This is a general post to Tuning not specifically directed: JI based "body of thought" on musical pitch & harmony. Re: Twinkletits in 23-EDO

Sending 10:00 PM PDT Sat. June 11th, 2011

Hello -

I used to be active posting to the Tuning List about 10 years ago but have since then gotten to being much less active, and have contributed posts much less frequently.

However I've been developing a fairly specific system for organizing the pitch/harmonic side of music one is studying or composing which I believe has value and deserves the attention of musicians (composers, teachers, music lovers).

I'd like to get my thoughts on this out where they can be read, accompanying the verbal material with audio tracks demonstrating what the system covers with sound and music which can be listened to and thought about. The medium of posts to Tuning coupled with audio material put out on You Tube might work as a way enabling me to do this - at least to get a first draft treatise coupled with the needed audio examples out to others interested in this where they can both benefit right away from getting the information and give me feedback I can use to improve my whole presentation into a form which gets the full degree of attention from musicians and teachers of musicians of all kinds - composers, performers, music lovers and involved facilitators, music schools and university music departments ... - it potentially merits.

Would a series of posts to Tuning which forms a draft of a systematic plan for organizing musical pitch and harmony be something seen by Tuning List members as a worthwhile contribution published in an appropriate venue?

I'd seek to present my materials in a coherent interesting and understandable way. However getting things in the right order consistently and completely avoiding awkwardnesses and/or gaps in my explanations and examples could prove to be sometimes a little beyond my reach. There might also be suggestions made to me which I didn't follow up on after considering them in the light of "the whole ball of wax" I was dealing with. I would not want to be rude or unappreciative at all, but I expect I may find myself struggling to get done a core minimum of things which absolutely had to be done with scarcely any time left for following up on things I didn't believe fell into the "absolutely must do correctly" category.

I hope some will give me the benefit of their thoughts as to the suitability of my getting a draft of my thoughts on an organized way of thinking about musical pitch/harmony which could form a replacement (or core of a replacement) for the current compound of common practice quarter comma mean tone systematization confusingly subposed beneath the 12 equal pitch step per octave 20th century piano tuning system which makes no distinction (the latter) between the 24/25 frequency ratio chromatic semitone (eg E-flat to E) and the 15/16 frequency ratio diatonic semitone found in the step E to F. Think of the melody starting on C for "I'm dreaming of a White Christmas" - the upward step between the 1st and 2nd note of the melody (diatonic semitone) and the downward step between the 3rd and 4th notes of the melody (or upward again between the 4th and 5th notes of the melody).

Best wishes, Ralph David Hill

Hi Ralph,

I have serious doubts this is a proper venue.

The posters here are much more likely to talk about Carl Lumma's sex life
than anything else.

Chris

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Ralph Hill <ASCEND11@...> wrote:

>
>
> Sending 10:00 PM PDT Sat. June 11th, 2011
>
> Hello -
>
> I used to be active posting to the Tuning List about 10 years ago but
> have since then gotten to being much less active, and have contributed
> posts much less frequently.
>
>

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph,
>
> I have serious doubts this is a proper venue.
>
> The posters here are much more likely to talk about Carl Lumma's sex life than anything else.

Hi Chris, are you out of your mind? Please don't ever troll a newcomer
like this again. Thanks, Mike

Ralph, to answer your question directly -

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Ralph Hill <ASCEND11@...> wrote:
>
> Would a series of posts to Tuning which forms a draft of a systematic
> plan for organizing musical pitch and harmony be something seen by
> Tuning List members as a worthwhile contribution published in an
> appropriate venue?

I'm not sure what the environment was like 10 years ago, but as of now
this list is basically a collaborative effort to develop an
overarching theory for microtonal music. As it stands, besides this
list and a handful of theorists outside of it, not much theory on the
subject exists. It's a rather interdisciplinary effort, as we're
trying to combine various aspects of psychoacoustics, physics, signal
processing, some neurology, and a lot of math along with conventional
music theory. It's a very research-oriented list.

If you want to promote your system here, you will likely find a very
critical eye turned towards it - which may not be a bad thing, if
critical feedback is what you're after. On the other hand, there have
sometimes been people who have joined the list who don't really want
much discussion on the merits of their ideas - they simply want to
promote their system.

To the issue of whether this is a proper venue or not, I leave it to
you - there's about a decade+ worth of research on this list and if
you take the time to delve into it, you'll likely find it a very
rewarding experience with plenty of opportunities to contribute as
well. But as it stands most of the userbase already know the basics
and are trying their hardest to push the theory forward, so you might
not find the kind of audience here you want if your goal is to educate
people on the foundations of tuning theory.

Hope that helps and good luck,
Mike

Ralph> "Would a series of posts to Tuning which forms a draft of a systematic plan for organizing musical pitch and harmony be something seen by (the list)..."

You say organizing...in general, if organizing musical pitch for harmony means "any musical pitch, for context in any potential scale"...I'd say no.

