New youtube video - what are your thoughts on the tuning?

I wrote what is probably the world's first microtonal cheesy power ballad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYE7ajSx-HI

I'm curious if you can guess the tuning, or more importantly, what
your impression of the tuning is. Is it bright, subdued, etc? Is it
"good" or "bad," and how does it fit in with your tastes?

The whole thing is basically a comma pump in the tuning I'm talking
about, so the clever amongst you will no doubt figure it out. I've
hidden it with a few chromatic alterations though, so maybe it'll fool
some of you.

As a last note, I do hit a few flubs in the beginning of the main
piece, after the otonal intro part, so if your answer to the tuning is
"it sucks" give it a little bit until I get into the stride of the
song, because you might just be not liking me accidentally hitting a
wrong note.

Thanks,
Mike

A few additions - I cleaned it up a bit, because the mistakes in the
first version were making it hard for people on XA to guess the
tuning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8MXbFtw4rM&feature=related

Everyone figured out it was mavila, but were divided on the exact EDO.
To help people figure it out, I uploaded a version in a different
tuning Here's that one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_MzdtU2WQ

Can anyone guess the EDOs for both of these? Cam's voted 16 on the
first one, John M's voted 23; what are your guesses for the second
one?

-Mike

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> I wrote what is probably the world's first microtonal cheesy power ballad:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYE7ajSx-HI
>
> I'm curious if you can guess the tuning, or more importantly, what
> your impression of the tuning is. Is it bright, subdued, etc? Is it
> "good" or "bad," and how does it fit in with your tastes?
>
> The whole thing is basically a comma pump in the tuning I'm talking
> about, so the clever amongst you will no doubt figure it out. I've
> hidden it with a few chromatic alterations though, so maybe it'll fool
> some of you.
>
> As a last note, I do hit a few flubs in the beginning of the main
> piece, after the otonal intro part, so if your answer to the tuning is
> "it sucks" give it a little bit until I get into the stride of the
> song, because you might just be not liking me accidentally hitting a
> wrong note.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

> Can anyone guess the EDOs for both of these? Cam's voted 16 on the
> first one, John M's voted 23; what are your guesses for the second
> one?
>
> -Mike

Is this some sort of test? Like to prove a point, and give a lesson of some kind?

Anyways, my vote is still with 16.

-Ryan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "domeofatonement" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone guess the EDOs for both of these? Cam's voted 16 on the
> > first one, John M's voted 23; what are your guesses for the second
> > one?
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Is this some sort of test? Like to prove a point, and give a lesson of some kind?
>
> Anyways, my vote is still with 16.

My vote is to wrap it up. It's past the point of annoying.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:38 AM, domeofatonement
<domeofatonement@...> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone guess the EDOs for both of these? Cam's voted 16 on the
> > first one, John M's voted 23; what are your guesses for the second
> > one?
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Is this some sort of test? Like to prove a point, and give a lesson of some kind?
>
> Anyways, my vote is still with 16.

No, it's a minor listening experiment. I want to see what people like
and what they don't, and what subjective impressions people have of
the tuning before they know what it is. I was only going to post two
videos, originally, the first one and then the last one, so as to see
if people's impressions of the first one changed. I messed the first
one up so I posted it twice. Are you saying that the very last one is
also 16-EDO?

-Mike

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:42 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "domeofatonement" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is this some sort of test? Like to prove a point, and give a lesson of some kind?
> >
> > Anyways, my vote is still with 16.
>
> My vote is to wrap it up. It's past the point of annoying.

I've posted so far a whopping grand total of two messages to the list
about it. If that's past the point of annoying it's beyond my control.
What actually is rather annoying is that you didn't seem to include a
number in your reply, as I'm doing this little experiment to try and
get some useful data points out of it.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> No, it's a minor listening experiment. I want to see what people like
> and what they don't, and what subjective impressions people have of
> the tuning before they know what it is. I was only going to post two
> videos, originally, the first one and then the last one, so as to see
> if people's impressions of the first one changed. I messed the first
> one up so I posted it twice. Are you saying that the very last one is
> also 16-EDO?
>
> -Mike
>

I am saying that the first one sounded like 16 to me. After hearing the second one, however, I feel less certain about my prediction. I definitely like the first example over the second.

-Ryan

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

> > My vote is to wrap it up. It's past the point of annoying.
>
> I've posted so far a whopping grand total of two messages to the list
> about it. If that's past the point of annoying it's beyond my control.

You post it here, you post it there, you post it somewhere else. I can't get away from it.

> What actually is rather annoying is that you didn't seem to include a
> number in your reply, as I'm doing this little experiment to try and
> get some useful data points out of it.

Data? I had the impression it was just a guessing game.

