that the
results were this strange perhaps half the time.

On one previous occasion, I asked about this, and never received an answer.

This is why I'm not sure that the temperament finder is currently useful for the
kind of scales I was looking at --typically 46 and something else.

Is this a bug, or is there some reason why 718.309 is a useful fifth?

It's even worse if you specify a 7 limit.

Thanks in advance.

Caleb

! regular.scl ! 46 note scale from a Rodan temperament. ! 46 & 41 Fokker block.
! Generated by http://x31eq.com/temper/ 46 ! 27.708 55.415 83.123 110.831
138.538 166.246 193.954 221.661 249.369 262.178 289.885 317.593 345.301
373.008 400.716 428.424 456.131 483.839 496.647 524.355 552.063 579.770
607.478 635.186 662.893 690.601 718.309 731.117 758.825 786.533 814.240
841.948 869.656 897.363 925.071 952.779 965.587 993.295 1021.003 1048.710
1076.418 1104.126 1131.833 1159.541 1187.249 1200.057

________________________________

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> Is this a bug, or is there some reason why 718.309 is a useful fifth?

It's either a bug or you did something wrong. Let's see what Graham says about it. I just finished a piece in Rodan[26], using 87et as my tuning. That has a fifth of 703.448, and something around there is what you should be getting.

Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> I'm puzzled by the scales (sometimes, often?) produced by
> the temperament finder.
>
> When using LMSO, which simply generates upward and
> downward so many steps, using a generator of 234.47, you
> get a very reasonable 5th. The resulting scale is one of
> my favorites when extended to 46 tones.

You can get 46 different scales, for different choices of
tonic.

> However, if you type 46 & 41 (or 46 and 87) into the
> temperament finder, with an 11 limit, you get something
> called Rodan.
>
> Using 46 & 41, if you click on the 46-note generated
> scale at the bottom of the page, you get a scale with a
> fifth at 718.309. This is too high to be a usable fifth
> with 1/1.

That's this:

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=46+%26+41&limit=11

There are 43 fifths of around 703.4 cents. The Scala file
happens not to give one relative to the tonic, which is
arbitrary.

> I used the temperament finder on perhaps 200 or 300
> occasions this summer, and many of the results were like
> this--the 5th was way too high, or there were other
> strange results that didn't seem to follow. I would
> estimate that the results were this strange perhaps half
> the time.

It always chooses large steps first, which I believe to be
the same as adding the generators either up or down. So
there's a 50% chance you don't get a good fifth relative to
the tonic. And you'll (almost) never get both a good fifth
and a good fourth. But you will get either a good fifth or
a good fourth.

Graham

You could, of course, take the ten seconds that you took to list both logical
possibilities to try it yourself. But that would be too much to ask, apparently.

I'm typing 41 46 and 11 in the lower box.

I tried 7, 13 limits also.

I tried typing 46 41, also 41&46.

I pasted the results.

How difficult is that?

Yes, perhaps I did something wrong.

Always a pleasure asking you questions, Gene.

________________________________
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 7:41:48 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: old question about Rodan from temperament finder--high
5th?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> Is this a bug, or is there some reason why 718.309 is a useful fifth?

It's either a bug or you did something wrong. Let's see what Graham says about
it. I just finished a piece in Rodan[26], using 87et as my tuning. That has a
fifth of 703.448, and something around there is what you should be getting.

On 12/28/2010 7:05 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
> I'm puzzled by the scales (sometimes, often?) produced by the temperament
> finder.
>
> When using LMSO, which simply generates upward and downward so many steps, using
> a generator of 234.47, you get a very reasonable 5th. The resulting scale is one
> of my favorites when extended to 46 tones.
>
> (Also true if you hand-calculate; this *isn't* a quirk of LMSO.)
>
> However, if you type 46& 41 (or 46 and 87) into the temperament finder, with an
> 11 limit, you get something called Rodan.
>
> Using 46& 41, if you click on the 46-note generated scale at the bottom of the
> page, you get a scale with a fifth at
> 718.309. This is too high to be a usable fifth with 1/1.
>
> I used the temperament finder on perhaps 200 or 300 occasions this summer, and
> many of the results were like this--the 5th was way too high, or there were
> other strange results that didn't seem to follow. I would estimate that the
> results were this strange perhaps half the time.
>
> On one previous occasion, I asked about this, and never received an answer.
>
> This is why I'm not sure that the temperament finder is currently useful for the
> kind of scales I was looking at --typically 46 and something else.
>
> Is this a bug, or is there some reason why 718.309 is a useful fifth?
>
> It's even worse if you specify a 7 limit.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Caleb
>
>
>
> ! regular.scl ! 46 note scale from a Rodan temperament. ! 46& 41 Fokker block.
> ! Generated by http://x31eq.com/temper/ 46 ! 27.708 55.415 83.123 110.831
> 138.538 166.246 193.954 221.661 249.369 262.178 289.885 317.593 345.301
> 373.008 400.716 428.424 456.131 483.839 496.647 524.355 552.063 579.770
> 607.478 635.186 662.893 690.601 718.309 731.117 758.825 786.533 814.240
> 841.948 869.656 897.363 925.071 952.779 965.587 993.295 1021.003 1048.710
> 1076.418 1104.126 1131.833 1159.541 1187.249 1200.057

With Scala you can specify how many generators down from the tonic you want in your scale. I typically choose half the size of the scale, so in this case 23 generators down (round down if you've got a scale with an odd number of notes). In rodan, the 3/2 approximation is only 3 generators up, but it looks like the temperament finder is using downward generators exclusively. (The rodan generator is around 234 cents, and there's no sign of it in that scale.)

If you have Scala, type "pyth", use 46 for the scale size, 1200.057139 for the formal octave, 234.469894 for the formal fifth, and 23 for the count downwards. (That's the TOP-RMS tuning for 11-limit rodan, which seems to match what the temperament finder is using here.)