Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning A Dream is a Wound, microtonal tetrachords

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@> wrote:
> >
> > For four woodwinds
> >
> > http://soundcloud.com/cameron-bobro/adreamisawound-cbobro
> >
> > Minimal temperament implied in this one, really only 243/242 needs to be tempered out in conception/notation, or if it went further afield modulating. Very heavy on the "neutral" intervals of 11/9 and 12/11.
>
> I wonder what the ancient Greeks would have made of it?
>

Not supposed to bear any resemblance to ancient music, but I think there was far more vertical sonority going on back then than any scholar would dare conjecture. It seems to me that it could hardly be otherwise, for when you tune up the tetrachords according to ancient instructions, you get just gobs of either really consonant (almost windchime) intervals, or tons of neat sonorities suspiciously reminiscent of the more hardcore Balkan folk music which lives on to this day.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I like it! Who's performing? -Carl

That would be I. Getting yourself cloned is dirt cheap in SE Asia, I reccommend it to all microtonal musicians with tolerant (or really kinky) partners! Okay, it's multitrack.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "lobawad" <lobawad@> wrote:
> >
> > For four woodwinds
> >
> > http://soundcloud.com/cameron-bobro/adreamisawound-cbobro
> >
> > Minimal temperament implied in this one, really only 243/242
> > needs to be tempered out in conception/notation, or if it went
> > further afield modulating. Very heavy on the "neutral" intervals
> > of 11/9 and 12/11.
> >
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

> Love the performance values.

Actually I'm thrilled because I had an experience that's
occurred only a couple other times in my life: listening
to an acoustic instrument while assuming at first that
it's a synth. The first time it happened was 2001, I was
flipping through radio channels and got KDFC (classical)
but thought I'd gotten the techno channel. There was a
violin playing at the time, and for about the first second
I was like, "That's the best synth lead ever!". This
experience really helped me understand why I love acoustic
instruments so much. Well it just happened with your
thing, since most stuff here is synthesized (I was
expecting Csound). And I was like, "Wow, what control!
This guy is a Csound master!!" But then I was like,
"Or just a clarinetist."

As an aside, I always get more of this from physical
modeling synths. It's really a technology that seems to
work. It's true even for pianoteq, where sampled pianos
seem to have more ten-second realism but not as much
first-second realism, if you will.

-Carl

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

I'm still in slow-venia (missed the boat to fast-vania), just kidding about cloning in SE Asia, as for some reason I was recently remembering some rather alarming cosmetic plastic surgery jobs I've seen, done in the Phillipines.

Glad you dig the performance values- are familiar with the soundtrack of the original Planet of the Apes movie, and of the movie Zardoz? Both are full of "vintage analog electronica" which turns out upon closer inspection to be acoustic instruments, it's an aesthetic I really dig.

Not to mention much, much quicker than programming synths- even being a stickler about microtonal pitch accuracy doesn't make multitracking acoustic instruments intolerably slow, as I can just loop a phrase with a simple synthesizer guide track a couple of times, working out cross fingerings and embouchure, then have at it. Once you've got the cross-fingering and are in the zone of the tuning it all goes quickly, especially if you've already got cross-fingerings from ealier work, which accumulate with time and practice.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > Love the performance values.
>
> Actually I'm thrilled because I had an experience that's
> occurred only a couple other times in my life: listening
> to an acoustic instrument while assuming at first that
> it's a synth. The first time it happened was 2001, I was
> flipping through radio channels and got KDFC (classical)
> but thought I'd gotten the techno channel. There was a
> violin playing at the time, and for about the first second
> I was like, "That's the best synth lead ever!". This
> experience really helped me understand why I love acoustic
> instruments so much. Well it just happened with your
> thing, since most stuff here is synthesized (I was
> expecting Csound). And I was like, "Wow, what control!
> This guy is a Csound master!!" But then I was like,
> "Or just a clarinetist."
>
> As an aside, I always get more of this from physical
> modeling synths. It's really a technology that seems to
> work. It's true even for pianoteq, where sampled pianos
> seem to have more ten-second realism but not as much
> first-second realism, if you will.
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Thanks, Mr. Freivald, I'll let him know. :-) I think you're right about the harmonies sounding less hollow because of the tuning, because, especially with one player multitracking one instrument (the lowest few notes that were out of range I pitched-shifted from an octave up), and avoiding vibrato, clarinet chords can sound extremely hollow, even very much like a low-passed square-wave synth organ.

The "neutral" intervals have fusion of partials, but it's quite high: the "third" in the first (and last) chord for example is 11:9 (347 cents). You can hear it melt together, more like feel it, but it's still complex so it's less hollow.

The tetrachords are a kind of syntonic/equable diatonic and hemiolic chromatic. (Soft chromatics bordering on the intense enharmonic are pretty much my standard).

This particular version of these tetrachords goes 1, 12/11, 11/9, 4/3 for the diatonic, which is more like an Al Farabi tetrachord, in the "snake charmer" ordering (sLs).