It's not 16, I'm fairly certain of it. 23 is what my gut says, but it could just as well be a Mavila tuning I'm not familiar with, like 30. Your latest (#3) is probably 16, perhaps 25 but my gut says 16.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:42 AM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "domeofatonement" <domeofatonement@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this some sort of test? Like to prove a point, and give a lesson of some kind?
> > >
> > > Anyways, my vote is still with 16.
> >
> > My vote is to wrap it up. It's past the point of annoying.
>
> I've posted so far a whopping grand total of two messages to the list
> about it. If that's past the point of annoying it's beyond my control.
> What actually is rather annoying is that you didn't seem to include a
> number in your reply, as I'm doing this little experiment to try and
> get some useful data points out of it.
>
> -Mike
>

Heh- you know, I think it might actually be 25-edo. I think it's a good test, for it has already illustrated that the "mavila" character, that is, the character of the temperament, not the specific tuning, is what is audible to everyone who has guessed.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> A few additions - I cleaned it up a bit, because the mistakes in the
> first version were making it hard for people on XA to guess the
> tuning:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8MXbFtw4rM&feature=related
>
> Everyone figured out it was mavila, but were divided on the exact EDO.
> To help people figure it out, I uploaded a version in a different
> tuning Here's that one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_MzdtU2WQ
>
> Can anyone guess the EDOs for both of these? Cam's voted 16 on the
> first one, John M's voted 23; what are your guesses for the second
> one?
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> > I wrote what is probably the world's first microtonal cheesy power ballad:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYE7ajSx-HI
> >
> > I'm curious if you can guess the tuning, or more importantly, what
> > your impression of the tuning is. Is it bright, subdued, etc? Is it
> > "good" or "bad," and how does it fit in with your tastes?
> >
> > The whole thing is basically a comma pump in the tuning I'm talking
> > about, so the clever amongst you will no doubt figure it out. I've
> > hidden it with a few chromatic alterations though, so maybe it'll fool
> > some of you.
> >
> > As a last note, I do hit a few flubs in the beginning of the main
> > piece, after the otonal intro part, so if your answer to the tuning is
> > "it sucks" give it a little bit until I get into the stride of the
> > song, because you might just be not liking me accidentally hitting a
> > wrong note.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
>

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:13 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > I've posted so far a whopping grand total of two messages to the list
> > about it. If that's past the point of annoying it's beyond my control.
>
> You post it here, you post it there, you post it somewhere else. I can't get away from it.

Oh please, woe art thou to be constantly immersed in novel microtonal music :P

> > What actually is rather annoying is that you didn't seem to include a
> > number in your reply, as I'm doing this little experiment to try and
> > get some useful data points out of it.
>
> Data? I had the impression it was just a guessing game.

It is partly a guessing game and just for fun, but I'm also trying to
learn more about the perception of higher-error temperaments. I've
already revealed that it's mavila, so there's no harm in pointing that
out. I wanted to see, basically, how "rough" everyone would judge both
of these examples to be. Obviously voting for 23-EDO means you think
that it's closer to an optimal POTE mavila, and voting for 16-EDO
means you think the fifth is flatter. This tells me a lot about how
flat you perceive that fifth to be, which is what I'm after.

Igs has responded on both forums and given me a useful data point in
that he thinks the first is 23-EDO and the second is 16-EDO. Ryan
thinks the first is 16-EDO but now he's not sure after hearing the
second. John M thinks the first is 23-EDO and Cameron thinks it's
16-EDO, and I'm curious to hear what they'll make of the second one.
Kalle thought it was 13-EDO, and I assume he'll change his mind now.
Everyone seemed to not mind the harmony too much but hate the timbre.

-Mike

I WILL NOW REVEAL

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Igs has responded on both forums and given me a useful data point in
> that he thinks the first is 23-EDO and the second is 16-EDO. Ryan
> thinks the first is 16-EDO but now he's not sure after hearing the
> second. John M thinks the first is 23-EDO and Cameron thinks it's
> 16-EDO, and I'm curious to hear what they'll make of the second one.
> Kalle thought it was 13-EDO, and I assume he'll change his mind now.
> Everyone seemed to not mind the harmony too much but hate the timbre.

The first was 16-equal - not 23-equal as many seemed to guess.
Originally I posted it just as a fun guessing game to see if people
could figure out it was a mavila tuning, but when people were saying
"it's 23-equal, couldn't possibly be 16" I decided to post another
version in 9-equal to see if they'd guess 16.

9-EDO is generally considered around here to be worse than useless. It
has a terrible reputation. So the point of this experiment was to see
how people would perceive it without any priming beforehand. I wanted
to see if they'd hear it as being so wildly discordant to the point of
unintelligibility that they'd just guess "9" because it sounds so bad,
or if they'd hear it as just being a little worse than the first one,
meaning they'd guess something like 16 or 25.

Since we've been talking a lot about what constitutes "tonality" and a
sense of "key" recently, it's of particular theoretical note that it's
possible to write 5-limit "tonal" music, distinguishing between major
and minor and all that, in 9-EDO.