MikeB>"On the other hand, there have sometimes been people who have joined the list who don't really want much discussion on the merits of their ideas - they simply want to promote their system."

   The flip side...what new tuning systems and or harmony systems that "apply under any tuning system, including new ones" here actually have been supported?
  The only things I recognize...is fairly obvious extensions to existing theories (IE triadic Harmonic Entropy), and analysis of existing theories IE commonalities between existing temperaments.

  Far as "new ways to devise harmony systems that work across scales or summarizing ways to derive existing scales that can be twisted around to make new ones", especially ones received well by the average listener, I've recognized very little to nothing.
  The research seems more closely about math and psychoacoustics (often only) than how something actually sounds in composition (minus "common practice classical composition" and Ethnic microtonal music).
  Hence we have people like Igs who consistently manage to find compositional loop-holes in such "laws", particularly concerning JI.  And Neil Haverstick has complained about the same phenomenon on this list. 

MikeB>If you want to promote your system here, you will likely find a very
critical eye turned towards it

I'm pretty sure it's a good bit more than that... Personally, I created a method to make scales out of PHI sections...that tens, maybe hundreds of people complained was "just plagiarizing the idea of a Noble Mediant"..and only about 3 years later got the person who wrote the original paper on the Noble Mediant (Margo) to tell them I was doing something unique and not doing what she did. People like tying new theories to "the nearest widely accepted theory"...even if that means warping it into something completely different that the author never intended.
-------------------------------------------------
   In summary, this seems a great list for math and fairly un-debated sides of psychoacoustics...but frowns deeply on the idea of making microtonal music accessible to the general public or any "universal theory of harmony", unless "general public" only includes people heavily into Classical Music or Ethnomusicology.

  So if you present a new idea, even with loads of sound samples and proof over several listeners (NOT including yourself as a listener)...don't be surprised if some people stereotype your idea as being just a form of a past theory, blame you for not having the resources to sound survey it among 100+ people, and run off.
  Hence why any attempts at an "all encompassing theory" have been written off as pompous ego trips.  Of course, they IS not perfect "all encompassing theory"...but people who have even vaguely tried to approach that have been written off as "saying they are perfect","having severely dysfunctional egos","trolling" or maybe even "putting the psycho ahead of the psychoacoustics". :-D

  However, if you're here to exclusively discuss research on exclusively slightly extending or explaining existing systems...this place is ideal for that.

If anyone has an example of an all-compassing theory that was NOT labelled as just ego-mongering here...I'm all ears to hear what it is.
  

--- On Sun, 6/12/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] This is a general post to Tuning not specifically directed: JI based "body of thought" on musical pitch & harmony. Re: Twinkletits in 23-EDO
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 12, 2011, 4:29 AM

Ralph, to answer your question directly -

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Ralph Hill <ASCEND11@...> wrote:

>

> Would a series of posts to Tuning which forms a draft of a systematic

> plan for organizing musical pitch and harmony be something seen by

> Tuning List members as a worthwhile contribution published in an

> appropriate venue?

I'm not sure what the environment was like 10 years ago, but as of now

this list is basically a collaborative effort to develop an

overarching theory for microtonal music. As it stands, besides this

list and a handful of theorists outside of it, not much theory on the

subject exists. It's a rather interdisciplinary effort, as we're

trying to combine various aspects of psychoacoustics, physics, signal

processing, some neurology, and a lot of math along with conventional

music theory. It's a very research-oriented list.

If you want to promote your system here, you will likely find a very

critical eye turned towards it - which may not be a bad thing, if

critical feedback is what you're after. On the other hand, there have

sometimes been people who have joined the list who don't really want

much discussion on the merits of their ideas - they simply want to

promote their system.

To the issue of whether this is a proper venue or not, I leave it to

you - there's about a decade+ worth of research on this list and if

you take the time to delve into it, you'll likely find it a very

rewarding experience with plenty of opportunities to contribute as

well. But as it stands most of the userbase already know the basics

and are trying their hardest to push the theory forward, so you might

not find the kind of audience here you want if your goal is to educate

people on the foundations of tuning theory.

Hope that helps and good luck,

Mike

Hi, Ralph

This is a very appropriate venue. Like most forums on a somewhat specialized
subject, it will be critical but overall appreciate worthwhile contribution.

Instead of "This is a general post to Tuning not specifically directed: JI
based "body of thought" on musical pitch & harmony. Re: Twinkletits in
23-EDO", please use a shorter title, like "A theory of melody/harmony".

Was wondering if you were around, Michael - good to see your reply.