From the 12/11 to the 4/3 we have 11/9; taking this as the characteristic interval for the hemiolic chromatic, we split 12/11 in the classical manner using the harmonic mean and get (this time listing the intervals between the pitches) 24/23, 23/22, 11/9 (see number 176 in the catalog in John Chalmer's Divisions of the Tetrachord).

The interlocked tetrachords are now 1, 24/23, 12/11, 11/9, 4/3. Add one of the same compound tetrachord conjunct, one disjunct and there it is.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
> Mr. Wad: Please let Mr. Bobro know that I really like this little
> piece. It doesn't sound like ordinary music, but it's still rich and
> musical. Maybe (and I'm really talking out of my backside here) the
> way the piece is tuned makes it sound rich despite the normally hollow
> sound of clarinets. Whatever the reason, it's very good.
>
> What ancient Greek tetrachords did you use?
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:36 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
> > For four woodwinds
> >
> > http://soundcloud.com/cameron-bobro/adreamisawound-cbobro
>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron,
>
> Thanks for the information. The best part is the lead about Chalmers's
> book, which I hadn't heard of. I just downloaded it. Maybe once I read
> that I'll have a better feel for how these tetrachords worked in
> practice. I'm surprised to see "ancient tetrachords" loaded with 11s
> and 23s and such, so this should be interesting to dig into.
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>

Maqam tuning is also tetrachordal and set up basically the same way. Really what's important is the relative step sizes "small, medium, large" within a tetrachord, and their ordering.

"complexity" is mostly illusory. Chalmers doesn't go into detail about the hands-on aspects in DotT, but if you spend a lot of time tuning different tetrachords, you'll find that the "complex" intervals of ancient and medieval islamic tetrachords are the results of very simple mechanical processes, like simply fretting right in the middle of two frets which were placed by tuning fifths of most simple ratios. Take for example the allegedly "complex" ancient Greek ratios of 31/30 and 32/31, which some scholars have dismissed as numerological fancy. Rather embarassingly for these scholars, we find that if we place a fret 5/4 down from 4/3 and simply stick a fret halfway between there and the "1" fret, we've created these "complex" ratios, effortlessly.

Same with the ratios of 23- I just "stuck a fret halfway between" 12/11 and 1 to get them. 12/11, and the 11/9 from there to 4/3, is of course as easy as it gets to fret.

Other "complexities" are revealed to be simplicities when you think about the documented ancient practice of ticking off frets at equal divisions of a ruler, or the practice, also documented, of "sweetening" simple Pythagorean structures.

And most importantly, you can feel when you're try to do the intervals (in context, with each other) by ear on an instrument of flexible pitch if they're likely speculatory.

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

Hey, Cameron, you seemed to have good perspective during the flareup several
months ago. I would really like to know what you prefer for Turkish maqam
and whether it supports typical Persian and Arab music.

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:39 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cameron,
> >
> > Thanks for the information. The best part is the lead about Chalmers's
> > book, which I hadn't heard of. I just downloaded it. Maybe once I read
> > that I'll have a better feel for how these tetrachords worked in
> > practice. I'm surprised to see "ancient tetrachords" loaded with 11s
> > and 23s and such, so this should be interesting to dig into.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jake
> >
>
> Maqam tuning is also tetrachordal and set up basically the same way. Really
> what's important is the relative step sizes "small, medium, large" within a
> tetrachord, and their ordering.
>
> "complexity" is mostly illusory. Chalmers doesn't go into detail about the
> hands-on aspects in DotT, but if you spend a lot of time tuning different
> tetrachords, you'll find that the "complex" intervals of ancient and
> medieval islamic tetrachords are the results of very simple mechanical
> processes, like simply fretting right in the middle of two frets which were
> placed by tuning fifths of most simple ratios. Take for example the
> allegedly "complex" ancient Greek ratios of 31/30 and 32/31, which some
> scholars have dismissed as numerological fancy. Rather embarassingly for
> these scholars, we find that if we place a fret 5/4 down from 4/3 and simply
> stick a fret halfway between there and the "1" fret, we've created these
> "complex" ratios, effortlessly.
>
> Same with the ratios of 23- I just "stuck a fret halfway between" 12/11 and
> 1 to get them. 12/11, and the 11/9 from there to 4/3, is of course as easy
> as it gets to fret.
>
> Other "complexities" are revealed to be simplicities when you think about
> the documented ancient practice of ticking off frets at equal divisions of a
> ruler, or the practice, also documented, of "sweetening" simple Pythagorean
> structures.
>
> And most importantly, you can feel when you're try to do the intervals (in
> context, with each other) by ear on an instrument of flexible pitch if
> they're likely speculatory.
>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

Authentic "maqam music" is transmitted by oral tradition and rote, and I see no reason for that to change.

For new music, syncretism, polyphony, etc. the first step is obvious:
get the basic Pythagorean structure down. That's the one solid universal. That means basing a fixed system on 53-et, just like the Turkish koma system. Then in notation and/or fixed pitches, divide/insert as you please/need. Just as Ozan Yarman has done, subdivided the 53 tones by three, then made a logical structure of 79 tones from the resulting 159 tones.