I've always thought that it's likely that there'd be a place for
"novelty" tunings in terms of how this stuff is marketed to the
public. The general idea around here is that progress is attained by
moving to higher-numbered EDOs like 19, 22, 31, etc, so as to attain
greater harmonic accuracy. But I've always thought it might be
possible for the general public's first foray into microtonality to be
in the form of something like 7-equal, because it's actually simpler
to think of (zero learning curve), has a certain "charm" to it, and
sounds xenharmonic right off the bat. It's a good way to wean folks
off of 12 because it's easy, just for fun, and immediately sounds
different. But now I think that 9-EDO would be more likely to catch on
than 7, because 9 actually distinguishes between major and minor
chords and supports tonal harmony. You obviously aren't going to want
to choose 9-EDO if you're looking for a near-optimal tuning for
mavila, but if you're playing on a flute or kalimba or something you
might actually like 9.

-Mike

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Since we've been talking a lot about what constitutes "tonality" and a
> sense of "key" recently, it's of particular theoretical note that it's
> possible to write 5-limit "tonal" music, distinguishing between major
> and minor and all that, in 9-EDO.

It also means that it might be time to take another look at
hemiennealimmal. Even if you couldn't care less about mavila, you can
at least take that out of all of this.

-Mike

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

> Since we've been talking a lot about what constitutes "tonality" and a
> sense of "key" recently, it's of particular theoretical note that it's
> possible to write 5-limit "tonal" music, distinguishing between major
> and minor and all that, in 9-EDO.

9 is actually the smallest division to represent the 5-limit with distinct consistency. Of course, it isn't nearly as convincing at the job as 12. I don't see how you can possibly imagine we could wean people away from 12 using 9 in its place.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:22 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Since we've been talking a lot about what constitutes "tonality" and a
> > sense of "key" recently, it's of particular theoretical note that it's
> > possible to write 5-limit "tonal" music, distinguishing between major
> > and minor and all that, in 9-EDO.
>
> 9 is actually the smallest division to represent the 5-limit with distinct consistency. Of course, it isn't nearly as convincing at the job as 12. I don't see how you can possibly imagine we could wean people away from 12 using 9 in its place.

If gamelan music can make use of it, why not?

Like I said, I've always thought that it's likely that there'd be a
place for "novelty" tunings in terms of how this stuff is marketed to
the public. A tuning that requires people to think less, rather than
more, but also provides some kind of immediate xenharmonic flavor
would probably catch on as a neat little one-trick pony novelty type
deal. Like 5-equal, for example, which sounds like some kind of
oriental-ish pentatonic scale right off the bat. Or 7-equal, for
example, which to a meantone ear is a sort of interesting equal
diatonic scale. 5-equal gets old quick; 7-equal slightly less so but
still does better. 9-equal is both a one-trick novelty pony, but also
supports tonal harmony, so it's more interesting than the other two.

-Mike

It was an interesting experiment. Like the 'wad said, it's interesting that we could all (except for Kalle) hear that they were both Mavila, but the finer points of the tuning eluded and/or confused a few of us. That right there is a major bit of data.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> I WILL NOW REVEAL
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:11 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Igs has responded on both forums and given me a useful data point in
> > that he thinks the first is 23-EDO and the second is 16-EDO. Ryan
> > thinks the first is 16-EDO but now he's not sure after hearing the
> > second. John M thinks the first is 23-EDO and Cameron thinks it's
> > 16-EDO, and I'm curious to hear what they'll make of the second one.
> > Kalle thought it was 13-EDO, and I assume he'll change his mind now.
> > Everyone seemed to not mind the harmony too much but hate the timbre.
>
> The first was 16-equal - not 23-equal as many seemed to guess.
> Originally I posted it just as a fun guessing game to see if people
> could figure out it was a mavila tuning, but when people were saying
> "it's 23-equal, couldn't possibly be 16" I decided to post another
> version in 9-equal to see if they'd guess 16.
>
> 9-EDO is generally considered around here to be worse than useless. It
> has a terrible reputation. So the point of this experiment was to see
> how people would perceive it without any priming beforehand. I wanted
> to see if they'd hear it as being so wildly discordant to the point of
> unintelligibility that they'd just guess "9" because it sounds so bad,
> or if they'd hear it as just being a little worse than the first one,
> meaning they'd guess something like 16 or 25.
>
> Since we've been talking a lot about what constitutes "tonality" and a
> sense of "key" recently, it's of particular theoretical note that it's
> possible to write 5-limit "tonal" music, distinguishing between major
> and minor and all that, in 9-EDO.
>
> I've always thought that it's likely that there'd be a place for
> "novelty" tunings in terms of how this stuff is marketed to the
> public. The general idea around here is that progress is attained by
> moving to higher-numbered EDOs like 19, 22, 31, etc, so as to attain
> greater harmonic accuracy. But I've always thought it might be
> possible for the general public's first foray into microtonality to be
> in the form of something like 7-equal, because it's actually simpler
> to think of (zero learning curve), has a certain "charm" to it, and
> sounds xenharmonic right off the bat. It's a good way to wean folks
> off of 12 because it's easy, just for fun, and immediately sounds
> different. But now I think that 9-EDO would be more likely to catch on
> than 7, because 9 actually distinguishes between major and minor
> chords and supports tonal harmony. You obviously aren't going to want
> to choose 9-EDO if you're looking for a near-optimal tuning for
> mavila, but if you're playing on a flute or kalimba or something you
> might actually like 9.
>
> -Mike
>