Dan N

__

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Ralph> "Would a series of posts to Tuning which forms a draft of a
> systematic plan for organizing musical pitch and harmony be something seen
> by (the list)..."
>
> You say organizing...in general, if organizing musical pitch for harmony
> means "any musical pitch, for context in any potential scale"...I'd say no.
>
> MikeB>"On the other hand, there have sometimes been people who have joined
> the list who don't really want much discussion on the merits of their ideas
> - they simply want to promote their system."
>
> The flip side...what new tuning systems and or harmony systems that
> "apply under any tuning system, including new ones" here actually have been
> supported?
> The only things I recognize...is fairly obvious extensions to existing
> theories (IE triadic Harmonic Entropy), and analysis of existing theories IE
> commonalities between existing temperaments.
>
> Far as "new ways to devise harmony systems that work across scales or
> summarizing ways to derive existing scales that can be twisted around to
> make new ones", especially ones received well by the average listener, I've
> recognized very little to nothing.
> The research seems more closely about math and psychoacoustics (often
> only) than how something actually sounds in composition (minus "common
> practice classical composition" and Ethnic microtonal music).
> Hence we have people like Igs who consistently manage to find
> compositional loop-holes in such "laws", particularly concerning JI. And
> Neil Haverstick has complained about the same phenomenon on this list.
>
> MikeB>If you want to promote your system here, you will likely find a very
>
> critical eye turned towards it
>
> I'm pretty sure it's a good bit more than that... Personally, I created a
> method to make scales out of PHI sections...that tens, maybe hundreds of
> people complained was "just plagiarizing the idea of a Noble Mediant"..and
> only about 3 years later got the person who wrote the original paper on the
> Noble Mediant (Margo) to tell them I was doing something unique and not
> doing what she did. People like tying new theories to "the nearest widely
> accepted theory"...even if that means warping it into something completely
> different that the author never intended.
> -------------------------------------------------
> In summary, this seems a great list for math and fairly un-debated sides
> of psychoacoustics...but frowns deeply on the idea of making microtonal
> music accessible to the general public or any "universal theory of harmony",
> unless "general public" only includes people heavily into Classical Music or
> Ethnomusicology.
>
> So if you present a new idea, even with loads of sound samples and proof
> over several listeners (NOT including yourself as a listener)...don't be
> surprised if some people stereotype your idea as being just a form of a past
> theory, blame you for not having the resources to sound survey it among 100+
> people, and run off.
> Hence why any attempts at an "all encompassing theory" have been written
> off as pompous ego trips. Of course, they IS not perfect "all encompassing
> theory"...but people who have even vaguely tried to approach that have been
> written off as "saying they are perfect","having severely dysfunctional
> egos","trolling" or maybe even "putting the psycho ahead of the
> psychoacoustics". :-D
>
> However, if you're here to exclusively discuss research on exclusively
> slightly extending or explaining existing systems...this place is ideal for
> that.
>
> If anyone has an example of an all-compassing theory that was NOT labelled
> as just ego-mongering here...I'm all ears to hear what it is.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 6/12/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] This is a general post to Tuning not specifically
> directed: JI based "body of thought" on musical pitch & harmony. Re:
> Twinkletits in 23-EDO
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, June 12, 2011, 4:29 AM
>
>
>
>
> Ralph, to answer your question directly -
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Ralph Hill <ASCEND11@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Would a series of posts to Tuning which forms a draft of a systematic
>
> > plan for organizing musical pitch and harmony be something seen by
>
> > Tuning List members as a worthwhile contribution published in an
>
> > appropriate venue?
>
> I'm not sure what the environment was like 10 years ago, but as of now
>
> this list is basically a collaborative effort to develop an
>
> overarching theory for microtonal music. As it stands, besides this
>
> list and a handful of theorists outside of it, not much theory on the
>
> subject exists. It's a rather interdisciplinary effort, as we're
>
> trying to combine various aspects of psychoacoustics, physics, signal
>
> processing, some neurology, and a lot of math along with conventional
>
> music theory. It's a very research-oriented list.
>
> If you want to promote your system here, you will likely find a very
>
> critical eye turned towards it - which may not be a bad thing, if
>
> critical feedback is what you're after. On the other hand, there have
>
> sometimes been people who have joined the list who don't really want
>
> much discussion on the merits of their ideas - they simply want to
>
> promote their system.
>
> To the issue of whether this is a proper venue or not, I leave it to
>
> you - there's about a decade+ worth of research on this list and if
>
> you take the time to delve into it, you'll likely find it a very
>
> rewarding experience with plenty of opportunities to contribute as
>
> well. But as it stands most of the userbase already know the basics
>
> and are trying their hardest to push the theory forward, so you might
>
> not find the kind of audience here you want if your goal is to educate
>
> people on the foundations of tuning theory.
>
> Hope that helps and good luck,
>
> Mike
>
>
>

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    The flip side...what new tuning systems and or harmony systems that "apply under any tuning system, including new ones" here actually have been supported?
>   The only things I recognize...is fairly obvious extensions to existing theories (IE triadic Harmonic Entropy), and analysis of existing theories IE commonalities between existing temperaments.

HE's been under fire recently. And no, nobody has any system that's
been supported, because there haven't been any that work. Much of the
discussion in the past few weeks has hinged around my dissatisfaction
with some facets of the current thinking, which seems to be where Igs
is at as well. If you can see the big picture, of how all of music
works, more power to you.

-Mike