That's my opinion, and I think it's just plain common sense, not to mention simply continuing on with a traditional and afaik quite popular system. But, I'm not really concerned with this, rather, with tuning and notating my own music. This happens to coincide a lot, but there is plenty of tetrachords in both maqam music and ancient tetrachordal music that simply doesn't interest me, and I use microtonal tetrachordal stuff that doesn't fit into either tradition at all.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...> wrote:
>
> Hey, Cameron, you seemed to have good perspective during the flareup several
> months ago. I would really like to know what you prefer for Turkish maqam
> and whether it supports typical Persian and Arab music.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:39 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cameron,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the information. The best part is the lead about Chalmers's
> > > book, which I hadn't heard of. I just downloaded it. Maybe once I read
> > > that I'll have a better feel for how these tetrachords worked in
> > > practice. I'm surprised to see "ancient tetrachords" loaded with 11s
> > > and 23s and such, so this should be interesting to dig into.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jake
> > >
> >
> > Maqam tuning is also tetrachordal and set up basically the same way. Really
> > what's important is the relative step sizes "small, medium, large" within a
> > tetrachord, and their ordering.
> >
> > "complexity" is mostly illusory. Chalmers doesn't go into detail about the
> > hands-on aspects in DotT, but if you spend a lot of time tuning different
> > tetrachords, you'll find that the "complex" intervals of ancient and
> > medieval islamic tetrachords are the results of very simple mechanical
> > processes, like simply fretting right in the middle of two frets which were
> > placed by tuning fifths of most simple ratios. Take for example the
> > allegedly "complex" ancient Greek ratios of 31/30 and 32/31, which some
> > scholars have dismissed as numerological fancy. Rather embarassingly for
> > these scholars, we find that if we place a fret 5/4 down from 4/3 and simply
> > stick a fret halfway between there and the "1" fret, we've created these
> > "complex" ratios, effortlessly.
> >
> > Same with the ratios of 23- I just "stuck a fret halfway between" 12/11 and
> > 1 to get them. 12/11, and the 11/9 from there to 4/3, is of course as easy
> > as it gets to fret.
> >
> > Other "complexities" are revealed to be simplicities when you think about
> > the documented ancient practice of ticking off frets at equal divisions of a
> > ruler, or the practice, also documented, of "sweetening" simple Pythagorean
> > structures.
> >
> > And most importantly, you can feel when you're try to do the intervals (in
> > context, with each other) by ear on an instrument of flexible pitch if
> > they're likely speculatory.
> >
>

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:14 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:

>
>
> Authentic "maqam music" is transmitted by oral tradition and rote, and I
> see no reason for that to change.
>
> For new music, syncretism, polyphony, etc. the first step is obvious:
> get the basic Pythagorean structure down. That's the one solid universal.
> That means basing a fixed system on 53-et, just like the Turkish koma
> system. Then in notation and/or fixed pitches, divide/insert as you
> please/need. Just as Ozan Yarman has done, subdivided the 53 tones by three,
> then made a logical structure of 79 tones from the resulting 159 tones.
>
> That's my opinion, and I think it's just plain common sense, not to mention
> simply continuing on with a traditional and afaik quite popular system. But,
> I'm not really concerned with this, rather, with tuning and notating my own
> music. This happens to coincide a lot, but there is plenty of tetrachords in
> both maqam music and ancient tetrachordal music that simply doesn't interest
> me, and I use microtonal tetrachordal stuff that doesn't fit into either
> tradition at all.
>

Cameron, do you have a website or is there a place (besides the archives)
where I could find out more about your tuning methods?

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

My website should be up this week. I don't believe in a firm distinction between tuning and composition, though, so I doubt there will be much in the way of things like "interesting scales for others to try".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:14 AM, lobawad <lobawad@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Authentic "maqam music" is transmitted by oral tradition and rote, and I
> > see no reason for that to change.
> >
> > For new music, syncretism, polyphony, etc. the first step is obvious:
> > get the basic Pythagorean structure down. That's the one solid universal.
> > That means basing a fixed system on 53-et, just like the Turkish koma
> > system. Then in notation and/or fixed pitches, divide/insert as you
> > please/need. Just as Ozan Yarman has done, subdivided the 53 tones by three,
> > then made a logical structure of 79 tones from the resulting 159 tones.
> >
> > That's my opinion, and I think it's just plain common sense, not to mention
> > simply continuing on with a traditional and afaik quite popular system. But,
> > I'm not really concerned with this, rather, with tuning and notating my own
> > music. This happens to coincide a lot, but there is plenty of tetrachords in
> > both maqam music and ancient tetrachordal music that simply doesn't interest
> > me, and I use microtonal tetrachordal stuff that doesn't fit into either
> > tradition at all.
> >
>
> Cameron, do you have a website or is there a place (besides the archives)
> where I could find out more about your tuning methods?
>

A Dream is a Wound, microtonal tetrachords

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

🔗lobawad <lobawad@...>